Indictments of Megaupload Are a Greater Threat to Web Users Than Piracy

Recently featured in The National Law Review was an article by Rachel Hirsch of  Ifrah Law regarding Megaupload Indictments:

 

 

 

In last week’s Megaupload indictment, the U.S. government has raised the debate over copyright infringement on the Web to a whole new level – treating the operators of one of the most popular sites on the Internet as if they were part of organized crime.

On January 19, 2012, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia charged executives, founders and employees of Megaupload.com, one of the leading file-hosting services on the Web, with copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit racketeering and money laundering. The U.S. Department of Justice is charging that Megaupload.com caused over $500 million in lost revenue from “pirated” content such as music and movies. In addition, the government seized Megaupload’s domain names and shut down all of its sites, contending that Megaupload is an organization dedicated to copyright infringement.

These actions, more suitable to the type of steps that the government takes against an organized-crime enterprise dedicated to murder, theft and racketeering, are astonishing. The government seems to have ignored the fact that other popular content-sharing sites have successfully defended themselves in civil cases by using the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provide immunity to a site that promptly takes down infringing content.

Among those charged in the indictment were Megaupload founders Kim Dotcom and Mathias Ortmann, chief marketing and sales officer Fin Batato, and lead programmer Bram Van der Kolk. All four were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand. On Monday, the Auckland district court denied bail, making way for extradition proceedings that will likely be contested. In addition to the arrests, approximately 20 search warrants have also been executed within the United States and in eight additional countries. The Eastern District of Virginia has called for the seizure of 18 domain names associated with the site, and about $50 million in assets and targeted sites have been seized thus far.

The indictment is riddled with inconsistencies. On the one hand, the government asserts that Megaupload is not entitled to use the safe harbor provisions. According to the government, everything on the site was doctored to create a veneer of legitimacy, while its employees knew full well that the site’s main use was to distribute infringing content. Yet the government readily admits that it has Megaupload emails talking about using U.S. courts and lawyers to file actions against other “pirate” sites and that the site did take down illegal content and build an abuse tool. To top it all off, many big-name artists support the site, as evidenced by an entirely legal video posted on YouTube, which Megaupload tried to save in U.S. courts from takedown requests.

The 72-page indictment is not some knee-jerk reaction to the ongoing protests of proposed misguided legislation that would strengthen protections against piracy at severe costs to the Internet. This action was clearly in the works for some time. But the filing of a criminal case against one of the most popular sites in the world is remarkable to say the least, given that other popular content-sharing sites have never faced criminal charges for allegedly facilitating piracy. Indeed, when these other sites have been targeted in well-financed civil cases, they have successfully asserted defenses.

When Viacom filed its lawsuit against YouTube in 2007 based on charges that YouTube and its parent, Google were engaging in “massive intentional copyright infringement,” the government did not arrest YouTube or Google executives. In fact, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that YouTube was shielded from liability in that case by the safe harbor provisions.

Similarly, when IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks for copyright infringement, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that Veoh’s video-sharing website was entitled to the protection of the safe harbor provision. In both cases, U.S. courts recognized that simply providing access to content did not equate to engaging in infringing activities.

Megaupload, an online storage and web hosting service site, counts itself in the same category as YouTube and Veoh — merely acting as a hosting company that provides access to content. By invoking the full wrath of U.S. criminal laws, the government is using tools that were never meant for this situation – and is potentially doing incalculable harm to thousands of Internet users and to the integrity of the Web itself.

© 2012 Ifrah PLLC

Inside Counsel presents the 12th Annual Super Conference in Chicago

National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 12th Annual Super Conference sponsored by Inside Counsel .

Reasons why you should Attend This Year’s Event:

  1. Meet with Decision Makers: You’ll meet face-to-face with senior-level in-house counsel
  2. Networking Opportunities: SuperConference offers several networking opportunities, including a cocktail reception, refreshment breaks, and a networking lunch.
  3. Gain Industry Knowledge: You will hear the latest issues facing the industry today with your complimentary full-conference passes.

Who Should Attend – General Counsel and Other Senior Legal Executives from Top Companies Attend SuperConference:

  • Chief Legal Officers
  • General Counsel
  • Corporate Counsel
  • Associate General Counsel
  • CEOs
  • Senior Counsel
  • Corporate Compliance Officers

The 12th Annual IC SuperConference will be held at the NEW Radisson Blu Chicago.
Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel

221 N. Columbus Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

 

Don’t forget – The early discount deadline using the NLR discount code is February 24th!

