Main

July 19, 2006

Federal judge strikes down Maryland Wal-Mart health care law

Federal judge strikes down Maryland Wal-Mart health care law:


[JURIST] A federal district court judge in Maryland on Wednesday struck down Maryland's Fair Share Health Care Fund Act [PDF text], aimed at forcing Wal-Mart to adequately support the health care needs of its employees. The law would have required companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least eight percent on employee health care, or pay the difference of that amount into the state Medicaid fund. The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) [trade website], of which Wal-Mart is a member, filed a challenge to the health care law [JURIST report] in January, arguing that the law is preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) [text], and that the law violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.

In his opinion [PDF text] granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs, Judge Frederick Motz wrote:

the Act imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart by requiring it to make a report to the [Maryland] Secretary [of Labor] about the amount of its payroll and health care contributions and by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a manner different from that in which it tracks and allocates benefits for its employees in other states.
Motz agreed that the Maryland law is preempted by ERISA, but held that the Act would survive rational basis review under equal protection analysis. Maryland is the first state to attempt to force Wal-Mart to pay for the health care of their employees, though other states have considered doing so. Critics of Wal-Mart cite a now-infamous Wal-Mart memo [PDF text] as evidence that the nation's largest private employer has intentionally evaded their responsibilities to their employees by attempting to shift health care responsibilities to state and federal governments. AP has more.



May 08, 2006

DNA - Money - Innovative India outstrips China - Daily News & Analysis

DNA - Money - Innovative India outstrips China - Daily News & Analysis:


NEW YORK: The Wall Street Journal has observed in a powerful commentary that New Delhi has gone the extra mile to revamp its intellectual property rights.
 
“It may appear as if India’s recent economic rise is solely due to its low-cost outsourcing opportunities for foreign businesses,” said the US financial daily on Monday. “But this is only part of the story.
 
“India is rapidly evolving into Asia’s innovation centre... Its secret weapon? Intellectual property rights protection.”
 
The Indian Copyright Act was overhauled in 1994 to explain the rights of a copyright holder and the penalties for infringement of copyrighted software. The daily hailed the Indian law as one of the “toughest in the world”.
 
Last year, India’s new patents law extended protection to computer software and pharmaceutical products. “As a result, copyright-based industries such as the Indian IT sector have enjoyed rapid growth,” it said.
 
The Journal said that within the next few years, annual revenues from Indian software exports are tipped to touch $50 billion. It said New Delhi’s actions are in “stark contrast” to China and Brazil.


March 10, 2006

Microsoft faces new fines threat

Microsoft faces new fines threat:


Microsoft could soon face daily fines as its efforts to comply with a 2004 anti-trust ruling are "inadequate", Brussels warns.

February 03, 2006

Google Searches for D.C. Presence

Google Searches for D.C. Presence:


Google. It's a noun. It's a verb. It's what people do first on the Web. It sometimes seems as though Google is everywhere -- except Washington. Now, its D.C. profile may be about to change, as Google faces high-profile lawsuits, PR battles and legislation that could dramatically change its fortunes. How the company responds and whether it can learn to play the Washington power game may go a long way toward determining whether Google becomes the next Microsoft or just another dot-com boom tale gone bust.

January 25, 2006

CNN.com - Google agrees to China censorship - Jan 25, 2006

CNN.com - Google agrees to China censorship - Jan 25, 2006:


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest growing market.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company planned to roll out a new version of its search engine bearing China's Web suffix ".cn," on Wednesday. A Chinese-language version of Google's search engine has previously been available through the company's dot-com address in the United States.

By creating a unique address for China, Google hopes to make its search engine more widely available and easier to use in the world's most populous country. (Watch the same search on two Googles)

The Telco Camel in the Internet Tent - John Quarterman

The Telco Camel in the Internet Tent:


I keep alluding to telcommunications companies wanting to limit the Internet.
Here's a pithy summary by Scott Bradner of how the Internet is different and what's happening now.
He notes that telephone companies were present at the earliest public demonstration of the ARPANET and AT&T was even
offered an early opportunity to run it.
None of the telcos were interested back then, so the followon Internet was mostly left alone both by the telcos
and by government regulatory agencies.


