We are on the eve of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that may affect how you and I have access to technological advances made in this country. There is much more at risk here than just stopping illegal file sharing, for if the Supreme Court were to adopt the petitioners' arguments in this case, there stands a good chance that technological innovations will be stifled.
4 minute read
Bonnie Eskenazi spent two years pulling the levers from behind the legal curtain to eventually make Disney cave in on it's multimillion-dollar bonus dispute with Eskenazi's client, Jeffrey Katzenberg. Eskenazi didn't get much ink for clinching the deal. But such is the life of the backstage bar. Some even prefer it that way.
13 minute read
When Mark Litvack became Hollywood's leading anti-piracy legal strategist in 1998, his caseload dramatically skyrocketed. As an in-house lawyer for the Motion Picture Association of America, Litvack oversaw upwards of 12,000 cases in 70 countries. Litvack left the MPAA in June to become an IP and business litigation partner at Los Angeles' Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp. The move has him joining forces with partner Russell Frackman, whose has waged his own 35-year battle against music pirates.
9 minute read
Charles S. Baker argues that the software at issue in Grokster is not a file-sharing "service," nor does it maintain computers that participate in the exchange of files. Instead, it allows users to connect to one another to create an open peer-to-peer network directly between their own computers. The Supreme Court's Sony decision, says Baker, makes it perfectly clear that the mere capability of substantial noninfringing uses is all that is required to protect a new technology from attack.
4 minute read
Charles S. Baker argues that the software at issue in Grokster is not a file-sharing "service," nor does it maintain computers that participate in the exchange of files. Instead, it allows users to connect to one another to create an open peer-to-peer network directly between their own computers. The Supreme Court's Sony decision, says Baker, makes it perfectly clear that the mere capability of substantial noninfringing uses is all that is required to protect a new technology from attack.
4 minute read
Charles S. Baker argues that the software at issue in Grokster is not a file-sharing "service," nor does it maintain computers that participate in the exchange of files. Instead, it allows users to connect to one another to create an open peer-to-peer network directly between their own computers. The Supreme Court's Sony decision, says Baker, makes it perfectly clear that the mere capability of substantial noninfringing uses is all that is required to protect a new technology from attack.
4 minute read
