SEO Werkt!

Embedding a video that infringes copyright doesn’t violate the law, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

With more scrutiny on copyright violators than ever before, it’s important to know where you stand when it comes to things like embedding a questionable video into a website or sharing a video with friends on social media.

In the ruling, the 7th Circuit sided with video bookmarking site myVidster, which was sued by video production company Flava Works in 2010. Flava Works successfully argued that the site was guilty of infringement and got an injunction against the site in 2011. But now that decision has been thrown out. Judge Richard Posner wrote:

myVidster is giving web surfers addresses where they can find entertainment. By listing plays and giving the name and address of the theaters where they are being performed, the New Yorker is not performing them. It is not “transmitting or communicating” them… myVidster doesn’t touch the data stream, which flows directly from one computer to another, neither being owned or operated by myVidster.

While the site is in-the-clear on charges surrounding the embedding of infringing videos, the judge still said myVidster was potentially infringing because it let paying members store copies of videos on its own servers.

Finally, the decision had some good news for Internet video-watchers as well. The judge said that watching a stream of an infringing video itself is not copyright infringement.

Via GigaOM

Photo credit: zimmytws/Shutterstock

Filed under: media

A ruling is in on whether watching, linking to and embedding copyright infringing videos is lawful…at least in one case.  In a court decision in a case of Flava Works against myVidster, 7th Court judge Richard Posner ruled that “as long as the visitor makes no copy of the copyrighted video that he is watching, he is not violating the copyright owner’s exclusive right.”
continued…

New Career Opportunities Daily: The best jobs in media.

Both Apple and Google on Friday filed appeals to Judge Richard Posner’s June decision to dismiss Apple v. Motorola, a case that has been in litigation since 2010.

Judge Richard Posner, who recently dismissed Apple’s patent infringement case against Motorola, believes the smartphone industry is plagued by a “proliferation of patents.”

After putting the end to Apple’s epic court case against Motorola Mobility, renowned federal appeals court judge Richard Posner is now wondering whether patents for software (and some other industries) should even exist.

In an interview with Reuters, Posner said that industries like pharmaceuticals have a better claim to patents since discovering new drugs takes a huge investment. That’s less true for software advancements, where companies benefit from being the first to unveil new technology — with or without patents.

“It’s not clear that we really need patents in most industries,” Posner told Reuters, adding that devices like smartphones often have thousands of features protected by intellectual property. “You just have this proliferation of patents. It’s a problem.”

Posners comments aren’t too surprising if you’ve been following the Apple v. Motorola case, which he volunteered to oversee. In his order dismissing the case last month, he wrote:

Neither party is entitled to an injunction. Neither has shown that damages would not be an adequate remedy. True, neither has presented sufficient evidence of damages to withstand summary judgment — but that is not because damages are impossible to calculate with reasonable certainty and are therefore an inadequate remedy; it’s because the parties have failed to present enough evidence to create a triable issue.

Posner said he had no interest in joining the smartphone generation. He used a court-issued BlackBerry when the Apple trial began in 2010, which he said made him neutral in the case. He’s since been upgraded to an iPhone, though Posner says he only uses it to check e-mail and call his wife.

Since Posner’s decision, US District Judge Lucy Koh approved Apple’s injunction claims against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus, which has led to a sales halt of that smartphone. Posner said he hadn’t read Koh’s orders.

Photo: Chensiyuan/Wikimedia Commons

Filed under: mobile, VentureBeat

Apple won a surprising patent today for a finger swipe motion that seems second nature to smartphone users. The company, which is embroiled in a number of patent lawsuits, is seemingly only adding fire to its arsenal.

The patent encompasses the detection of an object on the screen that controls the scrolling of a list on the phone. Yes, the swiping motion your finger uses to reveal more e-mails is now Apple’s. It also describes the experience of reaching the end of the list and seeing the “an area beyond the terminus,” or what looks to be the back of the screen. This was originally filed in 2008. Another patent details the “pinch and zoom” motion, as well as using your finger to move the image so you can see it in detail. As Cnet notes, it’s pretty impressive that such an intuitive motion is now a part of Apple’s patent portfolio. And undoubtedly we will see this used against others in patent litigation.

But it seems patent lawsuits are being more heavily scrutinized as the battle for IP heats up between companies such as Apple, Samsung, Motorola, and others. A case with the potential to become a pivotal moment for the Apple/Google patent relationship was recently thrown out by Judge Richard Posner. Judge Posner explained that neither side was able to prove that one smartphone was more financially deserving of damages than the other in a patent war that pitted the iPhone against the Android (who saw that coming). It seemed that Judge Posner came away from the trial with the opinion that the patent system is broken, but you can expect to see these two companies, and a slew of others continue to battle it out.