This neglect meant that developers were free to experiment with new applications over the Internet. There was no carrier telling users what applications they could or could not run, no carrier that you had to get permission from before you were able to deploy a new Internet-based service. The Internet was just a collection of wires, most of which were bought from the telephone companies by ISPs, who paid what the telephone companies determined was a reasonable fee for use of the wires. The cost of the wire did not depend on what Internet services were running over it, just like the cost of your car does not depend on whom you transport in it. ISP customers paid the phone companies for the wires and paid ISPs for Internet service based on the size of the wire they were using. Everything was simple.


But some of the telephone companies want to change this. They want to charge Google and others to send packets to you. The fact that you have already paid for the wire and the Internet service that Google is using to send those packets is ignored. The phone companies say that they want to let Google pay more to make Google's packets get to you "better," but this is the blunt end of the camel well into the tent.



Blocking the power of the Internet

By Scott Bradner, Network World, 01/16/06


Telephone companies always used to charge by time, which they do for the INternet in some countries, such as New Zealand,
and in Europe some telcos succeeded in charging per byte for a while.
Now in the states they're moving to charge effectively by type of application.
I think this means they need to fix their rates.
They think otherwise, obviously.
I think their thinking is a risk not only to their own businesses, but also to every business that depends on the Internet.


-jsq

December 09, 2005

Law Firms Not Liable in Alleged Web Hacking Case

Law Firms Not Liable in Alleged Web Hacking Case:


Two law firms that allegedly surreptitiously accessed an expert witness's password-protected Web site to show a judge that the witness violated a gag order cannot be held liable under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ruled a federal judge who dismissed the suit. The occupational illness expert had accused Keller & Heckman and its attorney Douglas Behr of hacking into his site by acquiring a password and sharing it with Jones Day lawyers in the midst of a landmark toxics trial.

December 07, 2005

Wireless Nation - By John Quarterman

Wireless Nation:


Thomas Crampton
points out on Joi Ito's blog
that
Macedonia has selected
Strix Systems
to implement a nationwide wireless network as part of the Internet.
This may be the first entire country completely wireless.
Crampton suggests artistic uses of the network, which will be very interesting to see.
Emergency services, personal uses, and plain old business uses also seem likely.
One wonders what new will come out of Macedonia.
The most networked country in the world back in the early 1990s was Finland,
and from there Linux appeared.


-jsq

December 02, 2005

Mass. opens DOC - John Quarterman

Mass. opens DOC:


Dan Geer writes:


No more: "Somebody upgraded, so now everyone has to." By making the "public" in "public record" mean something, Massachusetts gets better accessibility, plus competition--not a sole-source provider.



Perspective:  Massachusetts assaults monoculture
By Daniel Geer
c|net news.com
Published: November 29, 2005, 4:00 AM PST


Mass. is requiring state documents to be in an open format (OpenDocument) reaadily accessible via multiple vendors'
word processing software, not to mention by OpenOffice, an open source office suite.


Their rationale is simple: gaining access to public documents shouldn't require the public to buy a single vendor's product and thereby misuse a public good to support
a private monopoly.
By requiriing  public documents to be in a non-monopoly format, Mass. helps obviate
software monoculture.

As discussed in previous blog posts, monoculture is bad because a single bug can wipe out a monoculture crop, as happened with the beetle-like insect boll weevil and cotton in the U.S. in the early 1900s, or with the aphid-like insect phylloxera vastatrix and European winestock in the late 1800s, or the Irish potato famine.

