There seems to be a run on litigation by co-founders of Facebook. So if you’re one of them, get in line. As John F. Kennedy observed “Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” The many technology business ventures that have died and withered away had parents who are now too busy with other things to dig through seven-year old emails or back-of-napkin agreements. However, for the Facebooks of the world, there will always be co-founders to contend with. 

Made famous in the popular movie The Social Network, the Winklevoss brothers recently settled (or were told to accept settlement for) their “zombie lawsuit” against Facebook for roughly $65 million. Eduardo Saverin settled his own claim. Next in line is Paul Ceglia, a man who recently stunned observers when he retained a high-powered law firm, refiled his claim for 50% of Facebook and produced evidence – including seven-year old emails and a back-of-napkin agreement – to support the allegations.  In the lawsuit Ceglia claims that, under a 2003 contract between him and Mark Zuckerberg, he owns at least 50% and up to 84% of Facebook. Facebook was founded in 2004 and now has a market capitalization of $50 billion+ and more than half a billion active users. [See: Ceglia v. Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc., No. 10-CV-569A, United States District Court, W.D. New York, in which Facebook won a preliminary skirmish over jurisdiction.]  The lessons for business?

• The term “get it in writing” can cut both ways. A written contract can breathe life into an otherwise unlikely claim such as Mr. Ceglia’s. Depending on its content, it can also protect a start-up company when intellectual property ownership claims come out of the woodwork. Start-up technology companies should ensure their critical intellectual property does not become encumbered with early-stage promises about joint ownership or perpetual revenue sharing.
• The “paper trail” should be analyzed and cleared in the course of various early-stage investments and transactions. When an early-stage company is an acquisition target, or it receives a substantial investment, it is common for all of these ownership issues to be flushed out and addressed in the course of the transaction.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

Two decisions just in time for spring cleaning and barbeque season. 

• Someone tried to trade-mark the term PEAMEAL BACON BACON for peameal-style bacon. A competitor, D & S Meat Products Ltd., opposed that application. The application disclaimed the right to the words “PEAMEAL BACON” and “BACON” (leaving open the question of what’s left to be protected). In making its argument to the Trade-Marks Opposition Board (TMOB), the applicant used the PIZZA PIZZA argument – namely, that the repetition of the word BACON qualified as a “unique linguistic construction” that consumers would recognize as a brand. In the famous decision of Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1992), 67 C.P.R. (2d) 202 (F.C.T.D.) (famous for trade-mark agents, that is) the court allowed the mark PIZZA PIZZA for pizza, but that case was based on about 10 years of use of the mark in which time the owner created a “distinguishable identity” in the marketplace. The mere use of repetition cannot, on its own, defeat a claim that a mark is clearly descriptive. Decision: D & S Meat Products Ltd. v. Peameal Bacon of Canada Ltd.

 

• The second case opens up the competitive world of garage-door openers. The TMOB originally decided that there was no likelihood of confusion between an existing brand LIFTMASTER and newcomer LYNXMASTER, both for garage door openers. The court reviewed this decision and pointed out that the marks should be considered in their totality, without dissecting the marks and considering the word LIFT with LYNX in the absence of the rest of the trade-marks. The court decided that the two marks would be confusing with each other, and denied the application for registration of the LYNXMASTER marks. Decision: The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Links Industries Inc. 2010 F.C. 1287

 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

As a follow-up to our earlier post (To hack or not to hack…), here’s a reason NOT to hack. Evony LLC, a maker of multi-player online games, has successfully sued Philip Holland, a “botter” who had developed a task automator for one of Evony’s games. By circumventing the copy protection measures in one of Evony’s titles, Mr. Holland developed a bot that automatically completed tasks and effectively played the game for players.

In Evony, LLC v. Holland, Dist. Court, WD Pennsylvania 2011  the company obtained a permanent injunction, an order for impoundment and destruction of copies of the game and bots, as well as damages of $300,000, plus lawyers’ fees, costs and interest.  The judgement came so swiftly (they only filed their claim in January 2011) because Mr. Holland failed to file a defence. The case was based, in part, on breach of Evony’s Terms of Use.

