Lista wyroków sądowych dotyczących amerykańskiego prawa informatycznego

PRAWO w IT

Wyroki sądów przyporządkowane zostały przedmiotowym zagadnieniom. Lista źródeł amerykańskiego prawa informatycznego zawiera ponadto odnośniki do poszczególnych ustaw wraz z wyrokami sądowymi, które te ustawy interpretują. Odnośnik do hasła na temat poszczególnego wyroku stanowi sygnatura orzeczenia (dane publikatora, w którym ukazało się orzeczenie).


Spis treści

JURISDICTION

Specific jurisdiction

  • International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
  • Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo DOT Com, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (D. Pa. 1997).
  • ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002).
  • Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2004).
  • Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002).
  • Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262 (Cal. 2002).
  • Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002).


General jurisdiction

  • Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 341 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2003).
  • Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006).
  • Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003).


Criminal analogy

  • United States v. Rowe, 414 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2005).


Enforcement

  • Louis Feraud Int'l S.A.R.L. v. Viewfinder Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
  • In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87951, 2007 WL 4246473 (D. Vt. 2007).


CONTRACTS

Browserwrap licenses

  • Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (D. Cal. 2000).
  • Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
  • Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 (D. Cal. 2000).
  • Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
  • Comb v. Paypal, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Cal. 2002).
  • Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8450 (D. Cal. 2005).


Shrinkwrap and clikwrap licenses

  • Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991).
  • Arizona Retail Sys. v. Software Link, Inc. 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993).
  • Caspi v. Microsoft Network, 323 N.J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 1999).
  • ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
  • Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997).
  • Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 246, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (App. Div. 1998).
  • Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
  • M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2000).
  • Williams v. America Online, Inc., 2001 Mass. Super. LEXIS 11 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001).
  • i.Lan Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002).


Software licenses

  • Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Elecs., 846 F. Supp. 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Is it licence or contract?
  • National Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1993).
  • ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
  • Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
  • Bowers v. Baystate Techs., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
  • Packeteer, Inc. v. Valencia Sys., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21348 (D. Cal. 2007).

FLOSS licenses

  • Computer Assocs. Int'l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Ill. 2004) - the first case to decide copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation where the proprietary software contained open source code.
  • Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001) - GNU GPL in the context of trademark law. GNU GPL does not waive TM rights.
  • Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002) - trademark and GPL dispute (derrivative work under GPL).
  • SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 318784 (D.Utah, 2005).
  • Wallace v. Free Software Found., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53003 (D. Ind. 2006).
  • Wallace v. IBM, 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006).


Contractual and statutory liability for defective software

  • Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., 39 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
  • In re AOL, Inc. Version 5.0 Software Litig., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2001).
  • In re: SONY BMG CD Technologies Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9575, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9329, (S.D.N.Y. 2006).


TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

Trespass involving spam

  • Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, 962 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Ohio 1997).
  • America Online v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D. Va. 1998).

Trespass to online databases

  • Ebay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Cal. 2000).
  • Buchanan Marine, Inc. v. McCormack Sand Co., 743 F. Supp. 139 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).
  • Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (Cal. 2003).
  • Assessment Techs. of Wi, LLC v. Wire Data, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2004).


INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Copyright

Protection of computer software

  • Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co., 462 F. Supp. 1003 (D. Tex. 1978).
  • Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
  • Sega Enters. v. Maphia, 857 F. Supp. 679 (D. Cal. 1994) - posting software online is not entitled to fair use defense. The court defined also contributory infringement.
  • Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1569, 996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15454 (E.D. Va. 1996) - the court held in this opinion that there is nothing unique about the Internet distribution of protected works that calls for special treatment under the copyright laws and rejected fair use defense.
  • Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, 516 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1996).
    • .

Reverse enginnering issues

  • Hubco Data Products Corp. v. Management Assistance, Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 450, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19515.
  • Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 445 (2d Cir. 2001).
  • Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).

