Robert and Carleen Thomas, who operated a computer bulletin board in
Milpitas, California, were sentenced to 2-1/2 and 3 years in prison,
respectively, for transmitting pornographic images over interstate
telephone lines. The Thomases were prosecuted and
convicted in federal court in Tennessee after a Memphis postal inspector
logged into the Milpitas (a town close to San Francisco) bulletin board
under a false name and downloaded the images, later found to be obscene
under Memphis community standards. The
Thomases will appeal their conviction, focusing on the definition of
obscenity under local community standards. This case also raises serious
issues related to the conduct of the federal government in prosecuting
this case in Tennessee, as far away as possible from
the residence of the defendants and in a jurisdiction with possibly the
highest likelihood of conviction. (San Jose Mercury News, December 3,
1994, 6B.)
A U.S. District Court dismissed wire fraud charges against David
LaMacchia, a student at MIT. LaMacchia ran a computer bulletin board
service that allegedly was used for the copying of copyrighted
commercial software. In April, LaMacchia was indicted on one
count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Judge Richard Stearns ruled,
however, that LaMacchia could not be prosecuted for criminal copyright
infringement under the wire fraud statute. Stearns noted that permitting
the case to proceed would allow prosecution of home
computer users for copying a single program for their own personal use.
(San Jose Mercury News, December 30, 1994, 1C.)
The Ninth Circuit ruled that privacy rights were not violated in the
search of a rented locker that revealed a classified 1987 Air Force
order listing targets to be attacked in wartime. The ruling comes in the
first espionage case against an alleged computer hacker, Kevin
Lee Poulson. He is charged with illegal possession of government secrets
and other counts, including eavesdropping on private telephone calls and
tapping into Pacific Bell computers and an unclassified military
network. Poulson's trial had been delayed pending
prosecutors' appeal of a ruling finding the locker search illegal. (San
Jose Mercury News, December 9, 1994, 3B.)
The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles wrote to Prodigy Services
Company protesting the "continued use of Prodigy by bigots to promote
their agenda of hate." The Center called on online services to keep out
hate groups and for the government to play a
similar role on the Internet. (San Jose Mercury News, December 14, 1994,
1F.)
A former employee of Prodigy Services Company, David Lusby, of Key
West, Florida, will be dropped from a defamation suit brought by
Stratton Oakmont, Inc., over a series of messages posted in Prodigy's
Money Talk online forum about the company and its
president. Lawyers from Prodigy and Stratton agree that an anonymous
hacker used Lusby's account without authorization, after Lusby left his
employment with Prodigy. Prodigy remains a defendant in the case. (San
Jose Mercury News, November 11, 1994, 1F; New
York Times, November 12, 1994, p.27, and November 16, 1994, C1.)
A U.S. District Court dismissed Carl Sagan's claims over Apple
Computer's use of his name. Apple used Sagan's name as the internal code
name of a computer that became the Macintosh 7100. After Sagan
complained to Apple, the internal name was changed to
"BHA," which Sagan's lawyers allege stands for "butt-head astronomer."
Sagan sued Apple for defamation, copyright violation, unfair competition
and right to privacy. Sagan's defamation claim was dismissed earlier.
(San Jose Mercury News, December 30, 1994, 1A.)
The University of Illinois reached an out-of-court settlement with
Netscape Communications Corp., formerly known as Mosaic Communications.
The dispute arose after most of the team that developed Mosaic (the
Internet browsing software) at Illinois' National Center
for Supercomputer Applications joined the Mountain View CA company to
commercialize the product. Marc Andressen, the lead developer, is quoted
by the San Jose Mercury News, saying, "You go to school, you do
research, you leave and they try to cripple your
business -- is this the way you want to be treated?
Apple sued a small San Francisco software developer that Apple asked
to build a Windows version of QuickTime (the program that lets computer
users run animation and digitized video on their PCs). Apple alleges
that San Francisco Canyon Co. breached its
agreement with Apple by working for Intel and producing a program,
called DCI, that was incorporated into Microsoft's Video for Windows
program. Apple has asked for an injunction, destruction of existing
copies, and money damages. (San Jose Mercury News,
December 10, 1994, 13D.)
The California Supreme Court reversed an appellate court ruling and
upheld a 1992 arbitrator's decision giving Advanced Micro Devices the
right to manufacture computer chips compatible with Intel's 386
microprocessor. In 1993, a California appellate court reversed
the arbitrator's decision, on the grounds he exceeded the scope of his
powers. Other cases remain pending between AMD and Intel. (New York
Times, November 31, 1994, p.17; San Jose Mercury News, December 31,
1994, 10D.)
MCI Communications Corp. filed a complaint with the California Public
Utilities Commission against Pacific Bell, alleging that Pac Bell is
denying access to local toll call business by refusing to program
5-digit access codes into its Centrex system (remote
switchboards). Without this programming, consumers must dial an extra
set of 5 digits to reach a different local toll call carrier. A Pac Bell
spokesman commented that Pac Bell is not allowed to provide
long-distance calls. When Pac Bell can do so, he said, it would
make sense to have the same kind of access for both kinds of calls. (San
Jose Mercury News, December 31, 1994, 10D; New York Times, December 31,
1994, p.19.)
Microsoft Corp. filed copyright infringement lawsuits against two Los
Angeles companies allegedly discovered illegally distributing Microsoft
software. Microsoft states the suits were filed as a result of its
efforts to clean swap meets and trade shows of illegal hard
disk loading and sale of counterfeit Microsoft products. At the Pomona
Computer Trade Fair, other companies illegally selling Microsoft
software immediately agreed to stop and settled without litigation. The
suits were filed against the two companies that did not --
Evertek Computers (also known as Pony Technologies) and ATC or A-Tech
Computers. (San Francisco Daily Journal, December 28, 1994, p.1)
Unable to resolve a dispute with China over software piracy, the U.S.
is preparing a list of punitive tariffs on more than $1 billion in
Chinese products. The U.S. is seeking to compel China to halt abuses
that the U.S. says are costing U.S. companies $800 annually in
patent and copyright piracy. (New York Times, December 30, 1994, p.17.)
A former employee of Akashic Memories Corp. in San Jose has been
charged with accepting payments from an executive of Distek, a Chilean
company. Akashic makes thin film magnetic media used in disk drives.
Distek is a nickel plating company. Claims of theft
of trade secrets and commercial bribery have been filed against the
former employee and the Distek executive. (San Jose Mercury News,
December 31, 1994, 11D.)
Vermont Microsystems won $25.5 million in a trade secret suit against
Autodesk Inc., based in San Rafael, CA. The suit (tried in U.S. District
Court in Vermont) was over a former Vermont Microsystems employee who
allegedly applied the company's technology to
enable Autodesk to produce new computer-aided design software. Punitive
damages were not awarded. Autodesk will appeal. (New York Times,
December 28, 1994, C4; San Jose Mercury News, December 28, 1994, 3D.)
CyberLex (tm) is published solely as an educational service. The author,
a California attorney, is Executive Editor of LEXIS COUNSEL CONNECT
CALIFORNIA. He may be contacted at jrosen03@counsel.com or
cyberlaw@cyberlaw.com. Questions and comments
may be posted on America Online (go to keyword "CYBERLAW") or CyberLaw
World Wide (http://www.portal.com/~cyberlaw/), which is made possible
with support from Portal Communications Co. (ph. 408/973-9111). CyberLex
is a trademark of Jonathan Rosenoer.
Copyright (c) 1995 Jonathan Rosenoer; All Rights Reserved.