Related Reading: our post on a World of Warcraft botter: Apps, Bots and Workarounds – Part 1

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

 

For Canadians who are following the copyright reform story, here are are a few updates:

• Bill C-32 (the hotly debated proposal for amendments to the Copyright Act) has now died on the vine. When the government was defeated and Parliament was dissolved, all pending legislation fell off the order paper, including Bill C-32. The next Parliament is likely to take this issue up, but the timing and approach will depend on who forms government. 
• While legislative reform idles, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is carrying on.  The SCC has agreed to hear several major cases that will impact copyright law in Canada.
• First the appeal in Entertainment Software Association (ESAC) et al. v. Society of Composers and Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) will address the use of music in video games. SOCAN (the organization responsible for collecting copyright royalties) asserts that royalties should apply to video games that incorporate copyright-protected music
• Another SOCAN case is Rogers Communications Inc. v. SOCAN, and will also deal with royalties applicable to online music sales. 
• A third SOCAN case (SOCAN v. Bell Canada ) will also be heard, dealing with the interpretation of the word “research” and whether 30-second song previews qualify as “fair dealing” for the purpose of the research and private study exception under the Copyright Act.

Related Event: Copyright Reform is Dead…. Long Live Copyright Reform!! For details and registration, please see the invitation.

Photo Credit: Renjith Krishnan

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

That is the business question for many in the software industry, including Microsoft, Sony and Twitter.

Software companies have to consider whether to embrace the hacking (…or shall we say “custom development”) culture of their customers, or gird for battle against the hackers. Mashable’s interesting article (Xbox Kinect vs. Sony PS3: How 2 Companies Handle Hacking) reviews the different approach taken by Microsoft which is (uncharacteristically) opening up its popular Kinect gaming console, and Sony which is suing customers who hack into PlayStation 3 [Link to Sony’s Complaint against hacker George Hotz is here 1MB PDF ].  Big old multinationals like Microsoft and Sony aren’t the only ones who have to face this question. New technology upstarts like Twitter are also wrestling with the problem: Twitter recently told developers to back off, after complaints of privacy violations and fragmented user experience. Companies offering software of any kind are finding that customers – both individual consumers and corporate users – are accessing the code, unlocking, jaibreaking and building their own functionality, whether or not the vendor has approved this.  My recent article on Software Licensing in 2011 [PDF] reviews the issues for software vendors.

Related Reading: Apps, Bots and Workarounds

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

We’ve all agreed to releases and waivers. We do it on paper, before bungee jumping, skiing or attending a kids’ birthday party. Or we agree online, before booking an event, ordering a product or downloading software. This is the fine print that essentially says that the operator or vendor has no liability or limited liability for any injury, damages or loss. Do these hold up in court?

In a recent case (Loychuk v. Cougar Mountain Adventures Ltd., 2011 BCSC 193) the BC Supreme Court had to consider this question in connection with an injury from ziplining. Prior to booking the activity online, the participants were advised on the website that a waiver of liability was required in order to participate in the activity. It was a one-pager entitled “RELEASE OF LIABILITY, WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK AGREEMENT”. The participants signed a paper copy of the release before ziplining, and an injury occurred. The court dismissed the personal injury lawsuit on the basis of the release, confirming a long line of cases upholding such clauses.

Vendors and operators who wish to make use of such clauses in their online agreements should take care in drafting and implementing the terms. 

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

Answer: Forum Selection.  The concept of “forum selection” can be summed up as follows: where 2 parties are entering into a contract and they are located in different jurisdictions (different countries, provinces or states), then they can choose the “forum” or the location where their disputes will be settled. This choice usually covers both law and location – for example, the law of Alberta and the courts located in Calgary. Or the law of B.C. and arbitration in Vancouver. These clauses are also referred to as “mandatory jurisdiction” or “choice of law” clauses. There are subtle differences between them, but generally they all serve the same purpose.  As an online consumer, you may have agreed to be bound by the laws of Washington State (Microsoft), California (Apple) and Ontario (BlackBerry).

