Posts Tagged ‘court’
Twitter must disclose authors of anti-Semitic tweets, French appeals court rules
Author:
A French court this week ordered Twitter to disclose the names of users accused of posting racist and anti-Semitic tweets, rejecting an appeal that the company filed in March. In a decision handed down Wednesday, a Paris appeals court confirmed that Twitter must provide its user data to France’s Union of Jewish Students (UEJF) and four other human rights organizations that filed a complaint against the company in November 2012.
The UEJF took action against Twitter last year after the hashtags #unbonjuif (“a good Jew”) et #unjuifmort (“a dead Jew”) began surfacing on the social media site. Twitter deleted some of the controversial tweets in response, but appealed a lower court order to disclose the identities of the users who wrote them.
…
Related Posts:
Tags: 
Leaked court documents reveal NSA is collecting bulk call logs from Verizon
Author:
A court document published today by The Guardian reveals the NSA is currently collecting call records in bulk from Verizon. The request, granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on April 25th, extends until July 19th and mandates Verizon produce all call detail records on a daily basis to the NSA. The data collected includes the numbers of both parties to a call, how long it lasted, location data, IMEI / IMSI numbers, but not the content of the call or identifying information about the customer. As the report indicates, security officials had revealed bulk collection of call records previously, but until now there has been no indication of it happening under the Obama administration. In 2006 Verizon Wireless was one of the few to state it had not turned over call records to the NSA, but that appears to have changed. Among the many things that are still unknown however, is whether this order is a one time event or one in a series of such requests collecting vast amounts of data on unsuspecting citizens, and whether other wireless providers have received orders to do the same.
[Image credit: Frédéric Bisson, Flickr]
Filed under: Wireless, Mobile, Verizon
Source: The Guardian, Court Ruling
Related Posts:
Google challenges US government’s private data demand in court
Author: Natalie Wood
Google is combating back against a National Security Letter, the secretive, controversial information requests from the United States government that bypass the court process and have a gag order. The company has submitted documents in a case called In Re Google Inc. Petition to reserve Legal Procedure; while the papers are secured, Bloomberg stated on the nature of the declaring. No information are currently offered on the request itself, however the step is significant– Google would be the most popular business yet to challenge an NSL.
Google is most likely to discover a sympathetic ear; the judge appointed to the case is Susan Illston, who last month ruled National Safety Letters unconstitutional and purchased the FBI to stop issuing them after a 90-day appeal …
Incoming search terms:
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service free government
- Powered by Article Dashboard wisconsin circuit court access
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service association for deaf people
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service japanese culture aestehtics
- powered by vBulletin electric car trading company china
Related Posts:
Appeals court denies ReDigi appeal, says music downloads can’t be resold
Author: Matthew Baker
ReDigi took a gamble that it might resell legitimately purchased tune downloads, much as you would that one-hit marvel CD you bought in senior high school. Unfortunately for ReDigi, the chances weren’t ultimately in its favor: a Southern Area of New York court has actually obliterated ReDigi’s appeal against a Capitol Records claim accusing it of copyright violation. The court didn’t accept ReDigi’s view that first sale principles apply to strictly digital songs, at least as its service carries out the modern technology. While the start-up attempts to keep traders sincere by making them erase originals after a resale, the process by its digital nature still involves making a copy of the track without Capitol’s approval, according to the court. We’ll have to wait to know what charges ReDigi might pay, however there suffices legal precedent in the case that it’s skeptical others will follow in the service’s experimental footsteps.
Submitted under: InternetCommentsVia: The VergeSource: Santa Clara Law(PDF)
Incoming search terms:
Related Posts:
Apple Appears In Court In China To Defend Against Siri Patent Infringement Claim
Author: Jade Kim
Apple is in court once more in China, protecting another of its items from attack based upon pre-existing cases from a Chinese company. This time around it ’ s Siri, Apple ’ s virtual assistant, that has actually landed it in Chinese legal problem, after last year an additional company took concern with the iPad trademark resulting in a $ 60 million settlement offer.
The claim this time is from Zhizhen Modern technology Co., a Shanghai business that holds a patent for voice awareness software for its “ Xiao i Robotic, ” software that was initially patented back in 2004. Siri, Inc. was established in 2007, after being rotated out of SRI International and before being obtained by Apple in 2010. Zhizhen initially filed suit back in July last year, at which time this video allegedly showing a version of Xiao i Robotic in action on a Lenovo device emerged.
Xiao i Robot can be installed on wise Televisions, and is utilized by countries worldwide in consumer service features, according to an guide from Shanghai Daily published back in June 2012. The tech has actually apparently been used by 360buy. com, in addition to the Chinese government and a number of other business clients.