8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information on the upcoming 8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference:

ITech --8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference on February 23 and 24, 2012

  • 8th Consecutive event of the ITechLaw India series
  • A ringside view of Indian IT, Media and Telecom Law
  • Supported by several of the largest law firms and global associations
  • ITechLaw’s CyberSpaceCamp® to be held on February 22, 2012
  • Contemporary topics addressed by leading experts drawn from some of the best global law firms
  • Engaging debates with panelists from industry, regulatory authorities and in-house legal departments
  • Interactive sessions on issues affecting the largest IT bases in the world
  • Welcome Reception and Art Show, promoting emerging Indian artistes, allowing delegates to network with local corporates and invited guests
  • Gala Dinner and Networking Luncheons – ample networking opportunities to meet fellow professionals
  • I – Win Tea Meeting
  • In – House Counsel Breakfast Meeting
  • Exclusive golf outings on February 22 and 25, 2012
  • Make the trip a memorable experience by taking an excursion to exotic destinations across southern India, such as Mysore, Kerala and Tamil Nadu

Trade Secrets – Protecting Your Confidential Information

As seen recently in The National Law Review an article by Harvey Koning of Varnum LLP regarding protecting your confidential information:

Varnum LLP

 

Some of the most valuable intellectual property in the world is not protected by a patent or trademark. A famous example is the formula for Coca-Cola – it is protected as a trade secret. A more recently created trade secret is the algorithm Google uses to rank websites. Google protects it by keeping it secret. But trade secrets are not limited to blockbuster inventions by huge companies – almost every business has trade secrets worth protecting. What if your biggest competitor hired away one of your key employees? What confidential information would you not want this person to take? This article describes how to identify and protect your valuable trade secrets.

What is a “trade secret”?

“Trade secrets” can include customer lists, databases, pricing information, cost and profit margin information, computer programs, the content of contracts and much other valuable information. Basically, anything that gives you a competitive advantage over your competition can be a trade secret. A trade secret is something not generally known or easily discoverable by people outside your business.

If your information has “trade secret” status, then you can take legal action to prevent someone (such as a former employee) using the misappropriated information and, in some circumstances, you can seek a monetary recovery from someone who has misused your trade secrets. Trade secrets offer important advantages. They do not require any patent or trademark filings, fees or government approvals. Trade secret protection does not expire after a fixed amount of time.

How do you obtain trade secret protection?

To get trade secret protection, you must make a reasonable effort to protect your confidential information. A good place to start is by thinking about and listing what information you have that is not known to the public or easily discoverable that you would like to protect. After you have identified your confidential information, here are some of the steps you can take:

  • label the information “confidential” or “proprietary”
  • have employees sign a confidentiality agreement
  • limit access to those who need to know
  • keep the information in a secure location
  • remind departing employees of their obligation not to disclose confidential information

The particulars of your situation help determine the appropriate steps to take. A good place to start is a company policy about protecting confidential information.

Making an effort to protect your confidential information is a wise investment in preventing your important information from falling into the wrong hands (anyone other than you!).

© 2012 Varnum LLP

Inside Counsel presents the 12th Annual Super Conference in Chicago

National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 12th Annual Super Conference sponsored by Inside Counsel .

Reasons why you should Attend This Year’s Event:

  1. Meet with Decision Makers: You’ll meet face-to-face with senior-level in-house counsel
  2. Networking Opportunities: SuperConference offers several networking opportunities, including a cocktail reception, refreshment breaks, and a networking lunch.
  3. Gain Industry Knowledge: You will hear the latest issues facing the industry today with your complimentary full-conference passes.

Who Should Attend – General Counsel and Other Senior Legal Executives from Top Companies Attend SuperConference:

  • Chief Legal Officers
  • General Counsel
  • Corporate Counsel
  • Associate General Counsel
  • CEOs
  • Senior Counsel
  • Corporate Compliance Officers

The 12th Annual IC SuperConference will be held at the NEW Radisson Blu Chicago.
Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel

221 N. Columbus Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information on the upcoming 8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference:

ITech --8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference on February 23 and 24, 2012

  • 8th Consecutive event of the ITechLaw India series
  • A ringside view of Indian IT, Media and Telecom Law
  • Supported by several of the largest law firms and global associations
  • ITechLaw’s CyberSpaceCamp® to be held on February 22, 2012
  • Contemporary topics addressed by leading experts drawn from some of the best global law firms
  • Engaging debates with panelists from industry, regulatory authorities and in-house legal departments
  • Interactive sessions on issues affecting the largest IT bases in the world
  • Welcome Reception and Art Show, promoting emerging Indian artistes, allowing delegates to network with local corporates and invited guests
  • Gala Dinner and Networking Luncheons – ample networking opportunities to meet fellow professionals
  • I – Win Tea Meeting
  • In – House Counsel Breakfast Meeting
  • Exclusive golf outings on February 22 and 25, 2012
  • Make the trip a memorable experience by taking an excursion to exotic destinations across southern India, such as Mysore, Kerala and Tamil Nadu

Inside Counsel presents the 12th Annual Super Conference in Chicago

National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 12th Annual Super Conference sponsored by Inside Counsel .