Different copyright infringement issues (civil actions)

  • L.A.Times v. Free Republic, 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1453, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (D. Cal. 2000) - posting newspapers on a BBS forum, fair use defence.
  • Umg Recordings v. Mp3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
  • A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
  • MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

Derivative Works issues (framing, deep links)

  • Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, 45 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 2005, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2265 (C.D. Cal. 1998) - The court held that the defendant reproduced plaintiff's copyrighted web page by creating a derivative work.
  • Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1344, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4553 (C.D. Cal. 2000) - the Court held that hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.
  • Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) - Intellectual Reserve sought an injunction against the defendants, claiming direct and contributory infringement of its copyright in the Mormon Church's Handbook of Instructions. The court found that even a temporary copy to a computer's random access memory (RAM) to view the material would qualify as a copyright infringement. The court further found that defendants actively encouraged infringement of plaintiff's copyright by posting information recommending that people download the entire Handbook from other websites, as well as giving unsuccessful visitors specific instructions about how to access the copyrighted material. The court found for Intellectual Reserve and issued injunctive relief accordingly.
  • Digital Equip. Corp. v. AltaVista Tech., 960 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass. 1997).
  • Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33937 (9th Cir. 2000).

Technological protection measures

  • .

Trademarks (domain names and unfair competition, search engines and trademarks, keywords)

Domain names as trademarks

  • Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004).
  • Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 74 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1385, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. 2005)
  • 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005).

Cybersquatting

  • Sporty's Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000).
  • Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002).
  • Barcelona.com, Inc. v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003).

Free speech and fair use of trademarks in domain names

  • People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001).
  • Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004).
  • Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005).
  • Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005).
  • Bosley Med. Inst. v. Kremer, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20891 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

Databases

  • West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986).
  • Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
  • Mathew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1998).
  • Assessment Techs. of Wi, LLC v. Wire Data, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2004).

Patents (software patents and business models patents)

  • Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972) - computer programs are unpatentable.
  • In re Application of Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
  • Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) - mathematical algorithm (a procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem) is akin to an non-patentable law of nature. However, incorporating a computer program as one step of a larger process allows the program to be protected by patent law.
  • Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 564 F. Supp. 1358 (D. Del. 1983) - business model patents are not allowed.
  • Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
  • In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
  • In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
  • State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) - business model patents are allowed.
  • AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communs., Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
  • Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
  • British Telecomms. PLC v. Prodigy Communs. Corp., 217 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
  • Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Trade secrets

  • Integrated Cash Management Services, Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc., 920 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1990).
  • Ashland Management v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1993).
  • Barr-Mullin, Inc. v. Browning, 108 N.C. App. 590 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
  • Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1993).
  • Rivendell Forest Prods. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 28 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 1994).
  • Avtec Sys. v. Peiffer, 38 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1922, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25901 (4th Cir. 1995) - trade secrets and the work-for-hire doctrine in computer software.


REGULATING CONTENT AND COMMUNICATION

Pornography

  • Reno v. Aclu, 521 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1997).


Defamation and information torts

  • Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (S.D.N.Y. Misc. 1995).
  • Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
  • Batzel v. Smith, 372 F. Supp. 2d 546 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
  • Barrett v. Rosenthal, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).


Spam

  • Media3 Techs., LLC v. Mail Abuse Prevention Sys., LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1310 (D. Mass. 2001).
  • White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. Univ. of Texas, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005).
  • Hall v. EarthLink Network, Inc., 396 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2005).
  • Phillips v. Worldwide Internet Solutions, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44152 (D. Cal. 2006).
  • United States v. Cyberheat, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15448 (D. Ariz. 2007).


Liability of internet service providers

  • Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commun. Servs., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (D. Cal. 1995).
  • United States v. Am. Library Ass'n, 539 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2003).
  • ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Cmtys., Inc., 239 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2001).
  • Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004).
  • Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Wash. 2004).
  • Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc., 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004).
  • Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
  • Charter Communs., Inc. v. Charter Communs., Inc., 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005).
  • Field v. Google Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006) - also fair use defence.


PRIVACY (cookies, adware, spyware)

Cookies, adware

  • In re Doubleclick Privacy Litig., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
  • In re Intuit Privacy Litig., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
  • Directv, Inc. v. Jae Sun Chin, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15815 (W.D. Tex. 2003).


