Jay Hollander's Weblog - Intellectual Property

Welcome to the weblog for Intellectual Property Law.

Wed Jun 21, 2006

Internet Heavy Hitters Petition for Federal Privacy Law

The Wall Street Journal has written on a newly formed Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, counting among its members such technology heavyweights as Ebay, Google and Microsoft.

What's the glue holding these rivals together? Privacy. Your privacy. The forum is lobbying Congress to do what individuals have asked it to do for years, namely, enact a federal privacy policy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115083716168285522.html

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

More Trouble For Vonage

CNET News reports that the FCC recently appoved a plan to assess Internet Phone Taxes, dedicated for use by the Universal Service Fund, against all VOIP carriers that connect to the public switched phone network, rather than on a peer to peer basis, like SKYPE.

The approval expands the tax base from more traditional telecom services, like land lines, pay phones, wireless and DSL, to Vonage like services.

http://news.com.com/FCC+approves+new+Internet+phone+taxes/2100-7352-6086437.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e433

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Wed Nov 23, 2005

Proposed Legislation Assists in IT Training Costs

Today's news brings word of proposed legislation in the House of Representatives designed to assist in training to further worker IT skills. As described,

"The Technology Retraining and Investment Now Act for the 21st Century, or TRAIN Act, would allow workers or employers to take a tax credit of up to half of a qualified $4000 IT training program. The bill would allow a tax credit of up to $2500 for small businesses and businesses or workers in rural or economically depressed areas. The tax credit covers course costs, including textbooks and other materials."

The bill would also create an advisory board that would certify providers of the education in an effort to assure competency and standards in the training process.

http://tinyurl.com/7rwel

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Thu Aug 26, 2004

Broad Coalition Proposes a "Don't Induce Act"

Alarmed at the broad and vague terminology in the proposed INDUCE Act, now being considered in Congress, a coalition of groups and companies have sent INDUCE sponsors, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, an alternative legislative proposal, which is far narrower in scope. The "Don't Induce Act" would impose copyright infringement liability only on someone who distributes a commercial computer program "specifically designed" for widescale piracy. The proposed bill also "provides complete exemptions from liability for ISPs, venture capitalists, credit card companies and other groups.

The INDUCE Act says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations, a bill which Hatch has said is specifically targeted at outlawing file-swapping networks but which could also imperil some consumer electronics devices, such as the popular iPod by Apple. It would hand the music industry and Hollywood easier targets to sue. The industry has been compelled to sue individual infringers, direct copyright infringers, by recent court rulings stating that such software distributors are not liable for the acts of users.

The INDUCE Act would provide the opportunity to sue makers and distributors of software used for P2P file sharing, such as Grokster and Morpheus, for inducing copyright infringement simply by making the software available. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruled that, like VCRs, P2P software can be used for substantial noninfringing uses and that it therefore deserves a place in the market.

Those backing the "Don't Induce Act" proposal include SBC Communications, MCI, Verizon Communications, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), The American Library Association, DigitalConsumer.org, the US Internet Industry Association, the Home Recording Rights Coliation, the US Telecomm Association and Public Knowledge. The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) helped to draft the alternative legislation , but are not officially backing the proposal. The CCIA includes Covad Communications Group and Nortel Networks.

http://tinyurl.com/64xom
http://tinyurl.com/6eq64
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/25/do_not_induce/

MGM v. Grokster decision: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/

INDUCE Act:
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/INDUCE.html

Proposed alternative bill, Discouraging Online Networked Trafficking Inducement Act:
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/Dont_Induce_Act.pdf

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Tue May 25, 2004

Spam is Not Being Canned By Can-Spam Act

The new anti-spam law, Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (Can-Spam) Act, seems to be having little impact on the amount of spam being sent. The Senate, Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee held hearings recently and heard testimony that the percent of email that is spam has gone up, from 78% to 83%, since the law went into effect in January. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hasn't given up, though. It announced a new rule that went into effect last week, requiring sexually explicit emails to be labeled as such and it will release their plan for a national Do-Not-Email registry next month.

Senator John McCain, chairman of the committee, asked why the FTC doesn't just go after the companies that hire the spammers to advertise their products, if it can't get the spammers themselves, and urged the FTC to step up enforcement. The FTC and other federal law enforcement officials brought Can-Spam and other charges against two alleged spammers in April.

"If the FTC can't find the spammers, it should do the next best thing: go after the businesses that knowingly hire spammers to promote their goods and services," said McCain.

Spam filtering companies claimed they can reduce the amount of spam actually received. And AOL announced during the hearing that their customers have seen a reduction in spam in their inboxes by 20-30 percent in the last year, thanks to antispam initiatives. Others disagreed on how much such techniques can achieve and expressed that the only solution is sender-authentication.

Meanwhile, despite the best of intentions, spam is not being canned.
http://tinyurl.com/378yg

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Mon Dec 08, 2003

New identity theft measures signed into law

On December 4th, President Bush signed into law the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The law contains many notable provisions, including one that gives consumers free access to their credit reports and scores, making it easier for them to see if there are unauthorized charges or other problems affecting their credit.

The law also takes steps to deal with the mounting identity theft crisis, creating a central fraud alert telephone number for consumers to call. Making the call will activate a nationwide fraud alert on a complaining consumer's account, triggering a system whereby credit agencies will take steps to unsure future credit charges are truly authorized.

Read more: http://www.toolkit.cch.com/columns/finances/03-026fcra.asp

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Wed Nov 26, 2003

CAN-SPAM ACT almost a reality

With Senate approval of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, the bill heads to President Bush for certain approval after a detour at the House of Representatives to iron out some language changes between the House and Senate version. http://www.dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?article_id=25731 .

For the full text of the House and Senate versions, go here: http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Sun Nov 23, 2003

New proposed legislation on wireless 411

In anticipation of the imminent roll-out of cell phone number portability, Congressman Joe Pitts (R, PA-16) and Congressman Edward J. Markey (D, MA-07) introduced legislation that would protect consumer privacy in the event that wireless service carriers list their wireless numbers in a directory assistance database.

This legislation comes even though there is, as yet, no such database, but the proposed law has many similarities to various anti-spam provisions, requiring individuals to opt in to having their cell phone number listed, allowing them to opt out of the listing, and to do both at no charge.

An official backgrounder on the subject can be found at http://www.house.gov/pitts/press/backgrounders/031119b-wireless411.pdf .

A copy of the actual bill, a proposed amendment to the federal Communications Act of 1934, can be found at http://www.house.gov/pitts/temporary/wireless411.PDF .

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Disclaimer. The material provided on this site is for information purposes only and its availability to you does not establish an attorney-client relationship nor constitute legal advice. If you are interested in becoming a client of Hollander and Company LLC, please contact Jay Hollander, Esq. at jh@hollanderco.com.