Apple also won a patent that could bring about new chargers for the iPhone. The system allows the iPhone, or potentially the iPad, to be charged via an “inductive charging dock.” This means the device only needs to sit on the charger, not be plugged in. But don’t think this will get rid of the built-in ports, however. You’ll still need to be able to connect to a computer for operating system updates and other functions.

via Patently Apple

Filed under: VentureBeat

Judge Richard Posner threw out a heated case between Apple and Google-owned Motorola Mobility yesterday, ending an infringement squabble between two companies deeply rooted in competition.

“Neither party is entitled to an injunction,” said Judge Posner in his Opinion and Order. “Neither has shown that damages would not be an adequate remedy. True, neither has presented sufficient evidence of damages to withstand summary judgment—but that is not because damages are impossible to calculate with reasonable certainty and are therefore an inadequate remedy; it’s because the parties have failed to present enough evidence to create a triable issue.”

The case was thrown out after neither Apple, nor Motorola Mobility were able to define their “right to relief.” More importantly, Apple was unable to prove how the Android phone could do significant financial damage to the iPhone’s bottom line. Posner tentatively dismissed the case earlier in June, saying that he may “change his mind.”

At the time, Posner had completely dismissed all further hearings regarding the suit, but later acquiesced to Apple’s request for one more opportunity to state its case. Despite the extra time, the companies were still unable to justify why damages should be paid in either case. They had trouble getting their acts together during earlier proceedings as well. In March, Judge Posner told Apple that its request for documents on the Android operating system was too broad and needed to be more specific in order for Motorola Mobility to comply.

By the end of the case, Apple was left with only four patents to defend, after coming in strong, accusing Motorola Mobility of infringing on 15 of its patents while developing for Android. Motorola Mobility was left with only one. This one last patent Judge Posner dismissed saying it was based on an industry standard and that the technology was one of the components that makes cell phones cell phones.

The case was dismissed with prejudice, but Apple and Motorola Mobility are able to appeal the decision, which is overall very expected.

hat tip The Verge and Foss Patents; Kick image via Shutterstock

Filed under: mobile

Judge Richard Posner on Thursday decided to grant Apple an injunction hearing against Motorola, reversing his tentative ruling to reject the case last week.

Judge Richard Posner has issued an order upholding some of Apple’s patent claims against Motorola Mobility that one analysis believes will likely result in a finding of infringement on Motorola’s part.

A judge has ordered Google and Motorola to give Apple details related to the Android development process and Google’s acquisitions of Android and Motorola. The order was issued yesterday by Judge Richard Posner in US District Court in Northern Illinois, as part of a patent lawsuit Apple filed in 2010 against Motorola, which is now on the verge of being acquired by Google.

In documents filed with the court last week, Apple argued that information regarding Google’s development of Android functionality used in Motorola products is “highly relevant” to the pending lawsuit because two of the patents Apple is asserting “are directed to core features of the Android operating system.” The patents in question include #5,566,377, which was filed by Apple in 1994, describing a “method and apparatus for distributing events in an operating system.” The other patent, #5,519,867, was filed in 1993 by Taligent, a now-defunct Apple project, and describes an object-oriented multitasking system.

“Apple has alleged that to remove or design around the claimed features would involve a substantial overhaul of the Android operating system, which would likely cost Motorola tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars to implement,” Apple’s filing states. The amount of money Motorola would have had to pay to design around these features, and the amount of money Google “paid to acquire and develop the Android system” is relevant to the amount of damages Apple should be entitled to if it wins this case, Apple argued.

Motorola argued last week that Motorola and Google are still separate entities until the pending merger closes, and thus Motorola “cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Google’s objections.” Still, Motorola noted that “Google is in the process of producing documents and witnesses and depositions of Google employees have begun and will continue throughout the next weeks.”

Posner’s brief order states that “Apple’s motion of March 2 to compel Motorola and Google to provide discovery concerning Google’s acquisition of Android, Inc., Google’s development of the Android OS, and Google’s acquisition of Motorola is granted.” The judge also granted a Motorola motion to strike “expert reports” Apple submitted related to FRAND patent licensing issues.

Because Motorola counter-sued Apple, there will be two trials, which are scheduled to be heard back to back starting June 11, Bloomberg notes. Google told Ars this morning that it won’t comment “beyond what we’ve said in court papers.”

Read the comments on this post