Blog

Twitter and Cyber-bullying

While Twitter has neither a legal obligation to censor its users nor an imposed requirement to protect free speech, its use of anti-harassment tools is commendable.

Big Data and the Fall of Personally Identifiable Information

As Big Data continues to grow in both reach and sophistication, our information economy will start to approach a state in which the definition of Personally Identifiable Information is no longer effective in pursuing its goal of protecting individual rights to privacy.

The Fight for Faster Internet

The current mix of state and federal legislation, coupled with competing FCC regulation, creates a difficult situation for municipalities and ISPs in regards to municipal-sponsored broadband.

The Right to be Forgotten

The Court of Justice of the European Union’s “the right to be forgotten” ruling has spurred debate on the role of search engines in regulating privacy.

Regulate High Frequency Trading?

The recent financial crisis has led to heightened scrutiny across the financial markets.  After the markets collapsed in 2008 there were calls for increased regulation of the financial markets, which led to the passage of the Dodd Frank Act.  Despite the increased scrutiny and regulation, not every aspect of the financial markets is sufficiently covered and grey areas exist where it is unclear how the law will affect certain practices. One such practice is that of high-frequency trading. High-frequency trading is the use of sophisticated technological tools and computer algorithms to rapidly trade securities.  High-frequency trading uses proprietary trading strategies carried out by computers to move in and out of positions in seconds or fractions of a second.  It is said that this form of trading benefits the markets by moving supply and demand among long-term investors quickly and efficiently thereby reducing volatility and increasing liquidity. However, opponents of high-frequency trading have identified numerous perceived problems associated with the practice.  One such problem is that securities exchanges have been selling access to market data to high-frequency traders in such a way that they have access to the information a very short period of time before other investors.  Opponents claim that high-frequency traders then use this information to improperly influence the financial markets – at the expense of other investors that lack this “earlier” access to the market data provided by the exchanges. The trouble in attempting to root out any potential violations associated with these problems lies in the current regulatory scheme governing the financial markets.  For example, the SEC has the power under §11A(c) of the Securities and Exchange Act...

CVSG Filed in Commil: Is This Yet Another “Fundamental Misunderstanding” of Patent Law by the Federal Circuit?

On June 2nd, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. The Court found a defendant could not be held liable for induced infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) where there has been no infringement under §271(a). In the opinion, the Court had some harsh words for the Federal Circuit. The Court was uncertain why, despite the “simple truth” that liability for inducement must be predicated on direct infringement (to which all parties and the Federal Circuit agreed), the Federal Circuit nonetheless continued its analysis. Ultimately, the Court felt that “the Federal Circuit’s analysis fundamentally misunderstands” method patent infringement.  The amicus brief filed by the Government on October 16th in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Commil USA, LLC suggests that if and when the Court considers the case, it might reject the Federal Circuit’s decision with comparable vigor. Commil alleged that Cisco both directly infringed and induced infringement of its method patent for hand-offs of mobile devices between base stations in a wireless network system. During the district court trial (the second, the first being reversed after an attempt to unfairly prejudice the jury by counsel for Cisco), the jury found for Commil on both issues and awarded $63.7 million in damages (with an additional $10.3 million awarded by the court for prejudgment interest and costs). On appeal, Cisco argued that the jury instruction on the claim of induced infringement used the language of negligence as opposed to instructing the jury on the higher scienter requirement the Court has adopted for induced infringement cases. Of greater importance, the Federal...