Reasons why you should Attend This Year’s Event:

  1. Meet with Decision Makers: You’ll meet face-to-face with senior-level in-house counsel
  2. Networking Opportunities: SuperConference offers several networking opportunities, including a cocktail reception, refreshment breaks, and a networking lunch.
  3. Gain Industry Knowledge: You will hear the latest issues facing the industry today with your complimentary full-conference passes.

Who Should Attend – General Counsel and Other Senior Legal Executives from Top Companies Attend SuperConference:

  • Chief Legal Officers
  • General Counsel
  • Corporate Counsel
  • Associate General Counsel
  • CEOs
  • Senior Counsel
  • Corporate Compliance Officers

The 12th Annual IC SuperConference will be held at the NEW Radisson Blu Chicago.
Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel

221 N. Columbus Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

New Generic Top-Level Domain Names Available

An article featured recently in the National Law Review by Lori S. Meddings and Laura M. Konkel of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP discussed The Availability of Generic Top-Level Domain Names:

On June 20, 2011, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) approved the

implementation of a new generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) program that will allow businesses, organizations and other institutions to obtain their own domain name extensions, such as .library or .brand. Registration of a .brand gTLD is an attractive option for some brand owners, affording greater control over the brand’s online presence. Generic gTLDs, like .library, can be operated for the benefit of multiple organizations with an interest in the term or several companies within a particular industry.

Applications for new gTLDs will be accepted via an online interface from January 12, 2012 through April 12, 2012. There is $185,000 application fee and significant additional costs and obligations may be incurred during the application process, which is expected to take at least one year. Several companies are available to assist with the application process and other obligations of the gTLD owner should the application be approved, such as hosting and management of the gTLD. While ICANN plans to offer additional application periods in the future, the exact dates are not yet available and may end up being several years out.mentation of a new generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) program that will allow businesses, organizations and other institutions to obtain their own domain name extensions, such as .library or .brand. Registration of a .brand gTLD is an attractive option for some brand owners, affording greater control over the brand’s online presence. Generic gTLDs, like .library, can be operated for the benefit of multiple organizations with an interest in the term or several companies within a particular industry.

If you choose not to register a .brand gTLD, you can still monitor the program for potentially infringing applications and oppose those applications, for a fee, through ICANN’s dispute resolution service providers.

Detailed information about ICANN’s gTLD program, the application process and an applicant’s financial and legal commitments can be found here:http://newgtlds.icann.org.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information on the upcoming 8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference:

ITech --8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference on February 23 and 24, 2012

  • 8th Consecutive event of the ITechLaw India series
  • A ringside view of Indian IT, Media and Telecom Law
  • Supported by several of the largest law firms and global associations
  • ITechLaw’s CyberSpaceCamp® to be held on February 22, 2012
  • Contemporary topics addressed by leading experts drawn from some of the best global law firms
  • Engaging debates with panelists from industry, regulatory authorities and in-house legal departments
  • Interactive sessions on issues affecting the largest IT bases in the world
  • Welcome Reception and Art Show, promoting emerging Indian artistes, allowing delegates to network with local corporates and invited guests
  • Gala Dinner and Networking Luncheons – ample networking opportunities to meet fellow professionals
  • I – Win Tea Meeting
  • In – House Counsel Breakfast Meeting
  • Exclusive golf outings on February 22 and 25, 2012
  • Make the trip a memorable experience by taking an excursion to exotic destinations across southern India, such as Mysore, Kerala and Tamil Nadu

“Imitation Two-Year Provisional” Option Extended Through 2012

The National Law Reviewrecently published an article by Jeffrey S. WhittleRyan B. McBethJames E. Bradley, and Michael R. Samardzija, Ph.D. of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP regarding Provisional Patents:

As technology developers make New Year’s resolutions regarding patent filings for 2012, the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Patent Application” may be a tool worthy of consideration. The U.S. Patent Office (“Patent Office”) has extended, until the end of 2012, what it calls the “Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program.”1 In essence, this program attempts to imitate what a true two-year provisional application would provide, but it sidesteps international priority risks and patent term issues and necessitates a few extra steps to achieve the “imitation.” Another caveat is that applicants must still file a non-provisional patent application and must still file internationally, if that protection is so desired, both within 12 months of filing a provisional application. The good news under this program, and what makes the program worthy of consideration, is that applicants now have an additional 12 months after filing the non-provisional from which to file any “missing parts,” including perhaps the most beneficial portion of the program—postponement of payment of search, examination, and any excess claims fees. For many entities, the postponement of these fees could be significant.