The problem of monoculture is equally evident in software used on the Internet, as discussed in another previous blog entry, to the tune of perhaps $100 billion in economic losses for a single incident. Software diversity is the beginning of a solution to this monoculture problem. A software worm is far less likely to take down several software platforms at once than it is to take down many installations of a single software platform. 

Kudos to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for doing the right thing.

-jsq


November 17, 2005

Law Firms Fight Over Blame in Patent Failure

Law Firms Fight Over Blame in Patent Failure:


Facing a negligence suit by an ex-client, Coudert Brothers is trying to deflect blame to the next place the client took its business: Duane Morris. Coudert is trying to persuade a Superior Court judge to order Duane Morris or former partner Edward Lynch to pay up if Coudert loses or settles SenoRx's suit alleging the firm missed some patent-filing deadlines that cost it money. That strategy, of course, hasn't sat well with Duane Morris, which has requested that Coudert's indemnity suit be thrown out.

Junk Fax Ban Draws Challenge

As one who receives, on average, two junk faxes per day, most of which include graphics that waste my toner and paper, I would be all for such a ban. It's not free speech when I have to pay for it.

Junk Fax Ban Draws Challenge:


California's tough new anti-junk fax law is pushing the envelope -- literally. The state wants advertisers to stick to mail when sending unsolicited promotions. After Jan. 1, 2006, it will be a crime for fax marketers to send unsolicited faxes without the express, written consent of the recipient, even for marketers outside California faxing ads into the state. But now, the National Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center has filed a suit in federal court challenging the law.

November 11, 2005

Sony BMG faces three lawsuits over controversial anti-piracy software

Sony BMG faces three lawsuits over controversial anti-piracy software:


Sony BMG is facing three lawsuits over its controversial anti-piracy software. Revealed in late October by Windows expert Mark Russinovich, the software copy protection system hides using virus-like techniques. One class-action lawsuit has already been filed in California and another is expected in New York

Companies Shut Down on Spyware Charges

Top News Article | Reuters.com:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. court shut down three Internet companies for secretly bundling malicious "spyware" with ring tones, music programs and other free high-tech goodies, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday.

The malicious software tracked victims' Internet activity, hijacked their home pages and deluged them with unwanted "pop up" ads, the FTC said.

The assets of Enternet Media Inc. and Conspy & Co. Inc., based in California, and Iwebtunes, based in Ohio, have been frozen pending further court action, the FTC said. The court also ordered all three firms to halt downloads of the software.

Enternet Media and Iwebtunes could not be reached for comment. Conspy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to a complaint filed in district court in Los Angeles, Enternet and Conspy bundled their malicious software with music files, song lyrics and cellular telephone ring tones offered free on a range of Web sites. The software was also disguised as a security upgrade for Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer Web browser.

October 27, 2005

Does My Start Up Need a Lawyer?

Back in the "dot com" era, many Internet start up companies appeared and disappeared, almost as quickly as the seasons turned. According to Dun and Bradstreet, 88.7% of all small business failures are due to management mistakes. The number TWO leading management mistake is - advice from family and friends. Notice that this large business killer did not say "advice from your attorney."

So just why does "advice from family and friends" do in so many businesses? It would be trite to say "because they don't know what they're talking about" but in many cases that's exactly the case. They may have heard that Cousin Joe has a deli somewhere, and HE never used a lawyer, so why should you spend all that money. They may have a friend of a friend who has a frame shop in a neighboring town, and HE never spent money on advertising, so why should you? Or even, Aunt Ethyl used contracts she found on the Internet for her real estate business, so why don't you just use those and cross out "real estate" and write in "consulting services?" It's always worked for HER.

Obviously, these are extreme cases, however, the point still remains. Accepting and implementing advice from someone who is not familiar with your particular field, can be damaging to your business. And there's no more dangerous area than the legal arena in which accept a non professional's advice.

