[A special post for my Canadian friends as a belated celebration of Canada Day. 🍁] This case involves a Canadian transaction for flax. The court summarizes: Mr. Mickleborough had a contract drafted for Achter to sell SWT 86 metric tonnes…
I recently wrote a lengthy blog post explaining the many problems with the California Journalism Protection Act (JCPA), AB 886. I submitted a letter of opposition to the Senate Judiciary Committee with just some quotable lowlights. My letter: __ CJPA…
Among all of the fruits, bananas play an especially important role in copyright jurisprudence. For example, we must resolve when duct-taping a banana to a wall infringes copyright. The short answer should be “never.” That’s not exactly the answer a…
The Roommates.com case plays a critical role in the Ninth Circuit’s Section 230 jurisprudence. The (unnecessarily confusing) majority opinion suggested several exclusions to Section 230’s immunity, including these statements: “If you don’t encourage illegal content, or design your website to…
Jason Fyk’s recent litigation campaign reminds me of the classic story Moby Dick, with Fyk in the Captain Ahab role and Section 230 as his white whale. The Netflix documentary of his story will be called “Moby Fyk.” In his…
The California legislature is competing with states like Florida and Texas to see who can pass laws will be more devastating to the Internet. California’s latest entry into this Internet death-spiral is the California Journalism Protection Act (CJPA, AB 886)….
By Guest Blogger Lisa P. Ramsey [Lisa P. Ramsey is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. She writes and teaches in the trademark law area, and recently wrote a paper with Professor Christine…
[Eric’s note: this is the post you’ve been waiting for: Prof. Ochoa’s definitive analysis of the Supreme Court’s Warhol opinion. This post is 11,000+ words long, so you may want to block out some time to enjoy this properly.] By…
In February, Justice Kagan joked that the Supreme Court justices “are not the nine greatest experts on the Internet.” That is certainly true–for example, the justices cannot publicly engage in ordinary social media interactions–yet the justices are getting a crash…
This case involves two anti-threat software vendors, Enigma and Malwarebytes. In 2016, Malwarebytes classified Enigma’s software as “malicious,” a “threat,” and a “potentially unwanted program” (or PUP), because the programs allegedly were “scareware.” Enigma challenged Malwarebytes’ classifications in court. Initially,…