You are here: Home / Archives for award

What’s the Appropriate Punishment for Illegal Downloading? – Law Blog – WSJ

April 5, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Are the federal copyright laws designed to target consumers?

If so, are the penalties that can be levied under them constitutional?

These two questions got a public airing up at the First Circuit in Beantown on Monday in a fascinating case concerning unsanctioned song downloading.

The arguments were part of an appeal taken by Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston University student sued by the music recording industry. At trial, a jury ruled in favor of the Recording Industry Association of America, ordering Tenenbaum to pay $675,000. The district judge later slashed the award by 90 percent, to $67,500, arguing that the jury’s award was “unconstitutionally excessive.”

On Monday, a lawyer for Tenenbaum, a Harvard law student named Jason Harrow, pushed the notion further, arguing that Congress never intended to punish individual consumers when passing the Digital Theft Deterrence Act of 1999. Click here for the Boston Globe story. Click here, here, here and here for earlier LB posts.

“No one thought the statue would apply to consumer users like this,’’ Harrow, 27, told the court.

via What’s the Appropriate Punishment for Illegal Downloading? – Law Blog – WSJ.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

F-Response receives patent for Remote Forensics Innovation

March 14, 2011 By Leave a Comment

F-Response announced today award by the US Patent Office of a patent that covers the remote computer forensics technology that makes up the core of all F-Response software products.

The patent for invention number 7,899,882 is for a system and method for providing remote forensics capability. This system enables virtually any incident response, data recovery or forensics tool to be used over an IP network. It works by creating a network connection between the live subject machine and the examiner’s machine via raw (all sectors), physical, read-only access to the drives on the subject machine. Using F-Response, examiners can conduct analysis of a subject computer over an IP network using their tools of choice.

“Our patent makes claims using iSCSI technology specially modified to provide forensic grade write protection to remote computers.” said Matthew Shannon, Founder and Chief Software Architect, F-Response.

The patent covers the technology that makes up the core of all F-Response products (Field Kit, Consultant, Enterprise, and TACTICAL). F-Response has customers on nearly every continent and is available in four languages. F-Response software products support the collection of electronic evidence across over ten different operating environments and work seamlessly with a wide array of established computer forensics tools.

“This patent shows our commitment to what we call the Forensic Connectivity business, bringing you forensic access to remote machines simply, efficiently, and in a cost effective manner.” said Mr. Shannon.

via F-Response receives patent for Remote Forensics Innovation.

Filed Under: Tech Bytes Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Cracking Down On Arbitration-Award Evaders | FA Mag

April 28, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Brokers soon may be less inclined to plead poverty when faced with a demand to pay an arbitration award.

A rule change proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra) would eliminate a provision that allows brokers and brokerage companies to use that excuse to keep their securities licenses when they don’t make good on arbitration awards.

The change could be good news for some investors who win their arbitration cases but don’t receive payment of an award, as it puts more pressure on a broker to at least agree to some kind of arrangement.

Finra requires the payment of arbitration awards within 30 days, and uses an expedited proceeding to suspend those who don’t comply. Now, however, a brokerage or broker can cite “inability to pay” as a defense against suspension. Investors’ advocates accuse some industry members of abusing that defense.

“I’ve seen many cases in which a broker doesn’t pay an award and is able to remain in the business,” says Nicholas Guiliano, a securities arbitration lawyer in Philadelphia.

Finra’s rule proposal eliminates the “inability to pay” defense. However, it leaves in place certain others, including a bankruptcy filing. Guiliano says this is also used to avoid paying awards, but is an option some brokers would rather avoid and could create more opportunities for settlement.

Also, investors have recourse in bankruptcy court, which Finra calls a more appropriate venue for judging a “financial condition offense,” according to the rule-change filing. Bankruptcy cases are subject to federal perjury charges and can mean greater penalties against industry members who hide assets, the filing notes.

via Cracking Down On Arbitration-Award Evaders.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The 271 Patent Blog: PwC Releases 2009 Patent Litigation Study

January 27, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Each year PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC)conducts studies on patents and patent litigation, where the organization analyzes statistics relating to “hot” topics of patent law.  This year PwC looked at nonpracticing entities (NPEs – companies that do not design, manufacture, or distribute products) and their effect on litigation.

The study found that, adjusting for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the annual median damage award has ranged from $2.2 million to $10.6 million, with a median award of $4.4 million over the last 14 years. Overall, this statistic has been more-or-less consistent during this time.

However, damage awards for NPEs have risen considerably in recent years.  In fact, the median damages award for NPEs was more than triple the award for practicing entities over the last seven years ($12 million for NPEs, and $3.4 million for practicing entities). Contrasted with 1995-2001, the median damages award for NPEs was about the same when compared with practicing entities (roughly $5 million).

One obvious explanation could be that NPEs have become more sophisticated in selecting patents to litigate, and understanding the markets to sue against.  However, another explanation may have something to do with the use of jury trials – juries decided only 14 percent of the cases with damages awards during the 1980s and 24 percent during the 1990s. In this decade, juries have decided 51 percent of the cases with damages awards.

via The 271 Patent Blog: PwC Releases 2009 Patent Litigation Study.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,