In the US, forum selection clauses are respected by the courts: a recent decision (Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2011) upheld the provisions of the Second Life online user agreement, confirming California as the proper venue pursuant to the forum selection clause.

In Canada, courts will generally hold the parties to their contract, which includes their choice of law and forum. So these clauses will be upheld, unless there is “strong cause” or convincing evidence to satisfy the court there is a really good reason not to uphold the forum selection clause. Sounds a bit circular – (courts will uphold the clause…unless they won’t) – but this gives Canadian courts the flexibility to weigh the surrounding circumstances. In the recent case of Hudye Farms Inc. V. Canadian Wheat Board, 2011 SKQB 29 (CanLII), an online sign-up process for a Canadian Wheat Board grain-handling contract incorporated certain standard terms. These standard terms specified that disputes would be governed by the courts of Manitoba and the application of Manitoba law.  Although no-one actually signed those terms, the court agreed that they were binding on the parties through a series of agreements and click-through screens.  The clause was upheld, and the lawsuit transferred to Manitoba.

Related Reading: E-Commerce & Internet Jurisdiction

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

What do you get when you photograph someone else’s photograph? German photographer Michael Wolf received honorable mention in this year’s World Press Photo Contest for a series of images from Google Street View. He scrolled / strolled through Street View in different cities, and photographed scenes that he came upon. Let’s leave aside the question of whether this qualifies as art or photojournalism (maybe it’s both), and look at the copyright issue. Can a photograph of another image be protected by copyright or is it an infringement of the copyright in the original work?

The Quebec Superior Court in Ateliers Tango Argentin Inc. v. Festival d’Espagne et d’Amerique Latine Inc., (1997), 84 C. P. R. (3d) 56, dealt with a staged reproduction of a photo, rather than a photo of a photo. In that case, the defendant reproduced a photograph – same location, same angle, same layout of the same subject matter. The court decided that this infringed the copyright in the original photograph. Applying this reasoning, a photo of a photo could easily be an infringement.

In a 1999 US case, the court considered whether a copy of a photograph of a painting would infringe copyright.  Someone had taken photos that were exact replicas of paintings.  Copyright in the paintings had already expired at the time the photos were taken. The court decided that the photos are not themselves protected by copyright because they lack originality – an essential ingredient of copyright. So, copying those photos was not an infringement of copyright: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

The image above? It’s not one of Mr. Wolf’s works – this one is my own image, snapped from Google Street View, right outside Field’s Calgary office. (If you look closely, you can see Google’s copyright notation on Calgary’s summer sky.)

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

A reminder: The Annual TEC VenturePrize Business Plan Competition is still open. The submission deadline for registration for the VenturePrize Fast Growth Competition is February 24, 2011, 4:00 p.m.

Field Law is a proud sponsor. See this link for details.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

We have compiled a few recent open-source software (OSS) stories:

• GPL in the App Store: A recent article on ZDNet reviews the differences in treatment of apps subject to the General Public License (GPL) in Apple’s App Store compared with Google’s Android Market. It argues that Apple’s closed system is incompatible with the GPL and so apps built from open-source kernels can’t be sold through Apple’s store, whereas the Google marketplace is compatible with GPL-licensed apps. When Apple pulled the VLC player last year, OSS enthusiasts complained that iPhone users would be deprived of OSS apps like GNU Go and the VLC media player (See: App Law Update – Part 2: Breach of GPL).  However, it’s worth remembering that the apps were pulled because of complaints from the OSS community, who levelled copyright infringement allegations at Apple. It was in response to those complaints that the apps were pulled.  It should be noted that the GPL is merely one of many species of OSS licenses, and other forms of OSS license will not necessarily be incompatible with Apple’s App Store terms.
• OSS and M&A: Lexology has a review of the OSS issues to consider in the context of mergers and acquisitions. In particular, when buying IT assets, business owners should work closely with legal counsel to review the software issues and the risks, and arrive at a practical way of mitigating those risks. Depending on the scope of the transaction, this may involve everything from simple representations and disclosure schedules in the asset purchase agreement, to detailed code-reviews by technical advisors. A “fear” of OSS need not kill an otherwise sensible transaction, as this article points out.
• Enforceability of the GPL: This story from the UK articulates an interesting argument about the enforceability of the GPL. It’s worth a read.

