LinkedIn Files Opening Brief with Ninth Circuit in Closely-Watched Data Scraping Dispute with hiQ

12 10 2017

In a new development in an important scraping dispute, LinkedIn appealed the lower court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction compelling LinkedIn to disable any technical measures it had employed to block the defendant’s data scraping activities.  LinkedIn’s brief was filed on October 3, 2017.  In it, LinkedIn asserts that the relevant issue is whether the lower court “erred as matter of law by holding—contrary to the CFAA’s unambiguous text and Circuit precedent—that LinkedIn could not invoke the CFAA after LinkedIn revoked hiQ’s access to its servers by sending a particularized cease-and-desist letter and imposing technical measures to block hiQ’s data-scraping bots.”

We will be watching the developments in this case closely.

more


The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2017/10/05/linkedin-files-opening-brief-with-ninth-circuit-in-closely-watched-data-scraping-dispute-with-hiq/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Big Brown v. PowerPoint Pilferers in Trade Secret Spat

12 10 2017

Earlier this week, the United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, against several unidentified UPS pilots, who are referred to in the complaint as “John Does 1-5.” The lawsuit alleges that “[i]n August 2017, certain UPS employees developed strategic plans regarding the Company’s aircraft. These plans were developed for, among other things, reporting to senior executives of the Company in late August 2017 so that they could make certain strategic business and financial decisions. Portions of these plans were included in a PowerPoint presentation created by this limited group of UPS employees (the “PowerPoint”). In preparation for the meeting, a very limited number of UPS employees had access to the PowerPoint for the purpose of its drafting and editing.” (Complaint, ¶ 7.) The lawsuit goes on to allege that the PowerPoint contained highly confidential and trade secret information. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.) . . . .

The lawsuit is styled United Parcel Service, Inc. v. John Does 1-5, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Civil Action File No. 1:17-cv-03843-CAP.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2017/10/articles/dtsa/big-brown-v-powerpoint-pilferers-in-trade-secret-spat/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



New Paper: “The Defend Trade Secrets Act Isn’t an ‘Intellectual Property’ Law”

13 03 2017

Congress worked on the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) for years, yet the final product has a number of rough edges and curiosities. One example is the following sentence:

This section and the amendments made by this section shall not be construed to be a law pertaining to intellectual property for purposes of any other Act of Congress

I know regular blog readers just spit out their coffee and are shouting “WTF?!” Of course trade secrets are an intellectual property; so of course the DTSA is an intellectual property law. How could Congress say otherwise?

My new article, cleverly named “The Defend Trade Secrets Act Isn’t an ‘Intellectual Property’ Law,” answers that question in a prolix manner befitting a law professor.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2924827

The short story is that the sentence preserves the Perfect 10 v. ccBill “salient” in Section 230 jurisprudence, which says that Section 230 can apply to state IP laws–including trade secrets. ccBill is only the law in the 9th Circuit, but nevertheless it’s become a crucial part of Section 230 jurisprudence. The DTSA makes trade secrets a federal claim, which would have functionally eliminated the ccBill salient as applied in the trade secret realm. The DTSA’s curious declaration preserves that salient.

It also does a lot more.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/03/new-paper-the-defend-trade-secrets-act-isnt-an-intellectual-property-law.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Google’s arm for self-driving cars is accusing a former engineer of stealing trade secrets for Uber

28 02 2017

Google is suing Uber and alleging that a former employee engaged in a “concerted plan” to steal trade secrets related to the search giant’s self-driving car technology.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/23/google-is-accusing-former-execs-of-stealing-trade-secrets-and-taking-them-to-uber/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Texas jury awards $500 million in copyright and trade secret case against Facebook’s Oculus VR

7 02 2017

By Steve Brachmann

February 7, 2017

 IP Watchdog

On Wednesday, February 1st, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (N.D. Tex.) entered a case verdict which orders virtual reality developer Oculus VR to pay $500 million to Rockville, MD-based interactive computing firm ZeniMax Media Inc. The verdict is the latest activity in a case involving allegations of copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation levied against Oculus, now a subsidiary of social media giant Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) of Menlo Park, CA.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/feed/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.