Zhizhen told says it will ask Apple to “ stop making and selling items using its patent rights, as soon as Apple ’ s violation is verified, ” among its lawyers informed the AFP. Must it be effective, it may likewise seek payment down the road for any damages done by Siri to its financials to date. Apple had actually asked for the case to be dropped, and was declined in that effort, the lawyer said. Today ’ s hearing paves the way for a full trial start in July 2013.
Just recently, Apple has fallen under attack by Chinese media for client service and return policy grievances. The business has actually responded on its main website to reply to some of these attacks, however experts recommend this could possibly be part of an effort to urge more consumption of home-grown technician solutions by Chinese consumers. China likewise recently partnered with Ubuntu developer Canonical to establish a China-specific open source operating system that appears in component designed to wean its IT sector off of foreign-developed software tools.
Incoming search terms:
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service beauty and the senior movies
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service cricket live stream
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service free online cricket games
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service american chinese food recipes
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service live cricket scores india
- powered by vBulletin detroit news 1920\s
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service 24 hour fitness guess pass
- All Rights Reserved Use of our service is protected by our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service stag do rugby shirts
Related Posts:
Chicago court rules Google not responsible for unflattering search results
Author: Jamie Colby
Everyone googles themselves at some point– even individuals who say they do not. However if you do not like exactly what you see when that search box offers possible inquiries linked to your name, do not go suing Google. The search giant is officially not to criticize. That’s the official ruling handed down by the 7th United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago today which discovered Google not at fault for a search engine result connecting Wisconsin homeowner Beverly Stayart’s name to advertisements for Levitra (a male erectile dysfunction drug). According to Reuters, administering Judge Ann Claire Williams considered the search results page an exception to the state’s misappropriation laws due to its incidental nature (Stayart is a poet and pet rights proponent). The case marks the second courtroom loss for Stayart who had initially leveled the exact same costs against Yahoo. Sadly for Stayart, the buzz from information like this will only help promote the “scandalous” search good results she so badly wants gotten rid of.
Submitted under: Internet, GoogleCommentsSource: Reuters
Incoming search terms:
- Powered by Article Dashboard thomas coat of arms
- Powered by Article Dashboard how factual is world net daily?
- powered by phpBB usain bolt religion
- Published News Upcoming News Submit a New Story Groups cat patio enclosure
Related Posts:
Egyptian court suspends YouTube for a month over controversial film (Update: Google statement)
Author:
Users of YouTube in Egypt could possibly deal with a month-long blackout of the service after an administrative court ruling purchased the website’s suspension. The ministries of interaction and financial investment have actually been bought to block the popular video sharing website, reports information agency MENA, for hosting the motion picture short Innocence of Muslims. TheAmerican-made film has actually caused strong responses since its release in September, at which point the initial grievance about YouTube’s showing of it is stated to have been made. Today’s decision is an outcome of that ruling, and while the service should still currently continue to be on-line, Egypt’s National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority has actually claimed it will uphold the suspension once it gets verification of the conclusion. This isn’t really the first time access to YouTube has been limited by a government, and the similar film triggered the Pakistani head of state to ask for a similar ban at the time of the flick’s release. We have actually reached out to Google for comment. Update: Google has actually reacted with the following declaration: “We have actually gotten absolutely nothing from the judge or government connected to this matter. “Filed under: Net, GoogleCommentsSource: Reuters
Related Posts:
Egyptian court suspends YouTube for a month over controversial film (Update: Google statement)
Author: Matthew Baker
Users of YouTube in Egypt could face a month-long blackout of the service after an administrative court ruling ordered the website’s suspension. The ministries of communication and investment have been ordered to block the popular video sharing site, reports news agency MENA, for hosting the movie short Innocence of Muslims. The American-made film has caused strong reactions since its release in September, at which point the initial complaint about YouTube’s showing of it is said to have been made. Today’s decision is a result of that ruling, and while the service should still currently remain online, Egypt’s National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority has claimed it will uphold the suspension once it receives confirmation of the verdict. This isn’t the first time access to YouTube has been restricted by a government, and the very same film caused the Pakistani prime minister to call for a similar ban at the time of the movie’s release. We’ve reached out to Google for comment.
Update: Google has responded with the following statement:
“We have received nothing from the judge or government related to this matter.”
Source: Reuters
Related Posts:
An additional Legal Blow For Apple As Dutch Court Concurs With U.K. Ruling That Samsung Galaxy Tablets Do Not Infringe iPad’s Design
Author: Matthew Baker
Apple ’ s court room skirmishes against its Android OEM adversary top Samsung have actually not been going extremely well lately, despite Cupertino ’ s huge $ 1bn + loss win against Samsung last summer. Today another legal blow for Cupertino: a Dutch area court has actually ruled that Samsung ’ s Galaxy tablets do not borrow Apple design patents.