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

Here is the last case in our trio:

MLS Database – As a follow-up to our earlier post ( Data Mining Decision), you may recall the story of a real estate broker who tried to repackage the MLS listings controlled by the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB).  The TREB controls the database for residential resale listings (the MLS database) for its approximately 25,000 member real estate agents and brokers.  Fraser Beach was one such broker who developed a workaround to pull the data from TREB’s database, and then redisplay it to the public through his own site.  The TREB cut off his access and Mr. Beach sued the TREB. The court agreed that the TREB was justified in terminating access since this “end-run” violated the authorized use terms that Mr. Beach had agreed to as a member of the TREB. In Fraser Beach v. Toronto Real Estate Board, 2010 ONCA 883, decided in December 2010, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld this decision. 

Lessons for business? The TREB’s well-drafted Authorized User Agreement specified that use of the database was permitted “for the purposes expressly specified in this Agreement and for the exclusive and internal use by Authorized User“. This was critical to the court’s conclusion that Mr. Beach’s use was a violation of these terms. Companies in the business of licensing database access should take care to have their licenses and authorized use terms reviewed to keep up with technological advances and new methods of obtaining unauthorized access to the data.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

Here is the next case in our trio:

BlackBerry – Consider the problems faced by Canada’s world-leader in mobile devices. You open an app store to compete with Apple, so the little guys can develop interesting apps. The problem is, little guys keep developing interesting apps. In Research in Motion Ltd. v Kik Interactive Inc. [Statement of Claim available here], filed in November, RIM sued Kik, an upstart messaging service that had grown wildly popular in the previous several weeks (over 2 million Kik users reportedly signed up within the space of a month). In its suit, RIM alleges patent and trade-mark infringement as well as misuse of confidential information – (the principal of Kik is a former employee of RIM) – and privacy violations.  This shows the difficulty of controlling ex-employees and independent developers, and RIM is not alone. Apple has booted apps that mimic its own core services or threaten the bottom-line (most famously, Google’s VOIP apps). 

Moving to India, RIM faces another challenge in the form of Bharatberry, an app created by an independent Indian developer that provides an “India-compliant solution to the existing users of the BlackBerry® service in India”, and appears to piggy-back on BlackBerry hardware to run a parallel email and messaging service through its own servers, rather than through RIM servers.  This service was developed in the wake of concerns that the BlackBerry service would be disrupted in India if RIM did not solve the Indian government’s demands to have access to RIM’s encrypted e-mail traffic.

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

We’ll review a trio of cases that illustrate the line drawn by the law when software users try to do an end-run around a software owner:

World of Warcraft (WoW) – Blizzard is the publisher of the popular WoW multiplayer game. MDY sold an autopilot bot marketed as “Glider“ that automatically played the lower levels of WoW, to enable a player to graduate to higher levels and earn points.  In a fascinating case (MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment), Blizzard sued MDY for sales of this “Glider” bot. In the course of the cat-and-mouse tactics between Blizzard and MDY, Blizzard prohibited the use of bots in its Terms of Use, and then deployed bot-detection software to block Glider-users. The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that the antibot provisions were covenants rather than conditions. “A Glider user violates the covenants with Blizzard, but does not thereby commit copyright infringement because Glider does not infringe any of Blizzard’s exclusive rights. For instance, the use does not alter or copy WoW software.” Thus, Blizzard failed in its copyright claims. 

However, the court decided that MDY was liable for a DMCA violation with respect to WoW’s “dynamic non-literal elements”. The term “dynamic non-literal elements” refers to the copyright-protected elements of the game other than the written code that are created in the course of dynamic play by user. The court upheld the permanent injunction against MDY.

