* About this document... * Audience and Objectives *
OverviewThe purpose of this exercise is to help you understand the intricacies of how laws impact the Internet. We will do it in teams.
Teams are chosen to be attorneys for the Plaintiff and for the Defense in cases involving Internet law. Each team will research the law and make the best case possible for their clients.
These are the steps in the process:
Team members will be listed in the next section.
Case 1: Patent Law Applied to Web Browsers
University of California v. MicrosoftThe first case will be brought "to court" in Section 01 based on the following news item:
Eolas Case Set To Go Around Again
CNET, 2 March 2005 [in Edupage, March 02, 2005]
http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5596500.htmlBoth sides claimed partial victory from an appeals court ruling in the patent infringement case between Microsoft and the University of California (UC). The case focuses on technology patented by Mike Doyle, a researcher at the university, which has been incorporated into most Web browsers, including Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE). Eolas Technologies, a company that was spun off of the university and which holds a patent on the technology, has claimed patent infringement by Microsoft. A lower court found for Eolas and awarded it $565 million in damages, but an appeals court this week sent the case back to a lower court to be tried again. The appeals court ruled that Viola, a browser written before UC applied for its patent, should have been considered by the jury. If Viola is determined to be "prior art," UC's patent could be invalidated. Microsoft has also argued that Doyle misled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a charge that the appeals court decision brings back to the table. In UC's favor, the appeals court said the patent, if valid, covers a wider range of applications than attorneys for Microsoft had argued. The court also upheld the finding that copies of IE shipped abroad would be covered by a U.S. patent and would be considered in determining damages if the patent is upheld.
Alpha Attorneys have been asked by the the University of California to continue representing it in its suit against Microsoft, which has retained Bravo Barristers to defend it. Both legal teams should consult the instructions in Step 3 to begin preparing their cases.
Each team should elect a Lead Attorney (marked * in the list) who will serve to coordinate the case and make sure everyone has a fair and equitable amount of research and writing.
ALPHA ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff's Attorneys.
Mr. B. Dimitrov Ms. A. Finlayson Mr. J. Jordan Ms. J. Krueger* Mr. C. Nielsen
BRAVO BARISTERS : Defendant's Attorneys.
Mr. S. Doute Mr. R. Foran Mr. M. Kasham *Mr. S. Meyer Ms. B. Sacks
Case 2: Copyright Law Applied to File Sharing
RIAA v. GroksterA case we will bring "to court" in Section 02 will be based on this factual news item:
High-Tech Tension Over Illegal Uses
Washington Post (02/22/05) P. E1; Krim, Jonathan
[in http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2005-7/0223w.html#item1]In March, the Supreme Court will hear the case of the Grokster file-trading service to determine whether the service has any liability for digital piracy committed by its users. The entertainment industry argues that this piracy is Grokster's key means of revenue, as evidenced by the service's refusal to crack down on such activities; if the court's decision favors the entertainment companies, hundreds of existing products could be affected and innovation could be strangled because of the potential for misuse, argue consumer electronics groups. "If it's so risky for me to try out new things or put new things on the market, you are really going to devastate people's willingness to innovate," warns Time Trax Technologies CEO Elliott Frutkin. The case will review the landmark Betamax decision of 1984, in which the court ruled that manufacturers of video recorders were not liable for unlawful acts of users provided the product was "merely capable" of substantial legal applications. Major tech companies have entreated the Supreme Court to consider whether Grokster is actively encouraging and aiding digital piracy rather than how often it is used for unauthorized file-trading, but entertainment industry officials counter that such a strategy allows companies to dodge prosecution for practices that are tacitly accepted but not openly promoted. Technologists complain that "acceptable use" is a relative term in the entertainment industry. Consumer Electronics Association director Gary Shapiro likens the industry's credo that all unauthorized use of content constitutes infringement to living in a dictatorship in which "You are not breaking the law, but you want to keep your head down and not be noticed because the dictator randomly kills." Some small companies are trying to avoid any hint of liability by embedding copying controls in their file-sharing software, but some people expect the Supreme Court's decision to have no effect on the final outcome, in which the democratization of access to information will make the organization and customization of content, rather than its generation, the chief industry driver.
Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42401-2005Feb21.html
(Access to this site is free; however, first-time visitors must register.)
Champion Law has been retained by the the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to bring suite against Grokster, Inc., as described in the clipping above. Delta Defenders have been asked by Grokster to defend their case before the Supreme Court.
Both legal teams should start their work by reading the instructions beginning at Step 3.
Each team should elect a Lead Attorney (marked * in the list) who will serve to coordinate the case and make sure everyone has a fair and equitable amount of research and writing.
CHAMPION LAW : Plaintiff's Attorneys.
Court Brief
Mr. R. Hannekamp Ms. J. Megill Mr. J. Runchey* Mr. M. Smith DELTA DEFENDERS: Defendant's Attorneys.
Court Brief
Mr. T. Al-Azem Mr. K. Boze Ms. T. Howard* Ms. C. Murphy Mr. N. Roman Court Records from Previous Terms These links are provided to give you examples of previous students' work on similar cases.
