Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
The case is convoluted and involves questions of what constitutes "publication" - in this case an apparently accidental event, what can be protected as trade secrets (shades of Apple v Does maybe?), and a number of other issues.
Spaink appears to be on good grounds but a final ruling is not due until July.
CoCo published an extensive analysis of the case some days ago, and indeed sees an echo of Apple v. Does, quoting this from Verkade:
To my opinion it does not need argumentation that the position of information providers on the internet is in many aspects comparable to that of the press. The press has its classically defined, but in the 20th century further evaluated and expanded contours. The 'press' is not a closed concept. The internet has given a further expansion to the possibilities for individuals and organisations to play a role (...) that was was factually limited to restricted groups before the internet era. (p. 44)
1. Maarten on March 24, 2005 1:25 PM writes...
CoCo published an extensive analysis of the case some days ago, and indeed sees an echo of Apple v. Does, quoting this from Verkade:
To my opinion it does not need argumentation that the position of information providers on the internet is in many aspects comparable to that of the press. The press has its classically defined, but in the 20th century further evaluated and expanded contours. The 'press' is not a closed concept. The internet has given a further expansion to the possibilities for individuals and organisations to play a role (...) that was was factually limited to restricted groups before the internet era. (p. 44)
Permalink to Comment2. Branko Collin on March 24, 2005 5:00 PM writes...
I too recommend the CoCo analysis.
What may not be apparent at first sight is that at its heart, this is a copyright case.
Permalink to Comment