Lessons for business? In Canada, we don’t have an equivalent of the DMCA, though the proposed changes to the Canadian Copyright Act contain anti-circumvention rules of the type that caught MDY in the WoW case. Software publishers and vendors should ensure that their end-user terms or acceptable use policies are well-drafted and up-to-date to guard against this type of indirect access. This may not allow a software vendor to access copyright infringement remedies, but will provide a contractual remedy.

Cases 2 and 3 up next. 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

.

Thanks 2010, intellectual property and internet law had an interesting ride. Here are a few issues to watch in 2011:

Canadian Copyright Reform and Anti-Spam Law:  Around this time last year, we predicted that copyright reform wouldn’t come to Canada until 2011 at the earliest. So far that appears to be holding true. However, Canada did make headway in the anti-spam department, with the passing of the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act (hardly a poetic name, but we’ll take what we can get from Ottawa).  Canada’s anti-spam legislation received royal assent on December 15, 2010.  Meanwhile, the Canadian copyright reform bill was introduced in 2010 and the debate will continue when Parliament resumes at the end of January.

And the courts continue to tackle copyright issues piece by piece. News came in late December that a copyright “fair dealing” case will be going to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2011 (SOCAN v Bell).

Clean Tech Law: 2011 may prove to be a break-out year for Canadian Clean Tech companies, as private investment and government incentives provide a boost to companies in this technology-intense sector.  The law surrounding the uses, protection and licensing of clean technologies in Canada will gain traction in 2011.

App Law: This fascinating area of law shows no signs of slowing, as app developers continue to push the boundaries in their use of copyright materials, trade-marks and personal information of consumers, as the technology gallops forward. In December another iPhone-related class action suit was announced, naming Apple and a number of app developers as defendants (Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al, case 5:10-cv-05878).

Business Method Patents: We predicted that some clarity would come out of the Bilski review (in the US) and the Amazon 1-click patent (in Canada). In the US, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Bilski review, generally upholding the lower court decision, but cautioning that the machine-or-transformation test is not the only patentability test to be applied.  In Canada, the decision in October in the Amazon case upheld the patentability of business method patents, but the waters were immediately muddied again, when it was announced in November that the decision was being appealed (See: Amazon Business Method Case to be Appealed).

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

Can intellectual property theft or infringement lead to jail time?

• An employee can walk out the door with all kinds of interesting information. Customer lists, business methods, intellectual property of all descriptions. Last week a US jury convicted an ex-employee of Goldman Sachs of trade-secret violations arising out of his theft of software code.  Mr. Aleynikov, a computer programmer, violated the employer’s confidentiality policy when he purloined portions of the company’s code and then quit to join a rival firm. The algorithms in such code provides a critical edge in such a competitive industry as high-frequency stock trading. The charges flow from the Economic Espionage Act dealing with trade-secret protection, a US law that doesn’t have an exact equivalent in Canada. Mr. Aleyniko faces up to 10 years in prison when he is sentenced in March, 2011.
• In Canada, we don’t have trade-secret protection legislation, and jail-time is extremely rare for white-collar theft of trade secrets or intellectual property. Under the criminal remedies section of the Copyright Act (Section 42), imprisonment is a possible punishment, but is rarely used in practice.  In R. v. Borg, [2007] O.J. No. 3287, a company was convicted of eight offences under the Copyright Act relating to importation and sale of forged copies of software.  The person who operated the company was convicted of two offences and the individual was sentenced to 60 days in jail.  However, that sentence was deleted on appeal.
• In the recent case of R. v. Hirani (2010), 2010 BCPC 205 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), the Canadian Border Services Agency intercepted shipping containers which contained knock-offs of Chanel, Prada and Gucci bags. Undercover officers later attended at the store to which the goods were destined and nabbed the perpetrator.  The accused pled guilty and was fined $4,000, but avoided anything more serious. Jail time was technically part of the sentence, but was served in the community.

Related Reading:

• Copyright Infringer Hit with Fine  
• First Conviction Under Anti-Camcording Law

Calgary – 08:00

 

The long-running battle between two of the app industry’s biggest players has settled: Zynga v Playdom (acquired in the summer by Disney). This lawsuit, in many ways, illustrates the battle for dominance in a highly competitive industry like app development, and included allegations against former employees of misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of loyalty… even a threat of a jail time for one of the employees. For a more staid Canadian equivalent, see: RBC v. Merrill Lynch. That case dealt with bank employees, so it lacks the flair of social gaming, but is a good Canadian example of the duties of departing employees.

