SAIL 4th Edition Updates

Link to this page: http://bit.ly/SAIL4th

This page contains material that may be added to future editions of Software and Internet Law, currently in its 4th edition.


 * Section I -- Software Law
 * Section II -- Internet Law
 * Chapter 6 -- Jurisdiction and Choice of Law
 * A. Personal Jurisdiction for Online Activities
 * State of Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC, No. 09-1407 (7th Cir. Sep. 14, 2010) (sales of cigarettes online established personal jurisdiction in Illinois where website only stated that it would not sell to New York residents and specifically declining to adopt Zippo sliding scale).
 * Shrader v. Biddinger, No. 10-7004 (10th Cir. Feb. 28, 2011) (posting allegedly defamatory comments or information on an internet site or sending an allegedly defamatory email does not, without more, subject the poster to personal jurisdiction wherever the posting/email could be read (and the subject of the posting/email may reside).
 * Be2, L.L.C. v. Ivanov, No. 10-2980 (7th Cir. Apr. 27, 2011) (the constitutional requirement of minimum contacts is not satisfied simply because 20 residents have registered accounts on defendant's website).
 * J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, No. 09-1343 (2011) (while not internet-related, this case is notable because the Supreme Court here struggles with personal jurisdiction questions left open since Asahi Metal).
 * B. Jurisdiction in Intentional Tort Cases
 * Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, No. 09-1739 (2d Cir. May 12, 2011) (in copyright infringement cases involving the uploading of a copyrighted printed literary work onto the Internet, the situs of injury for purposes of determining long-arm jurisdiction under the relevant section of New York's long-arm-jurisdiction statute is the location of the copyright holder).
 * Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., No. 09-56134 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2011) (Brand was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California because Brand used Mavrix’s copyrighted photos as part of its exploitation of the California market for its own commercial gain where a substantial number of hits to Brand’s website came from California residents and some of the third-party advertisers on Brand’s website had advertisements directed to Californians.)
 * CollegeSource, Inc. v AcademyOne, Inc., No. 09-56528 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2011).
 * Chapter 7 -- Trademark in Cyberspace
 * A. Domain Names and Cybersquatting
 * 1. Trademark Infringement and Dilution
 * 2. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
 * Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City, 09-1947 (4th Cir. Apr. 18, 2011) (Where plaintiff owned trademark "Newport News" for sale of women's clothing, no fair use of mark under ACPA where defendant changed nature of site from being a website about the city of Newport News that happened to have some apparel advertisements to a website about women’s apparel that happened to include minimal references to the city of Newport News).
 * Chapter 11 -- Anonymity and Disclosure of Private Information
 * A. Online Anonymous Speech and the First Amendment
 * Doe v. Shurtleff, No. 09-4162 (10th Cir. Dec. 1, 2010) (Utah statute requiring all sex offenders living in Utah to register their “internet identifiers” and the corresponding websites with the state does not violate the First or Fourth Amendments or the Ex-Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution).
 * Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, No. 09-71265 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2011).
 * B. Third Party Disclosure of Private Information
 * Chapter 12 -- Privacy and Surveillance
 * A. Statutory and Common Law Claims to Protect Online Privacy
 * B. Fourth Amendment as Applied to Online Privacy and Digital Technologies
 * The en banc opinion in Warshak's civil case, Warshak v. United States, 532 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) excerpted at pp. 940ff will likely be replaced in the next edition by the 6th Circuit's opinion in his criminal case, United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010); see SAIL p.954 n.3.
 * United States v. Cotterman, 2009 WL 465028 (D. Ariz. Feb. 24, 2009) noted at SAIL p.991 n.5, was reversed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See United States v. Cotterman, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. 2011) and then the Court agreed to rehear the case en banc.
 * In re Applications of the United States of America for Historical Cell Site Data, No. 11-223 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 11, 2011) (finding that the standard under the Stored Communications Act, 2703(d), for the production of data disclosing the location of a mobile phone at the time of particular calls, is below that required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and hence unconstitutional).
 * United States v. Jones __ U.S. __ (2012) (GPS tracking).
 * Chapter 13 -- Unauthorized Access
 * A. Spam
 * B. Trespass to Chattels
 * C. "Hot News" Misappropriation
 * Barclays Capital, Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, 700 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) noted at SAIL p. 1096-97 n.1, was reversed in part and remanded on appeal to the Second Circuit. See Barclays Capital, Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. 2011).
 * D. Computer Crimes
 * United States v. Kramer, No. 10-1983 (8th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011) (Affirming district court's conclusion that an ordinary cellular phone—used only to place calls and send text messages—was a computer, relying on the definition of “computer” found in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1), and imposing an enhanced prison sentence for its use in committing an offense.).
 * E. Civil Uses of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
 * After LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, note (or excerpt in Computer Crimes section) United States v. Nosal, No. 10-10038 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2011) (holding that an employee exceeds authorized access when he or she obtains information from the computer and uses it for a purpose that violates the employer’s restrictions on the use of the information because under § 1030 the employer determines whether an employee is authorized.).
 * Also note: United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (Citigroup employee exceeded authorized access by accessing confidential customer information in violation of employer's computer use restrictions) and United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010) (Social Security employee exceeded authorized access when he obtained personal information about former girlfriends where SSA had told Defendant he was not authorized to obtain personal information for nonbusiness reasons); but see Lee v. PMSI, Inc., No. 10-2904 (M.D. Fla. May 6, 2011) (employee's decreased productivity due to excessive Facebook use in violation of employer's policies was not cognizable as violation of CFAA).
 * Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' Int'l Union, 09-2245 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011).