The most recent Apple vs Samsung court ruling worries the rounded edges of Samsung ’ s Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablets — which Apple had said borrow the design of the iPad. The Dutch court rejected Apple ’ s argument — saying there is “ no question of an infringement ” — and citing previous comparable choices in U.K. courts.
A notice on its website (translated from Dutch with Google Translate) checks out:
Today the Hague area court judgment in a case of Samsung against Apple. At issue in this case is whether the design of some of Samsung Galaxy tablets borrow a design right from Apple. The court thinks that there is no question of a violation. The court describes British law which the court already had actually discovered the same 2 circumstances on the same violation question. While it may appear sensible to conclude that all these court misses are collecting to weigh down Apple ’ s total legal hopes against Samsung — Reuters notes that the pair are taken part in patent litigation in at least 10 nations — the reason for the
Dutch court falling in line with the U.K. ruling comes down to this case being concentrated on a design/IP patent, as opposed to a technical patent. According to the FOSS Patents blog site, design/IP patents are presently based on EU-level law, whereas technical patents are adjudicated on a country-by-country basis. ” It would have taken some extraordinary situations for the Dutch court to disagree with the UK court, ” the blog site notes. Samsung offered the following statement commenting on the Dutch court ruling: We welcome the court’s decision, which declared
decisions made by courts in various other countries that our Galaxy Tab items do not borrow Apple’s registered design right. We continue to think that Apple was not the initial to make a tablet with an oblong shape and rounded edges and that the origins of Apple’s registered design functions can be found in numerous examples of prior art. Must Apple remain to make extreme legal cases based on such common designs, development in the industry
can be damaged and consumer option unduly restricted. At the time of composing Apple had not
reacted to a request for remark. Last October Apple lost an appeal in a U.K. High Court against a tablet design patent judgement that had actually found in Samsung ’ s favor. The U.K. court additionally ruled that Samsung ’ s Galaxy Tab did not borrow the iPad ’ s design (the judge in the original trial really stated Samsung ’ s tablet was ‘ not cool enough ’ to infringe Apple ’ s design). Because circumstances the court purchased Apple to release an acknowledgement of the judgement on its website and run ads in paper-based media.
Incoming search terms:
- Published News Upcoming News Submit a New Story Groups 2009 rose bowl game
- Published News Upcoming News Submit a New Story Groups art institute of dallas
Related Posts:
Another Legal Blow For Apple As Dutch Court Concurs With U.K. Ruling That Samsung Galaxy Tablets Do Not Infringe iPad’s Design
Author: Tech Blogger
Apple’s courtroom skirmishes against its Android OEM enemy number one Samsung have not been going very well of late, despite Cupertino’s big $ 1bn+ damages win against Samsung last summer. Today another legal blow for Cupertino: a Dutch district court has ruled that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets do not infringe Apple design patents.
The latest Apple vs Samsung court ruling concerns the rounded corners of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablets — which Apple had argued infringe the design of the iPad. The Dutch court rejected Apple’s argument — saying there is “no question of an infringement” — and citing previous similar decisions in U.K. courts.
A notice on its website (translated from Dutch with Google Translate) reads:
Today the Hague district court judgment in a case of Samsung against Apple. At issue in this case is whether the design of some of Samsung Galaxy tablets infringe a design right from Apple. The court believes that there is no question of an infringement.
The court refers to British law which the court already had found the same two instances on the same infringement question.
While it might seem logical to conclude that all these court misses are accumulating to weigh down Apple’s overall legal hopes against Samsung — Reuters notes that the pair are engaged in patent litigation in at least 10 countries — the reason for the Dutch court falling in line with the U.K. ruling comes down to this case being focused on a design/IP patent, rather than a technical patent.
According to the FOSS Patents blog, design/IP patents are currently subject to EU-level law, whereas technical patents are adjudicated on a country-by-country basis. ”It would have taken some exceptional circumstances for the Dutch court to disagree with the UK court,” the blog notes.
Samsung provided the following statement commenting on the Dutch court ruling:
We welcome the court’s decision, which reaffirmed decisions made by courts in other countries that our Galaxy Tab products do not infringe Apple’s registered design right. We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple’s registered design features can be found in numerous examples of prior art. Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited.
At the time of writing Apple had not responded to a request for comment.
Last October Apple lost an appeal in a U.K. High Court against a tablet design patent judgement that had found in Samsung’s favour. The U.K. court also ruled that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab did not infringe the iPad’s design (the judge in the original trial actually said Samsung’s tablet was ‘not cool enough’ to infringe Apple’s design). In that instance the court ordered Apple to publish an acknowledgement of the judgement on its website and run ads in paper-based media.
