Oracle failed to convince a federal judge in an intellectual property case that Google Inc. unfairly used its technology in the search engine provider’s Android software for mobile devices.

On Wednesday U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco denied Oracle’s request for a ruling that could have established that Google is liable for copyright infringement.

Oracle asked Alsup for a judgment in its favor on “fair use” after a jury found that Google infringed parts of its Java programming language and deadlocked on whether the copying constituted fair use. Liability rests on whether there was fair use, Alsup said after the jury reached a verdict Monday.

“I don’t think it would be right,” Alsup said at a hearing Wednesday. The decision could pave the way for a new trial on the question of whether Google’s infringement makes it liable for as much as $1 billion in damages for using parts of Java to develop Android without paying for a license.

The legal doctrine of fair use states that anyone can use copyrighted work without consent of the owner under certain circumstances, such as for teaching, in news reporting and commentary or to advance the public interest by creating something new.

Monday’s jury verdict came in the first phase of an eight-week trial that began April 16. The jury is hearing testimony this week on Oracle’s claims that Google also infringed two Java patents. The last phase of the trial will deal with damages.

The company is contesting the resemblance between Trump’s “Cadie” wedge sandal, that retails for $150 at Bloomingdales, and Lam’s own “Ayami” design that sells for $780, Women’s Wear Daily reported Thursday.

“We have seen very similar copies before but we have never seen a shoe that perfectly copied,” said Jan-Hendrik Schlottmann, chief executive officer of Derek Lam. “It’s such an investment to make a shoe … we had to protest this.”

Trump’s shoe line has seven days to pull the sandal from the shelves, according to the letter.

Trump, the eldest daughter of real estate mogul Donald Trump, launched her jewelry collection in 2010 and added a footwear and handbag line in 2011.

The 30-year-old, who welcomed a daughter with husband Jared Kushner in July, is gearing up to launch a clothing line next Spring.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ivanka_trump_gets_slammed_for_copying_ByfTEDskGmnWw69HRjeKQP#ixzz1hJph8sAS

VAN NUYS, Calif., Nov. 16, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — MGA Entertainment, Inc. scored another court victory today when a federal district court granted its motion for summary judgment on photographer Bernard Belair’s claims that the Bratz dolls infringed an advertisement he created for Steve Madden in Belair v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 09-Civ-8870, in which he sought tens of millions of dollars from the Bratz sales. The Honorable Shira Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York today found that “no reasonable trier of fact could find that any of the Bratz dolls are substantially similar to the figures depicted in Belair’s copyrighted image.”

“Although the Bratz dolls may indeed bring to mind the image that Belair created, Belair cannot monopolize the abstract concept of an absurdly largeheaded, long limbed, attractive, fashionable woman,” Scheindlin stated in her opinion. “He has a copyright over the expressions of that idea as they are specifically articulated in [Belair's] image, but he may not prevent others from expressing the same idea in their different ways.”

This holding echoes the Ninth Circuit’s July 22, 2010 opinion which overturned a jury finding for Mattel in the Mattel v. MGA trial by concluding that “[t]he concept of depicting a young, fashion-forward female with exaggerated features, including an oversized head and feet, is therefore unoriginal as well as an unprotectable idea. . . . Mattel can’t claim a monopoly over fashion dolls with a bratty look or attitude, or dolls sporting trendy clothing – these are all unprotectable ideas.” Mattel ended up losing its infringement claims in the second trial last spring and being hit with an over $300 million judgment for theft of trade secrets and punitive damages.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, MGA’s trial counsel in 2008 and appellate counsel before the Ninth Circuit on the Mattel appeal, wrote the winning motion for MGA. Skadden replaced Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe in June of this year. At the time, Isaac Larian, Founder and CEO of MGA Entertainment, was effusive in his praise of his trusted counsel, “Thomas Nolan and Jason Russell, partners at Skadden, Arps, are committed to excellence and focused on creative solutions for their clients. Skadden Arps, Tom, Jason and Hillary Hamilton are a few notches above some of the other law firms we have dealt with. They put their clients’ interest above that of their own. Tom and Jason have been with MGA every step of the way, from opening arguments in the first MGA trial to writing compelling briefs and making winning arguments on our behalf through the conclusion of the retrial with Mattel. We could not have prevailed without them.”

That trust was obviously well-founded as Skadden quickly obtained a complete victory in the Belair action within scant months of replacing Orrick. As Mr. Larian noted, “Our trusted lawyers, Tom Nolan and Jason Russell of Skadden, got rid of this frivolous lawsuit with one summary judgment motion. As I said before, Skadden’s work is a few notches above some of the other law firms we have dealt with.”

CONTACT: Susan Hale – shale@mgae.com

SOURCE MGA Entertainment

Google does something very close to this already, of course: the company offers a service to rights holders called “ContentID” that is meant to automatically police copyrights on their behalf. Rights holders upload copies of their copyrighted works to YouTube and identify themselves as the proprietors of those works, and YouTube scours its files for videos or audio that appear to be connected with those copyrights.

Rights holders get to decide what happens next: they can ask Google to automatically remove matching files (Google then notifies the user that her files generated a copyright match and offers them the opportunity to contest it), or they can “monetise” the video by asking Google to display ads whenever it is played back. The revenue from these ads goes to the rights holders.