It is clear that the most vulnerable time for any new company is when that company is in its start-up phase. That is the time when many important decisions are being made that are difficult, if not impossible to change down the road. Matters from what type of entity to choose under which to run your company, to who gets how much of what kind of stock, are of great importance to the future of your organization, yet are often glossed over in the beginning phases of planning. This is especially true if the head of the company's bandwidth is taken up with the product or service to be offered, and not with the logistics of how to most effectively set up the groundwork that will make all of the rest possible.

The planning phases are the most important time to get a lawyer involved with your company. An attorney who is well versed in your area of business can be an invaluable source of not only legal knowledge, but of business know how that she herself has experience with, or has clients who have been through similar transitions. She can help you choose and register your company name so that you don't run into difficulty AFTER you've paid for signage, stationery, business cards, etc., choose the best way to incorporate (if that's even a good idea in your case), how to set up stakes in the company, employment contracts to keep valuable employees, stock options plans, sales contracts, service contracts, negotiate your office lease, set up a collections system for those occasional "deadbeats," ensure you've filed the correct forms with state, federal, and municipal agencies, protect your company's intellectual property including your Internet domain name, review your website and ad copy for possible infringements, negotiate and review supply contracts, and more.

If you choose a small firm or a solo practitioner, you are guaranteed to have a fellow small business advocate, and one who has likely gone through many of the same issues you are currently facing. They can provide invaluable advice to you for dealing with many of the day to day hassles that prevent you from devoting more time to improving or marketing your product or service. No only can they save you time, but they can also save you quite a bit of your bottom line. A quick example would be the business owner who chooses a name, pays for a large sign in front of his new office, buys letterhead, business cards, telephone book advertising, magazine advertising, purchases a domain name and contracts for a website, just to receive a "cease and desist" letter from a company with a similar name. The business owner then either has to change their name at great expense, or hire an attorney who is then hoping to defend the company from a possible infringement suit rather than paying for an hour or so of her time to research the name FIRST.

Can you do many of these things yourself? Possibly. Will doing it yourself save you money? Perhaps, but perhaps not. What is your time worth to you? How many sales do you lose dealing with issues that your lawyer could take care of for you? How much development time? How much time from your family? What happens if you make one of the many common mistakes that non lawyers make while dealing with legal issues?

Prevention is a very important issue, not only in issues of safety and health, but in issues of law. The cost to your business and to your personal bottom line is generally much less if you spend the money up front for prevention of later problems. In this world of (sometimes frivolous) litigation, the cost of defending yourself is much higher than doing your best to ensure you avoid problems at the outset.

Does your start up need a lawyer? Yes. Definitely. Find one familiar with your field and start saving yourself time, money, and annoyance.

October 19, 2005

CNN.com - Senators demand more information from Miers - Oct 19, 2005

CNN.com - Senators demand more information from Miers - Oct 19, 2005: "Senators demand more information from Miers

Response to questionnaire described as 'incomplete to insulting'

Wednesday, October 19, 2005; Posted: 4:38 p.m. EDT (20:38 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The senators in charge of Harriet Miers' confirmation are demanding more information from her before hearings begin, one describing the Supreme Court nominee's answers so far as 'incomplete to insulting.'

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and senior Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont agreed Wednesday to begin Miers' hearings on Nov. 7, but also jointly sent a letter to the White House counsel asking her to more fully answer a questionnaire she turned in Tuesday."

(Via CNN.)

October 12, 2005

Judicial Conference approves new Rules of Procedure

Judicial Conference approves new Rules of Procedure: "Proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure moved one step closer to passage last month when the Judicial Conference approved controversial new Rule 32.1, which would allow lawyers in all circuits to cite unpublished opinions."

(Via Lawyers Weekly: Virginia.)

Wireless Wiretapping

Wireless Wiretapping: "The U.S. government wants the ability to listen in on wireless conversations. Critics claim the move could actually make Internet-based communications more vulnerable to attacks."

(Via Technology Review: Government, Law & Policy.)