Jury sides with Google in Oracle patent infringment suit
Google executives are probably breathing a sigh of relief today after a jury ruled that the search giant did not infringe upon Oracle's patents in the high-profile intellectual property battle being waged between two of the world's largest and richest technology companies.
The jury was tasked with determining whether Google was guilty of patent infringment on eight separate claims involving Android.
Will the Oracle-Google lawsuit kill the API?
As Google and Oracle duke it out in court over claims that the search giant violated copyrights and patents now owned by Oracle in developing Android, it appears that the battle may have wide-ranging ramifications.
Yesterday, a jury decided that Google violated Oracle copyrights related to the organization and structure of Oracle's Java APIs, but was unable to decide whether Google had a valid fair use claim.
Perfect 10 sues Tumblr for copyright infringment
Publishing platform Tumblr's twenty-something CEO is fast learning that running a fast-growing company can be a tough job.
Last month, after telling AdAge that an advertising business model would be a "a complete last resort", David Karp, perhaps pressured by investors, announced that his company would begin selling ads.
Pinterest for retailers and content marketers: infographic
As everyone goes Pinterest crazy, more and more stats are emerging about its potential for online retailers and marketers.
This infographic from Maxymiser contains some useful data on who is using the site, what they are doing on the site, as well as some ideas on how brands can use Pinterest.
For more on Pinterest, see guest blogger Dave Wieneke's three part series. He explains its potential for digital marketers, the copyright issues which may threaten it, and Pinterest's business model.
Is Pinterest a copyright time bomb?
MIT Tech Review hails Pinterest's terms of use as a genius-level copyright dodge. And while that may be so, its position is disingenuous to the point of irony.
The problem is that "sharing whatever you like" and copyright infringement are, well, sort of the same thing. Especially as Pinterest encourages people to use "nice big versions" of what they find, and to "share from more than one source".
On one hand Pinterest makes it easy to grab images from all over the Internet, even though the terms of use say that's something users will never do.
I've already started a pin board to track the legal issues ahead for Pinterest. But thanks to the terms, using Pinterest could end-up landing me in court for doing so. And that has a few smart users backing off from this hot new social network.
France: stealing books isn't piracy when the government does it
If you were to download a copy of a copyrighted book through BitTorrent, you might be accused of stealing. And as piracy becomes a larger problem for publishers, you might even find yourself in court facing a lawsuit.
But there's good news: if you're the government, you don't have anything to worry about.
Meltwater and PRCA celebrate partial victory as NLA considers Google News
The complicated battle between the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) and Meltwater/the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) finally came to a head yesterday afternoon.
With both sides claiming victory, the Copyright Tribunal has cut the NLA’s proposed online licensing fees and agreed that the suggestions were "not reasonable and required amendment".
SOPA: an introduction, update and review
Over the past month, battle lines have been drawn over a proposed new law in the US called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
If passed, it will strengthen the American Justice Department’s power to go after websites that host disputed copyright material and could make sites such as YouTube, Tumblr, and Reddit liable for violations.
Picture theft and a shameful licensing shakedown: the hideous double standards of UK newspapers
Last month we were contacted by the Newspaper Licensing Agency, which is owned by the UK’s national newspapers. It wanted to sell us a ‘newspaper copyright licence’. The licence would ensure that we become “copyright protected”.
Apparently we need a licence if we share press cuttings internally. It also applies to links shared that include “text extracts to explain what the link is”.
A licence is also required for photocopying newspaper content, scanning and email cuttings, printing from a newspaper’s website, cutting and emailing text from a newspaper website, and putting any cuttings on our website.
Much of this doesn’t apply to our organisation, but we want to make sure that we’re operating in an ethical manner and are keen to abide by the rules.
The issue is that the rules are:
a) flaky
b) self-defeating, and...
c) being set by people who aren’t really in any position to set them.
Let me explain.
The BBC's misunderstanding of copyright goes beyond copyright
In the past week, the BBC has taken heat for its understanding of, and respect for, copyright.
Criticism of the BBC started when Andy Mabbett complained to the BBC about photographs of the Tottenham riots being published with little more than a note that they were "from Twitter".
