[digital-copyright] Center for Intellectual Property, UMUC Legal Updates 4/4/13

[Jordan Reth <jordan.reth@xxxxxxxx>]

-------------------------------------------
Business Matters: ReDigi and the Future of Used Digital Goods.
By: Glenn Peoples, April 4, 2013, Billboard.
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1555911/business-matters-redigi-an
d-the-future-of-used-digital-goods

ReDigi's technology for selling used digital music files was found to be in
violation of copyright law. The company claims a newer version of its
technology will pass muster. Either way, the resale of digital goods may be
here to stay.

In determining if ReDigi had infringed Capitol's exclusive right of
reproduction, Judge Richard Sullivan found guidance in London-Sire Records,
Inc v. John Doe 1. To make a long story short, the court in London-Sire
determined that recreating a digital file on a hard disc is a reproduction
within the meaning of the Copyright Act. In the context of ReDigi, the
reproduction right is implicated whenever a file is reproduced, "regardless
of whether the sound recording remains fixed in the original object."

-------------------------------------------
Copyright clash over textbook rentals.
By: Catherine Armitage, April 3, 2013, The Sydney Morning Herald.
http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/entrepreneur/copyright-clash-over-textbo
ok-rentals-20130402-2h4si.html

A company started two years ago to save students money by renting textbooks
says publishers are trying to block the business because they fear the kind
of market disruption that has occurred in the US.

The publishers counter-claim the start-up has infringed their copyright.

Zookal was set up in 2011 when chief executive Ahmed Haider, 27, and four
fellow students from the University of Technology, Sydney, saw profit
potential in renting out textbooks for a semester at half the cost or less
of buying them. Many textbooks cost about $100 and students doing a
three-year degree spend at least $3000 on them, it is estimated.

Read more:
http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/entrepreneur/copyright-clash-over-textbo
ok-rentals-20130402-2h4si.html#ixzz2PV5eEg3P

-------------------------------------------
New York judge throws out Muse Exogenesis lawsuit.
By: CMU, April 3, 2013.
http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/new-york-judge-throws-out-exogenesis-law
suit/

A New York judge has thrown out a lawsuit that targeted Warner Music over
the 2009 Muse album The Resistance.

As previously reported, an American songwriter called Charles Bollfrass
claimed last year that the last three tracks on that album, a trilogy under
the title of Exogenesis, were ripped off from a concept he had devised in
2005 for a rock opera of the same name.

-------------------------------------------
Second Circuit's Aereo Decision Hailed As Win for Cloud Computing Industry.
By: Paul Barbagallo, April 3, 2013, Bloomberg.
http://www.bna.com/second-circuits-aereo-n17179873170/

The Computer and Communications Industry Association, a lobbying group that
represents companies such as Google Inc., Facebook Inc., Microsoft Inc.,
and Yahoo Inc., hailed a federal appeals court ruling April 1 in favor of
Aereo Inc., a startup company that streams broadcasters' programming over
the internet without compensating them.

In a statement, the association called the case of WNET v. Aereo Inc., 2d
Cir., No. 12-2786, 04/01/13, a test of the legitimacy of the cloud
computing industry.

-------------------------------------------
Kate Middleton, Prince William becoming a trademark.
By: Fox News, April 3, 2013.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/04/03/kate-middleton-prince-william
-becoming-trademark/

Watch how you use Duchess Kates name!

A rep from St. James Palace has confirmed that The Royal Foundation of the
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry has applied to the
Intellectual Property Office to trademark a slew of products in the
foundations name.

The Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry
is registering its name in several territories, the rep told FOX 411.

--------------------------------------------
ABA intellectual property conference to highlight China issues.
By: Erin Geiger Smith, April 3, 2013, Thomas Reuters.
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2013/04_-_April/ABA_intel
lectual_property_conference_to_highlight_China_issues/

The American Bar Association's intellectual property law conference begins
Wednesday and will tackle topical issues ranging from the America Invents
Act to concerns about intellectual property rights in China, a conference
organizer said.

More than 600 attorneys, including in-house counsel, U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office lawyers and law firm partners, are expected to attend the
conference in Arlington, Virginia, said Kim Jessum, a conference organizer
and associate general counsel of technology company Heraeus Incorporated.


--------------------------------------------

Federal judge: Chicago-based firm that has trademark on the word timeline
can sue Facebook.
By: Associate Press, April 2, 2013, The Washington Post.
http://tinyurl.com/cz2la6z

CHICAGO  A Chicago-based social media company called Timelines Inc. can
sue Facebook Inc. over allegations that it violated the smaller firms
trademark on the word timeline, a federal judge ruled.

Timelines launched a website called Timelines.com in 2009 that enables
users to track historical events and their personal lives online. Two years
later, Facebook Inc. launched a major new feature it called timeline,
which similarly allows users to highlight their lives online in
chronological order.

--------------------------------------------
Apple: Patent we used against Samsung isn't dead yet.
By: Josh Lowensohn, April 2, 2013, CNET.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57577617-37/apple-patent-we-used-against-sa
msung-isnt-dead-yet/

Apple today said that a patent it successfully used against Samsung in its
2011 U.S. lawsuit is not dead yet. That's despite a recent decision by the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision to render it invalid.

In a filing this afternoon, one of Apple's top attorneys noted that the
company still has a chance to fight the decision by filing for an appeal
with the USPTO, or -- if that fails -- by taking it to the courts.

----------------------------------------------