Spyware

  • Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
  • Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
  • Sotelo v. DirectRevenue, LLC, 384 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ill. 2005).


Other issues

Posting different types of information

  • Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group, 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (D. Cal. 1998).
  • Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148 (N.H. 2003).
  • Topheavy Studios, Inc. v. Doe, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6462 (Tex. App. 2005).
  • John Doe No. 1 v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005).
  • Federal Trade Commission, Gateway Learning Corporation; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 69 Fed. Reg. 42176, (July 14, 2004).
  • In the Matter of Geocities, 127 F.T.C. 94 (F.T.C 1999).


Data retention and interception (administrative, civil and criminal aspects)

  • Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Serv., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994).
  • McVeigh v. Cohen, 983 F. Supp. 215 (D.D.C. 1998) - awarness of "big brother".
  • Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (D. Cal. 1999).
  • United States v. Kennedy, 81 F.Supp.2d 1103 (D. Kan 2000).
  • United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572 (D.N.J. 2001) - FBI installed keylogger.
  • Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2001).
  • Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003).
  • United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2003).
  • Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
  • Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004).
  • United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005).
  • Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2277, 97 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1104 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
  • O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
  • Doe I v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006).


COMPUTER AND INTERNET CRIMES

Hacking (system breach and/or data manipulation, etc.)

  • State v. McGraw, 480 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1985) - hacking is more tresspass then criminal conversion.
  • State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22 (Wash. 1993).
  • Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
  • United States v. Sablan, 92 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 1996).
  • Sherman & Co. v. Salton Maxim Housewares, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 2d 817 (E.D. Mich. 2000) - Electronic Communication Privacy Act was designed as a cause of action against hackers.
  • Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp., 171 F. Supp. 2d 667 (D. Tex. 2001).
  • United States v. Ivanov, 175 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Conn. 2001) - jurisdiction and hacking issue.
  • Guin v. Brazos Higher Educ. Serv. Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4846 (D. Minn. 2006).
  • In the Matter of BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc., 2005 FTC LEXIS 134 (F.T.C 2005).
  • United States v. Heckenkamp, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7806 (9th Cir. 2007).


Dos, DDoS, botnets

  • Tyco Int'l (US) Inc. v. Doe, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25136 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
  • U.S. v Ancheta, case No.2:05CR01060, unpublished (C.D. Cal. 2006).


Viruses, worms, trojans, timebombs

  • United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991).
  • State v. Corcoran, 186 Wis. 2d 616 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994) - timebomb.
  • United States v. Lloyd, 269 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2001) - timebomb.
  • United States v. Pierre-Louis, 54 Fed. Appx. 691 (11th Cir. 2002) - Virus. The court addressed the issue of what types of damages were acceptable to count toward the $ 5,000 that need exist to prosecute under the CFAA. The defendant asserted that the limit was not met, while the prosecution contended that it was met (and exceeded) if lost revenue were also taken into account. The court agreed with the prosecution, allowing for lost revenue to count, thereby lowering the bar greatly on CFAA prosecutions, as the vast majority of computer crime cases cause a loss of revenue greatly exceeding $ 5,000. Congress later amended the wording of the clause discussing damages to explicitly include lost revenue, to remove any lingering doubt on the matter.


IP crimes

  • United States v. Lambert, 446 F. Supp. 890 (D. Conn. 1978).
  • United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994).
  • Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11392, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,658 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
  • United States v. Hsu, 40 F. Supp. 2d 623 (D. Pa. 1999) - stealing trade secrets.


Digital espionage, carding, e-banking robbery, online wars

  • United States v. Middleton, 231 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • United States v. Harris, 302 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2002) - credit card fraud performed by hacking and data breach.


Pornography


E-government issues

E-administration

E-voting

  • Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Cal. 2004).


Litigation

  • Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2007).

Inne zagadnienia

Źródło: "http://lawinit.com/wiki/Lista_wyrok%C3%B3w_s%C4%85dowych_dotycz%C4%85cych_ameryka%C5%84skiego_prawa_informatycznego"