Related reading: Departing Employees & Trade Secrets

Calgary – 09:00 MST

 

My article on the Legal Implications of App Development [Download Copy of Article (2MB PDF)] is published in the November 19th edition of The Lawyers Weekly. It discusses “app law“ issues such as end-user licensing, copyright disputes, app-related trade-mark issues, trade-secrets, privacy and app development agreements.  [Link here for a preview of the digital edition]

Calgary – 09:00 MST 

 

Here are two more interesting cases involving apps for sale through the App Store. These cases arise from an alleged breach of open source software licenses. In this case, the open source code was licensed under the terms of the GPL. When GPL-licensed code is used or embedded in an iPhone app, does the licensing of that app through Apple’s iTunes terms and conditions result in a breach of the terms of the GPL? 

• In the first case, relating to an OSS application known as “GNU Go”, the Free Software Foundation complained that the licensing of the iPhone version through the App Store was a violation of Section 6 of the GPL. In response to the complaint, Apple simply removed the app. the FSF complains that Apple’s remedy is to “disappear” the app (as though they are a military junta… some might take that view), rather than licensing the app under the GPL.
• The second case involves the VLC Media Player, an OSS application ported to the iOS platform. Again, there was a complaint and an allegation of copyright infringement against Apple, on the basis that the GPL was breached. This app is (as of early November) still available in the App Store. 

Apple is not blind to the issue. In fact, Apple’s agreement with its developers is clear that apps should not violate the terms of any open-source licenses, and the developer will be liable for any such violation. One idea is for developers to invoke their contractual ability to use their own end-user terms, and insert the GPL at that juncture, subject of course to the mandatory terms imposed by Apple, that all end-user licenses must contain.  This would be up to the developer to implement, not Apple.

Calgary – 08:00 MT

Last year, app-developer Storm8 made headlines when allegations surfaced that it gathered the phone numbers from its end-users’ phones without authorization, through software built into its iPhone apps.  The case of Turner v Storm8 LLC, (Case No. 09-cv-05234-CW) (N.D. Cal.) represented a nationwide class of persons who downloaded and accessed Storm8 games. That class action has now reached Settlement.

Calgary – 09:00 MT

In my review of iPhone App Law, I have discussed the case of Turner v Storm8 (Complaint), a 2009 US federal class action lawsuit that alleged a privacy breach by an iPhone app developer.  The lawsuit alleged that Storm8, creator of “iMobster” and “Vampires Live,” wrote its software to collect phone numbers automatically when players downloaded the games. The developer blamed this privacy breach on a software glitch. 

The Wall Street Journal has reported a similar breach by Facebook app developers. Many of the most popular Facebook apps have been transmitting Facebook ID numbers to at least 25 advertising and data firms.  This information can be cross-referenced to compile detailed profiles of Internet users. In this case, the breach goes far beyond phone numbers, and appears to implicate a range of rich personal data that makes up the Facebook world. The practice would violate the terms under which Facebook permits developers to sell apps, and may violate the app developers’ own privacy policies. But that is cold comfort if it’s your identity that is compromised.

Lessons for business?

• A risk of this type is not confined to Facebook apps – privacy breaches could be caused by any third-party app developer, whether it’s on the Facebook, Android or iOS platform;
• If you engage a developer to create an app for your company, make sure your terms clearly address privacy issues. A breach of this type can be fatal to the app, and can spread to implicate the whole company if the breach is serious;
• If you are a developer, ensure that you carefully manage privacy issues. If the collection of information is warranted, it should be done properly. In Canada, the collection of personal information can be permitted if there is informed consent by the end-user. And you need to compare your information-handling practices against the terms of the SDK – for example, Apple’s iOS terms are clear that developers will be liable in the event of any breach of a user’s privacy rights.

Calgary – 10:00 MT