Case Prosecution Defense RIAA v. Verizon Alpha Attorneys: Brief; Rebuttal (unavailable) ICANN v. Slidin Domain Name Services Champion Law Delta Legal Resmburg v. Docusearch Alpha Attorneys Bravo Barristers Apple v. RealNetworks Echo Attorneys Foxlaw (MS-Word)
Everyone needs to be familiar with the basics of the Internet law. Good places to start are:
- module A05c "The Computer User's Guide to Copyright",
- module A12c, "Internet Copyright, Privacy and Ethical Issues", and
- module A14c, "Internet Professional's Guide to Intellectual Property, Privacy, and Ethics".
Once you understand the basics of the law and of the case, the team should divide up the research into different areas so that each team member will have a subtopic to research. It's up to the teams, particularly the Lead Attorney elected by the team, to decide what makes good subdivisions of the topic, and what would be a fair allocation of work for each team member.
Naturally, you will use the Internet to search for information on your specific cases. In addition to the usual search engines, here are some other places to get good information:
- WCC's on-line research database access: http://www.wccnet.org/library/databases.php, especially the Lexis database, which provides legal information.
- Legislative Information: http://thomas.loc.gov/where you can search for the actual wording of laws and bills.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation: http://www.eff.org/ which provides legal assistance in cases where freedom of information appears to be threatened.
Each team will draw up an informal legal "Brief" listing explaining the legal support for their clients. As in most legal battles, neither side is either completely right or completely wrong. And like most attorneys, you will need to be as persuasive as you can, always using the law as your main argument.
Legal "Briefs" are generally long and full of legal language. You need only prepare an informal Brief, quoting relevant portions of law, but not necessarily using "legalese" language. Length is not the determining factor for success, but I recommend 3 - 6 pages (when printed single-space in 12-point type) for each team.
Each team member should contribute a section of the writing for the Brief, based on their understanding of Internet law, the nature of the case, and their specific area of research. Each section should also be read by another team member, who should suggest corrections and additions to the writer. Each section should have the name of the writer and the reader at the end, like this:
(Written by John Wayne; reviewed by Jackie Chan)
The Briefs are to be in HTML and put on the Web. The Lead Attorney should prepare a home page for the team, linking the contributions of each team member. Each contribution should be assigned a section number, and paragraphs within each contribution should be numbered in sequence and given an HTML named anchor. This is to make each part of the Brief easy to find and refer to.
In order to use the Preliminary Hearing time meaningfully, the URL of the team's home page must be sent to the Judge (the instructor) at least 24 hours before the class at which the hearing will be held. The Judge will make this information available to all interested parties, including the attorneys representing other parties.
The purpose of the Preliminary Hearing will be for each party to review the facts as presented in other Briefs and ask any questions they might have. The Judge (your instructor!) will moderate the hearing and ask questions as well.
Expectations
Since I know you're not lawyers and don't have access to the private documents in the cases, I don't expect you to build a case that would be a credit to a real attorney with access to the relevant documents. The purpose of this assignment is to give everyone familiarity with the laws governing the Internet and the use of intellectual property. I expect you to find what is available and make the best use of it you can.
The Preliminary Hearing is for everybody to:
- report what you know
- report on what you can't find out
- ask questions
- get feedback from me and from each other
- give one another ideas about how such a case might best be pursued from each side.
Nobody will be graded on their briefs at the Preliminary Hearing. I don't expect anyone to have final answers or complete cases at the Preliminary Hearing. You will have two more weeks to gather information, digest it, and add weight to your arguments in light of newly uncovered information and the arguments of the opposing team.
After the Preliminary Earning, each team will prepare rebuttals (answers) to the points raised by the opposing attorneys. Again, these are to be based on law, and put as clearly and persuasively as possible. Each rebuttal should be linked to the opposing team's point, using the original reference number and named anchor.
As before, the Lead Attorney should assign each team member a fair share of points to answer. After drafting an answer, another team member should proof-read it, suggesting corrections and additions. Each answer should be identified as in the original Brief with the name of the writer and reader.
Material should be substantially ready at least 24 hours before Step 7.
At the Court Trial, the interested parties will again present their cases, again allowing attorneys to cross-examine one another. At the end of the presentation, the Judge will issue a Verdict (and assign points to each attorney).
For court schedule and rules, see A15h_court-rules.htm.
Links to Legal Materials:
| for Plaintiff | for Defendant | |
|---|---|---|
| Case 1: Eolas v. Microsoft |
Alpha Attorneys | Bravo Barristers |
| Case 2: RIAA v. Grokster |
Champion Law | Delta Defenders |
Audience: This is for people who have become familiar
with the basics of copyright and trademark law, and will pursue investigation
of a particular case.
Objectives: When you successfully complete this lesson, you will be
able to...
About this document...
Module A15h: This document is part of a modular instruction series in
computer technology. For more information, see the overview
or the list of modules in this series, A: Social and Ethical Issues. This document
has been used in the following classes: INP 160/220.