ContentID does a lot more than US copyright law requires of rights holders. Under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, services like YouTube enjoy a “safe harbour”, that shields them from liability for copyright infringement. In order to maintain this safe harbour, YouTube must “expeditiously” respond to notices of copyright infringement by removing the offending works. But the law does not require YouTube to proactively search for infringements and remove them. Running ContentID isn’t a legal duty, it’s an olive branch extended by YouTube to the audiovisual industries.

ContentID is contentious for many reasons. Viacom says it doesn’t match enough of its works, and complains that it shouldn’t have to tell Google which copyrights it owns – Google should just figure this out and block Viacom’s works a priori.

But one titanic problem with ContentID has received little attention: the use of ContentID by those who falsely or incorrectly assert ownership over public domain works – works that have no copyright at all – and then either block access to the videos, or collect the advertising revenue from these videos.

FedFlix is a charitable project launched by Carl Malamud, a “rogue archivist” who raises funds to digitise and upload videos created at US government expense. Under US law, government creations are in the public domain and can be freely used by anyone, but the US government is remarkably lax about actually making its treasures available to the public that owns them.

Malamud’s group pays the fees associated with retrieving copies from the US government – sometimes buying high-priced DVDs that the government issues, other times paying to have unreleased videos retrieved from government archives – and posts them to YouTube, the Internet Archive and other video sites, so that anyone and everyone can see, download, and use them.

Malamud’s 146-page report from FedFlix to the Archivist of the United States documents claims that companies such as NBC Universal, al-Jazeera, and Discovery Communications have used ContentID to claim title to FedFlix videos on YouTube. Some music royalty collecting societies have claimed infringements in “silent movies”.

These companies’ claims – there are hundreds of them – have the potential to generate black marks on FedFlix’s YouTube account, and these black marks could lead to automated punishment from YouTube. Accounts that generate claims can be suspended or deleted, or lose the right to mark videos as being available as Creative Commons or public domain files.

YouTube offers very little help for FedFlix. ContentID’s dispute resolution mechanism allows FedFlix to contest these claims under only three circumstances: first, ContentID has generated a false match (that is, the video isn’t what ContentID thinks it is); second, the uploader has the right to the file, as demonstrated by written permission from its proprietor; or third, the use is acceptable under the US doctrine of fair use, or its counterpart in other laws, fair dealing.

But FedFlix can’t contest on any of these bases. ContentID isn’t mistaken – the files are exactly what ContentID thinks they are. But no rights holder can send a written permission notice to YouTube about these files, because they have no rights holders – they are in the public domain. The posting of these files isn’t “fair use”. Fair use is a copyright infringement that is lawful because it serves some allowed purpose. FedFlix’s posting of public domain files is not a copyright violation, so they can’t be fair use.

Malamud’s report documents these troubles in Kafkaesque detail. It’s frustrating reading. The American public paid to produce these videos, and they own them, lock, stock and barrel. Multinational companies – the same ones who cry poverty and demand far-reaching laws like the Stop Online Piracy Act – have laid title to them, “homesteading the public domain”, and they are abusing Google’s copyright peace offering to steal from the public.

And unfortunately, there is no organised lobby for the public domain to demand the kind of stiff sanctions for Universal and co that other copyright infringers face at their behest.

That bond – which is designed to cover Apple’s losses should the patent case be subsequently overturned while an injunction was imposed – is considerably less than the €2bn the Cupertino company’s legal team demanded. If Motorola Mobility pushes ahead, Apple is almost certain to request a stay on the injunction while it files an appeal. The original iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad WiFi + 3G and iPad 2 WiFi + 3G are all named in Motorola’s case, though the iPhone 4S is also likely to be impacted.

Apple could attempt to modify its products to work around Motorola’s patent, though it’s unclear how feasible such an endeavor might be. Alternatively, under European law, Apple could seek to license the patent; the company has already attempted to license it under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms, but Motorola managed to convince the court that the damages involved should Apple be found to have infringed would exceed FRAND rates. Motorola could agree to a license covering future products, but not applying retrospectively, and insist on damages for Apple’s past infringement.

The general opinion is that Apple will seek to convince an appeals court that Motorola should grant a compulsory FRAND license, with minimal penalties for past actions. There’s no word on when the appeal might be heard.

Update: Motorola has issued the following statement, though it has not confirmed outright whether or not it will be pursuing the injunction:

“We are pleased with the court’s ruling. Today’s decision validates Motorola Mobility’s efforts to enforce its patents against Apple’s infringement. Motorola Mobility has worked hard over the years to build an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio that is respected by the telecommunications industry, and we are proud to leverage this portfolio to create differentiated innovations that enhance the user experience. We will continue to take all necessary steps to protect our intellectual property, as the Company’s patent portfolio and licensing agreements with companies both in the U.S. and around the world are critical to our business. We have been negotiating with Apple and offering them reasonable licensing terms and conditions since 2007, and will continue our efforts to resolve our global patent dispute as soon as practicable” Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel of Motorola Mobility

Source: slashgear.com