Computer Online Forensics Evidence Extractor (COFEE), which is a computer forensics tool provided by Microsoft for legal agencies designed to pull infringing evidence from a machine, the web, or somethings similar.  In some instances, the proprietary software was being offered on external sites for free.  As the SFGate article states, Microsoft essentially shut down the last openly available download of COFEE after Microsoft invoked the DMCA against the website, Cryptome.org, to bring it down.  The owner of the sight quickly settled with Microsoft’s threats and removed the link to the download.  However, the software continues to be distributed, illegally through P2P sites and programs like Bittorrent, an important note made by the SFGate article.  Although one should ask why the would need a forensics tool on their machines, but nevertheless, I always question some of the software found in P2P networks like The Pirate Bay.  Knowing someone who was a frequent downloader, the kid went on to say that he would just download the software for the sake of having it and being able to tell someone, “I have that program!”  The fact that the software continues to be distributed only shows that once information starts to spread over the web, even in the form of a software program, its really, really hard to stop it since I am sure so many people have downloaded COFEE right now.  The other interesting note to make is that the article makes no statement as to how the DMCA was brought up.  I could argue that it could be made if a DRM technology was bypassed in the cracking of the COFEE program, which in some situations, seems to be the case.

Well its seems that Apple’s true, and closest rival, Psystar, has finally settled in Apple’s long going suite against Psystar for making what are essentially Macintosh clones.  In order to make such a computer, one must devise a way to bypass Apple’s little EFI software check which only allows Mac OS X, despite being an Intel based operating system now, to be installed on Mac hardware.  Back when Apple made the decision that it would side with Intel, hopefuls like me were happy to hear that they’re may be a light at the end of the tunnel in our quest to install the infamous operating system on anything we choose, but we were wrong.  Psystar didn’t believe that however and now they’ve entered a lengthy lawsuit against Apple with Apple seeking damages from them, which, according to wired, was successfully accomplished.  Apple, in the settlement, agreed to drop all potential trademark and trade dress infringement lawsuits.  But there is a catch, the actual software used to allow the OS to be installed on the computers is not included in this settlement.  Since Rebel EFI is a software product and not a hardware product and has been found by the court to not lead to direct copyright infringement, the software can be continued to be sold.  The court document for this case provided in the article states that its up to the users of the product if Rebel EFI were to be believed that it leads to copyright infringement - which would result in a violation of the DMCA.   This is quite interesting, I am sure Apple could successfully argue in a case against the use of Rebel EFI, however, because they’re more concerned about OS X  and Macs being duplicated, could they win a case if Rebel EFI were to be brought up?  Technically it doesn’t constitute a DMCA violation since it only helps with the installation of Mac OS on another computer, rather than directly copying it.  A legal representative mentioned in the Wired article states that the software program could be a violation of the DMCA.

Microsoft was brought to court in China in an attempt to convict the software make for theft of intellectual property (fonts).  The court alleges that Microsoft had breached a contract by using Chinese fronts from Zhongyi Electronics in Windows 95 – XP (not including Vista and the more recent 7).  Microsoft believes that it has not breached the contract and has said that they will appeal the case.  As far as the case goes, some of the claims made by Zhongyi have been rejected but the court also found that Microsoft has been neglectful in another one of its software products sold in China.  As the title sort of states, Microsoft was ordered to stop selling infringing content in China, which again includes Windows 95 – XP  as well as the Chinese character translator.  Court decisions over what will happen to Microsoft and Zhongyi Electronics is still pending.

Xiang Dong Yu (Mike Yu) had been indicted last October for supposedly attempting to transfer over thousands of Ford documents which contained trade secrets on his laptop.  This article states that Mike was attempting to land a job in China, the country to which he has the most ties to.  He remained in federal prison since then on a $10,000 bond and was finally convicted today owing fines of up to $32 million arranged by the US District Court.  Government authorities believed he had an escape route through Canada after finding documents on his laptop to apply for citizenship in Canada.  Authorities also believed that he obtained a fake driver’s license through Michigan.  It is believed that he began collecting these protected documents and trading them since 2005. Either which way, this article only shows us the immensely large fines one can collect if convicted in a trade secret case.

