Mass Law Blog
Intellectual property and business litigation, Massachusetts and nationallyWritten by humans
Lee Gesmer’s Mass Law Blog began in 2005, and contains almost 600 posts. The site initially focused on Massachusetts law, but today it follows business and intellectual property law nation-wide. The site is hosted by Gesmer Updegrove LLP, a law firm based in Boston, Massachusetts. The firm represents startup and established companies in the areas of litigation, transactions (including financings, mergers and acquisitions), IP rights, taxation, employment law, standards consortia, business counseling and open source development projects and foundations. You can find a summary of the firm’s services here. To learn how Gesmer Updegrove can help you, contact: Lee Gesmer
When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers: Waymo v. Uber
Uber is in trouble. The trial between Alphabet's Waymo and Uber over Waymo's self-driving car trade secrets was scheduled to begin on December 4th before Judge William Alsup, of Oracle v. Google fame. (Readers familiar with coverage of that case know how smart and tough he is). According to published reports, at the last minute evidence (a letter) was discovered suggesting that Uber has a team dedicated to collecting trade secrets from competing companies. Allegedly, the people involved use...
Fagen, Becker and the Steely Dan Buy/Sell Agreement
The first time I heard of a "buy/sell agreement" was around 1970 when I was 19 - just a few years before I fell in love with Steely Dan's music. Back then my father owned a textile business in Haverhill, Massachusetts with a 50-50 "partner," and he explained that the business had insurance policies on both of their lives. If either partner died, the insurance would fund the purchase of the deceased partner's shares, and the surviving partner would end up owning 100% of the company. This, he...
Google and the Global Takedown
“One country shouldn’t be able to decide what information people in other countries can access online”
David Price, senior product counsel at Google
A risk long anticipated by Internet law observers is that the courts might become more aggressive in regulating online behavior, not just in their own nation, but worldwide. Google, more than any company, has had a target on its back for this kind of case.
The obvious example would be a court in one nation ordering Google to takedown (“de-index”) search results for users worldwide. This is exactly what happened in the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. (June 28, 2017). This case represents the first time the highest court in a country has ordered a search engine to de-index worldwide in the context of a purely commercial two-party dispute. And, as we shall see below, this is a crucial issue for Google – one that it will not concede without a fight.
Mavrix v. LiveJournal: The Incredible Shrinking DMCA
While many performing artists and record companies complain that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”) puts them to the unfair burden of sending endless takedown notices, and argue that the law should require notice and “stay down,” supporters of Internet intermediaries and websites argue that court decisions have unreasonably narrowed the DMCA safe harbor.
A recent decision by the influential Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes California) adds to the concerns of the latter group.
LiveJournal, the defendant in this case, displayed on its website 20 photographs owned by Mavrix. Mavrix responded, not by sending DMCA “takedown” notices, as you might expect, but by filing suit for copyright infringement. LiveJournal responded that it was protected by the DMCA. However, to successfully invoke the DMCA’s safe harbor LiveJournal had to satisfy all of the legal requirements of the DMCA.