Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: telecommunication law

Criminal law, case IV K 875/07

September 19th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

A person, who was working in a call center of one of the Polish telecommunication company, has used social service offered by that company and sent to subscribers of the telecommunications company a text message in which he made derogatory statements regarding another person. This person felt insulted and brought private charges based on the provisions of Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with subsequent amendments.

The Regional Court for Warszawa City IV Criminal Division in its judgment of 5 July 2012 case file IV K 875/07 sentenced the accused person to a fine. The Court held that the sent message humiliated this person in public and exposed to the loss of trust necessary for the conduct of his business. The case was heard on 33 hearings.

Consumer protection, case XVII Amc 5817/11

August 26th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Court of Competition and Consumer Protection in its judgment of 31 May 2012 case file XVII Amc 5817/11 held that an entrepreneur cannot include in its terms of telecommunication services any regulations and provisions which would release it from the liability for any loss due to lack of customer access to the service provided. Activities that intend to misinformation, confusion, misconception or are directed to exploit ignorance or naivety of the customers and consumers, are contrary to good customs.

Personal interest, case II C 626/11

April 27th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 2007, for about 6 months, the Polish Central Anti-corruption Bureau collected telecommunications data, including billings and location data from Base Transceiver Stations, of a Polish journalist Bogdan Wróblewski. Mr Wróblewski sued the Polish State Treasury which according to the Polish law represents the Polish state in certain legal aspects..

The District Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 April 2012 case file II C 626/11 has confirmed that the Central Anti-corruption Bureau violated personal interests of a journalist by collecting his telecommunications data. The Court pointed out that privacy is a fundamental human right and its breach must be justified and proportionate. The permission is limited “objectively” to offenses of corruption and “qualitatively” – its condition should be determined by the fact that there are not available less invasive means of control which could be useful. The process of receiving of telecommunications data must take into account these limitations each time it is initiated.

Civil law, case VI C 143/11

March 24th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company InternetQ Poland Sp. z o.o. from Warszawa has sent text messages (SMS) to an unspecified group of people suggesting that they won prize of 20.000 PLN in some competition. The only tricky requirement was to send an empty text message as a reply. One of the recipients sued the company in order to force it to pay the prize. He based his claims on the provisions of Articles 353 and 354 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with subsequent amendments

Article 353. § 1. An obligation shall consist in that the creditor may demand a performance from the debtor, and the debtor is obliged to provide the performance.
§ 2. The performance may consist in act or omission.

Article 353¹. The parties to a contract may arrange the legal relationship as they deem proper on the condition that the contents or the purpose of that contract are not contrary to the nature of the relationship, with statutory law, and with the principles of community life.

Article 354. § 1. The debtor must discharge his obligation in accordance with its contents and in a manner complying with its socioeconomic purpose and the principles of community life, and if there are established customs in that respect, also in a manner complying with those customs.
§ 2. The creditor shall be obliged to co-operate in the discharge of the obligation in the same way.

The Regional Court in Warszawa for Warszawa-Śródmieście in its judgment of 3 November 2011 case file VI C 143/11 held that consumer’s claims are well founded and awarded on his behalf 60.000 PLN. InternetQ filed an appeal.

Personal interest, case II SA/Wa 364/11

October 13th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

On January 2010, a couple of entries signed by the nick “arfulik” appeared on few Polish websites. The author wrote critically about the company Bavaria Consulting and a person who is a member of the board. It seemed that this unknown author conducted a competitive activity. Bavaria and Krystiana D. decided to sue for the infringement of personal interest. They needed personal data of a person who wrote questioned comments. Telekomunikacja Polska (TP), one of the largest ISPs, refused to provide such information, referring to the telecommunications confidentiality included in the Article 159 of the Polish Act of 16 July 2000 on Telecommunications Law – TLA – (in Polish: Prawo telekomunikacyjne), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 171, item 1800 with subsequent amendments. Allegedly slandered filed a complaint to the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO). The GIODO ordered the disclosure the personal data but he overturned this decision after TP filed a request for reconsideration. The GIODO decided that such information is subject to the telecommunications confidentiality and found no reason to disclose it. The offended persons lodged a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 October 2011 case file II SA/Wa 364/11 dismissed it, and ruled that the intention of bringing action against the author of a forum post or comment is not a sufficient condition to disclose personal data. One has to file a suit for protection of personal interest. Only then, a court in order to avoid procedural deficiency, will summon the telecommunications operator to disclose personal data of the author of the questioned post.

Telecommunications law, case C‑99/09

July 2nd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 1 July 2010, Case C‑99/09, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v. Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, ruled that article 30(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) is to be interpreted as obliging the national regulatory authority to take account of the costs incurred by mobile telephone network operators in implementing the number portability service when it assesses whether the direct charge to subscribers for the use of that service is a disincentive. However, it retains the power to fix the maximum amount of that charge levied by operators at a level below the costs incurred by them, when a charge calculated only on the basis of those costs is liable to dissuade users from making use of the portability facility.

Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 1495/08

March 30th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 3 March 2009, case file II SA/Wa 1495/08 decided on the protection of personal data and providing and operating online services such as websites about users’ classmates. The VAC ruled that in accordance with article 6(2) of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with subsequent amendments, not only information on the current situation of an individual decide whether one is dealing with personal data, but also information relating to what a person did and who one was in the past. It means that such data are protected under the Act on Protection of Personal Data.

Telecommunication law, case I CSK 332/08

February 9th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 5 February 2009, case file I CSK 332/08 has been aptly commented in the title of Rzeczpospolita’s article “It is not allowed to set traps for subscribers“. Judge Krzysztof Pietrzykowski pointed out that the judgment is also about the prevention, because such cases may still occur. The operator, which benefits from providing customers with high-rate services has an obligations/duty to protect its subscribers against such traps. The principle should be different than the one that was used by TP SA (Telekomunikacja Polska S.A.). The blockade for such services should not be set on the customer’s request, it should be established by default and removed at customer’s request.

Categories: computer law | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Supreme Court | telecommunication law.

Telecommunications law, case C-227/07

November 18th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justice of European Communities in its judgment in case C‑227/07, Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Poland, held that, by failing to transpose correctly Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

Categories: Directive 2002/19/EC | EU law | Polish law | telecommunication law.

US case law on computers and IT

February 28th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Last updated on 16 January 2010.

This short compilation of US computer (IT, Internet, cyberlaw, telecommunication) case law will be also available and under later developement on my new Wiki system.

I. Jurisdiction
II. Contracts
III. Trespass to chattels
IV. Intellectual Property
V. Regulating content and speech
VI. Privacy
VII. Computer and Internet crimes
VIII. E-government
IX. Litigation

I. JURISDICTION

A. Specific jurisdiction.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo DOT Com, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (D. Pa. 1997).
Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Crate & Barrel Ltd., 96 F. Supp. 2d 824 (D. Ill. 2000).
Heathmount A.E. Corp. v. Technodome.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 860 (D. Va. 2000).
ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002).
Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002).
Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262 (Cal. 2002).
Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002).
Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2004).

B. General jurisdiction

C. Criminal analogy

United States v. Rowe, 414 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2005).

D. Enforcement

Louis Feraud Int’l S.A.R.L. v. Viewfinder Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

II. CONTRACTS

A. Browserwrap licenses

Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (D. Cal. 2000).
Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 (D. Cal. 2000).
Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Comb v. Paypal, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Cal. 2002).
Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8450 (D. Cal. 2005).

B. Shrinkwrap and clikwrap licenses

Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991).
Arizona Retail Sys. v. Software Link, Inc. 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993).
Caspi v. Microsoft Network, 323 N.J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 1999).
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997).
Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 246, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (App. Div. 1998).
Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2000).
Williams v. America Online, Inc., 2001 Mass. Super. LEXIS 11 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001).
i.Lan Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002).

C. Terms Of Service

Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (D. Cal. 2007)

D. Software licenses

Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Elecs., 846 F. Supp. 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
National Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1993).
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
Bowers v. Baystate Techs., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Packeteer, Inc. v. Valencia Sys., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21348 (D. Cal. 2007).

E. FLOSS licenses

Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Ill. 2004).
Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001).
Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002).
SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 318784 (D.Utah, 2005).
Wallace v. Free Software Found., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53003 (D. Ind. 2006).
Wallace v. IBM, 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006).

F. Contractual and statutory liability for defective software

Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., 39 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
In re AOL, Inc. Version 5.0 Software Litig., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2001).
In re SONY BMG CD Technologies Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9575, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9329, (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

G. Auction sites and contracts

Perez v. Hung Kien Luu, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8670 (Tex. App. 2007)

III. TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

A. Trespass involving spam

Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, 962 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Ohio 1997).
America Online v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D. Va. 1998).

B. Trespass to online databases

Ebay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Cal. 2000).
Buchanan Marine, Inc. v. McCormack Sand Co., 743 F. Supp. 139 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).
Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (Cal. 2003).
Assessment Techs. of Wi, LLC v. Wire Data, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2004).
Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D. Pa. 2007).

IV. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

A. Copyright
1. Protection of computer software

Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co., 462 F. Supp. 1003 (D. Tex. 1978).
Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
Sega Enters. v. Maphia, 857 F. Supp. 679 (D. Cal. 1994).
Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1569, 996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15454 (E.D. Va. 1996).
Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, 516 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1996).

2. Reverse engineering, technological protection measures, anti-circumventions (17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1204)

Hubco Data Products Corp. v. Management Assistance, Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 450, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19515.
Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).
Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. GameMasters, 87 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1889 (W.D. Wash. 2000).
Felten v. RIAA, No. CV-0102669 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2001).
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
United States v. Elcomsoft Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
Pearl Investments, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 326 (D.Me. 2003).
Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
321 Studios v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
I.M.S. Inquiry Mgmt. Sys., Ltd. v. Bershire Info. Sys., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Filipiak, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Cal. 2005).
Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, LLP, 401 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005).
Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F.Supp.2d 1096 (D. Cal. 2007).
Auto Inspection Services, Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc. et al. (E.D. Mich. 2007).

3. Different copyright infringement issues (civil actions, DMCA, websites)

L.A.Times v. Free Republic, 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1453, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (D. Cal. 2000).
Umg Recordings v. Mp3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
Tur v. Youtube, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50254 (D. Cal. 2007).
Biosafe-One, Inc. v. Hawks, 524 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D.N.Y. 2007).

4. Derivative Works issues (framing, deep links)

Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, 45 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 2005, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2265 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1344, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4553 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999).
Digital Equip. Corp. v. AltaVista Tech., 960 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass. 1997).
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33937 (9th Cir. 2000).

5. Communication Act, satellite programming

DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2007).

B. Trademarks (domain names and unfair competition, search engines and trademarks, keywords)
1. Domain names as trademarks

Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004).
Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 74 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1385, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. 2005)
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005).

2. Cybersquatting

Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000).
Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002).
Barcelona.com, Inc. v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003).
Atlas Copco AB v. www.atlascopcoiran.com, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1828 (D. Va. 2008).

3. Free speech and fair use of trademarks in domain names

C. Databases

D. Patents (software patents and business models patents)

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972).
In re Application of Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 564 F. Supp. 1358 (D. Del. 1983).
Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communs., Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
British Telecomms. PLC v. Prodigy Communs. Corp., 217 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

E. Trade secrets

Integrated Cash Management Services, Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc., 920 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1990).
Ashland Management v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1993).
Barr-Mullin, Inc. v. Browning, 108 N.C. App. 590 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1993).
Rivendell Forest Prods. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 28 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 1994).
Avtec Sys. v. Peiffer, 38 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1922, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25901 (4th Cir. 1995).
Garelli Wong & Assocs. v. Nichols, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3288 (D. Ill. 2008).
Bank Julius Baer & Co. v. Wikileaks, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14758 (D. Cal. 2008).

V. REGULATING CONTENT AND COMMUNICATION

A. Pornography

Reno v. Aclu, 521 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1997).

B. Defamation and information torts

Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (S.D.N.Y. Misc. 1995).
Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000).
Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003).
Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003).
Barrett v. Rosenthal, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
Batzel v. Smith, 372 F. Supp. 2d 546 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
Universal Commun. Sys. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007).
Mazur v. Ebay, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16561 (D. Cal. 2008).
Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civ. Rights Under Law v. Craigslist, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5472 (7th Cir. 2008).

C. Spam

Media3 Techs., LLC v. Mail Abuse Prevention Sys., LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1310 (D. Mass. 2001).
White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. Univ. of Texas, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005).
Hall v. EarthLink Network, Inc., 396 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2005).
Phillips v. Worldwide Internet Solutions, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44152 (D. Cal. 2006).
Jaynes v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 673 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
United States v. Cyberheat, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15448 (D. Ariz. 2007).

D. Liability of internet service providers

Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commun. Servs., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (D. Cal. 1995).
United States v. Am. Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2003).
ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Cmtys., Inc., 239 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2001).
Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004).
Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Wash. 2004).
Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc., 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004).
CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004).
Charter Communs., Inc. v. Charter Communs., Inc., 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005).
Field v. Google Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006).

VI. PRIVACY (cookies, adware, spyware)

A. Cookies, adware

In re Doubleclick Privacy Litig., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
In re Intuit Privacy Litig., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
Directv, Inc. v. Jae Sun Chin, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15815 (W.D. Tex. 2003).

B. Spyware

Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
Sotelo v. DirectRevenue, LLC, 384 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ill. 2005).

C. Other issues
1. Posting different types of information

Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group, 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (D. Cal. 1998).
In the Matter of Geocities, 127 F.T.C. 94 (F.T.C 1999).
Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148 (N.H. 2003).
Topheavy Studios, Inc. v. Doe, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6462 (Tex. App. 2005).
John Doe No. 1 v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005).
Federal Trade Commission, Gateway Learning Corporation; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 69 Fed. Reg. 42176, (July 14, 2004).
Lambert v. Hartman, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4019 (6th Cir. 2008).

2. Data retention and interception (administrative, civil and criminal aspects)

Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Serv., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994).
McVeigh v. Cohen, 983 F. Supp. 215 (D.D.C. 1998).
Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (D. Cal. 1999).
United States v. Kennedy, 81 F.Supp.2d 1103 (D. Kan 2000).
United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572 (D.N.J. 2001).
Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2001).
Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003).
United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2003).
Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005).
Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2277, 97 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1104 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
Doe I v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006).
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

VII. COMPUTER AND INTERNET CRIMES

A. Hacking (system breach and/or data manipulation, etc.)

State v. McGraw, 480 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1985).
State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22 (Wash. 1993).
Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
United States v. Sablan, 92 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 1996).
Sherman & Co. v. Salton Maxim Housewares, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 2d 817 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp., 171 F. Supp. 2d 667 (D. Tex. 2001).
United States v. Ivanov, 175 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Conn. 2001).
Guin v. Brazos Higher Educ. Serv. Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4846 (D. Minn. 2006).
In the Matter of BJ’S Wholesale Club, Inc., 2005 FTC LEXIS 134 (F.T.C 2005).
United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2007).

B. Dos, DDoS, botnets

Tyco Int’l (US) Inc. v. Doe, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25136 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
United States v. Ancheta, case No.2:05CR01060, unpublished (C.D. Cal. 2006).

C. Viruses, worms, trojans, timebombs

United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991).
State v. Corcoran, 186 Wis. 2d 616 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
United States v. Lloyd, 269 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2001).
United States v. Pierre-Louis, 54 Fed. Appx. 691 (11th Cir. 2002).

D. IP crimes

United States v. Lambert, 446 F. Supp. 890 (D. Conn. 1978).
United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994).
Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11392, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,658 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
United States v. Hsu, 40 F. Supp. 2d 623 (D. Pa. 1999).

E. Digital espionage, carding, e-banking robbery, online wars

F. Pornography

United States v. Maxwell, 446 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2006).

G. Other

People v. Fernino, 2008 NY Slip Op 28044, 1 (N.Y. Misc. 2008).

VIII. E-government (e-administration, e-voting, technological neutrality of the state, open standards) issues

Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Cal. 2004).

IX. Litigation (e-evidences etc.)

Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2007).

Categories: case law | computer law | telecommunication law | US law.

Personal interests, case I ACa 564/04

January 25th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 2 September 2002, the Polish company Secunda, a publisher of a portal website, posted a link to www.mlode-dupy.w.tertia.pl website on its webpage under the “Entertainment and sex” category in the “Winning websites” section under the name “Young women are the best”. The link to www.mlode-dupy.w.tertia.pl website was described as follows “10 hardcore pictures galleries. One could deal with this issue far better”. The gallery no 3 featured pictures of a woman in a swimsuit, that were made during a photographic session for candidates to advertising campaign. The plaintiff who worked with models agency sued Secunda. She argued that she has never agreed to a distribution of her image, nor received any remuneration for participation in a photo session. The plaintiff noted that a link to the www.mlode-dupy.w.tertia.pl website combined with the recommendation of this site are a form of distribution of the image of a person depicted in photos available on Secunda’s website. The defendant took no steps to ascertain whether the plaintiff consented to distribute these photographs and it did not take any action to obtain such consent, the defendant’s conduct, involving the unauthorized dissemination of the image of the plaintiff on the porno website, violates her image rights and degrade her in the public due to the inclusion of her image in pornographic pictures. Secunda claimed that it has no standing in this case because the infringer was a person who created a gallery available under www.mlode-dupy.w.tertia.pl link.

The District Court in Kraków in its judgment of 26 February 2004 case file I C 2060/03 ruled that Secunda infringed on plaintiff’s personal rights by publishing questioned images. The court said that Secunda was responsible because it had the opportunity to check the contents of the “Winning websites” section, and images contained therein. The editor was responsible for the compilation of recommendations and a link to www.mlode-dupy.w.tertia.pl website, and in this case it was Secunda. Both parties appealed.

The Appellate Court in Kraków in a judgment of 20 July 2004 case file I ACa 564/04 TPP 2004/3-4/155 rejected Secunda’s appeal and changed the lower Court’s decision on damages awarded.