This case closely relates to how an employee could be bound by a company’s contract when they leave the business.  This simple case involved an appeal made by IBM to stop a financial employee from working at Dell Inc. for the fear of losing trade secrets.  The court found that IBM could not back up their statements  which now leads to IBM taking it up with the District Court for the fear that their intellectual property may be harmed since Dell, a computer company, does rival IBM in some aspects.  IBM seeks an injunction for a non-competition agreement.   IBM is well known for its patents and it shows that they’ll do anything to keep them locked up – and it doesn’t matter if you were a janitor at the company.  I don’t know how long the agreement was effective for, however, the manager was closely related to the buying and selling of IBM’s products, and now he is working for a rival company.

If it is one thing PC users like me dream of, its a way to start up the computer in 10 seconds or less.  Phoenix distributes a software package called Splashtop which supposedly lets you skip the Windows loading screen all together, allowing you to start working on your computer right away.  In this story, they entered a case with DeviceVM in a claim that DVM stole their proprietary information for the program which contained trade secrets.  They’re also targeting an employee for breach of contract who moved to DeviceVM.  He, according to DeviceVM, is believed to have contributed to insider trading of these secrets.  Phoenix is filing the suit for unfair business practices, conversion of intellectual property, and constructive trust.  The case is being held under California law.  The employee, Chong, was one of the original inventors of Phoenix’s instant-on program and, as the article states, Phoenix started to file the patent applications a few months after Chong was hired with the company.  A new trial considering DVM’s new appeal to have the Phoenix claims dismissed will not take place until Nov. 17th of this year.

Salesforce.com’s Service Cloud Sparks Legal Storm – PCWorld
http://mrfantasticwonders.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php

What I like about this case is that first, its a trademark case, and second, it involves business software methods.  While business methods might be having a hard time in the patent realm, you still have to watch out what you call your method in the trademark realm.  Salesforce.com has a digital business method called “Service Cloud” which is a customer relationship management tool.  ”Salesforce.com’s Service Cloud strategy and application family, launched early this year, expands on traditional call-center and customer-service technologies by tying in other sources, such as social-networking sites,” states the article.  While it indeed sounds like a really nice tool, the company is facing legal troubles from another business in Georgia who uses the name “Service Cloud” to identify itself.  According to the article, the Atlanta company had the name registered the name as a trademark before Salesforce.com began to identify their product.  Salesforce.com might be in an unfortunate spot as they already know of the registered mark, but continued to use it despite the consequence they may face from this legal battle.  As stated in the book and class notes, trademark fines can be quite hefty and since the Salesforce.com continued to use the mark for commerce knowing that it had been registered, they may loose this case.  Service Cloud claims that Salesforce use of the mark will damage their good will.  Salesforce.com had ran into a similar case in the past with IdeaBlade when SF decided to use DevForce to identify a series of digital tools, unfortunately, SF had to change tracks once they found out the mark had been registered.

Subway sues Vegas restaurant alleging trademark infringement – Las Vegas Sun
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/19/subway-sues-lv-restaurant-alleging-trademark-infri/

Case file:
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2009/10/19/subwayavenue1019.pdf

Extending upon some of the new media and traditional cases found in the book, this particular case exemplifies both scenarios where a large company brings a suit on a smaller one for broadcasting a supposed copied trademark traditionally through signs and flyers and digitally through the web.  A restaurant in LV had named itself “Subway Avenue” and labeled its menus, signs, and online content using the name.  Like the Devry v. UMH case, Subway is seeking that the small restaurant will completely stop using and remove the supposed infringing material.  The restaurant had changed the name to “Sub Avenue” to comply with Subway’s request.  Subway had filed a suit for unfair competition, Internet cybersquatting, and trademark infringement, which seems typical of most cases when you compare this one to the examples provided in Free for a Fee.

Subway claims, according to the case filing, that the restaurant has infringed because the mark was used in commerce and believe that its infringing use was “intentional” to cause confusion and to deter customers away from Subway.  The restaurant also sells the same food as Subway, so the likelihood of confusion is still high, however, I personally wouldn’t get confused over a local restaurant and a Subway store since the logo is embedded in my mind.  Subway also believes that it will suffer monetary damages because of the restaurant’s use of the mark while also asserting that the LV restaurant trafficked the domain name.  I believe that Subway cannot get away with the domain name claim since the restaurant runs a legit business and had no intention on harming Subway and has not registered the DN in bad faith towards Subway.