Traditional Provisional and Missing Parts Practice

Under traditional practice, the filing of a provisional patent application serves as a priority date place holder for an invention while inventors and practitioners have an opportunity to work out finer details of language for the claims. Important to this end is that in order to assert benefits to the priority filing date, a provisional application does not require a single claim, an oath or declaration, formally compliant drawings, or search and examination fees. As such it is also not subject to examination. After filing a provisional application, the more formal non-provisional patent application must be filed within 12 months to take advantage of the provisional application’s earlier priority date.

When filing a non-provisional application under traditional practice, if either a proper oath/declaration by an inventor, sufficient government filing fees, or compliant formal drawings are missing from the application, the Patent Office issues a Notice to File Missing Parts. An Applicant then has to respond to the Notice to File Missing Parts which, in effect, allows an update to a filed non-provisional application to append the “missing parts” not originally included. The Applicant has two months to respond and the option to respond later by paying time increasing, one-month extension fees for up to five months after the initial two month period.2 The accumulation of progressively more expensive extension fees limits the use of traditional missing parts practice.

Achieving the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional”

Under the “Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program,” the traditional fee extendable two months turns into a non-extendable 12 months with a requirement to pay a rather minimal surcharge for the late submission of fees.3 Other requirements to file a non-provisional under the “Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program” include: (i) Applicant must submit a formal request4 with its non-provisional application to participate in the pilot program; (ii) the application must be an original non-provisional filed before December 31, 2012; (iii) the application must directly claim the benefit of the prior provisional application;5 and (iv) Applicant must not have filed a non-publication request. The non-provisional application must also contain at least one claim, at least one drawing, and be ready for publication. By allowing an Applicant to submit a non-provisional application in this manner, while still preserving the beneficial priority filing date of the provisional application, the “Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program” is effectively extending the useful life of a provisional patent application to two years from the filing date, thereby achieving the Patent Office desire of an “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Application.”

The time extension and fee deferral aspects of this program can be utilized from a business standpoint to postpone strategic decisions regarding the further pursuit of an application. For example, an entity may file a number of provisional patent applications in a specific technology space and later change strategic direction or select only one of the areas within the specific technology space to pursue. Under this program an Applicant may defer the search and examination fees, which total almost $900 and are typically due upon filing a non-provisional.6 This translates to a deferral of almost 70% of the fees for up to an additional 12 months. For large entities with large patent portfolios, these savings could be quite significant.

Risks and Limitations Associated with Using the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional”

Patent developers should be aware that entities utilizing the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional” may suffer diminishing patent term adjustments. Under this program, when the non-provisional application is filed, the Patent Office will still send a “Missing Parts Notice” to the Applicant. After three months of no response, any additional time taken by the Applicant may be subtracted from any patent term adjustment the Applicant may be eligible for at the end of the application process. Applicants should also keep in mind that the 18-month publication period will still be in effect from the earliest date to which priority benefit is sought,7 and this new program does nothing to defer international filing costs or requirements. For a filing outside the U.S. that claims priority to a U.S. provisional application, the Applicant has only 12 months from which to file a foreign or PCT application.8 For these reasons, patent developers interested in foreign filings should be aware of these risks and limitations of the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Program.”

Summary

By providing more time for technology developing entities to make strategic decisions on which patent applications to pursue, and by keeping money in the entities pockets all the while, the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Application” should provide reason to celebrate for many patent applicants as the New Year begins. Pending further evaluation by the Patent Office this temporary program may see permanent adoption. Should it be made permanent, the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Application” also strategically could be significant as the Patent Office moves to a modified first-to-file system on March 16, 2013, shortly after this extended option period expires.9 For now though, this tool is available for use at least until the end of 2012.

_________________

1 Extension of the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program, 76 Fed. Reg. 78,246 (Dec. 16, 2011), available here.
2 37 CFR § 1.136.
3 37 CFR § 1.16(f).
4 See PTO/SB/421, available here.
5 See, e.g., 
35 U.S.C. § 119(e); 37 CFR § 1.78.
6 See USPTO Fee Schedule, available here. (Search and examination fees are deferrable under this program. Minimum fees due at filing: filing $380, search $620, examination $250. Note that small entities pay one-half this amount.)
7 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(1)(A).
8 See, e.g., Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property art. 4, as last revised at the Stockholm Revision Conference, July 14, 1967, 21 U.S.T. 1583, 828 U.N.T.S. 303 (under the Paris Convention, adopted by 174 countries worldwide, a twelve-month priority period is mandated); Patent Cooperation Treaty art. 8, 28 UST 7645; TIAS 8733 (under the PCT the same period is mandated as that provided by the Paris Convention).
9  Leahy Smith America Invents Act, Public Law 112-29, Sec. 3, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).

© 2012 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP