Collegiate Catfishing Prank Rolls Two Students Out of Ball State

Over the years I’ve cataloged the difficulties courts and public schools have had with drawing the line between merely childish expression protected by the First Amendment and disruptive behavior that schools can lawfully punish.  In many cases those issues get easier in the university setting, because the students are now (legally) adults in a setting[...]

Continue Reading …

Trademarks in the Augmented Reality Industry

One sure sign of a healthy industry is the growth of intellectual property developed by companies in the field.  I’ve blogged a lot lately about augmented reality patents–both their creation and litigation over them.  But other forms of AR-related IP are expanding as well.  Trademarks are what companies use to distinguish themselves and their products[...]

Continue Reading …

Double Whammy – Augmented Retailer Ditto Hit With Second Patent Lawsuit

No sooner had I finished reporting on a new wave of patent infringement lawsuits filed in March 2013 against retailers such as Ditto Technologies–the innovative leader in “virtual try-on” technology for eyewear–than I learned about a second lawsuit aimed specifically at Ditto that had been filed a month earlier, in February.  Unlike the series of[...]

Continue Reading …

Augmented Reality Patent Troll At It Again

Last year I reported on a six nearly identical lawsuits that Lennon Image Technologies LLC filed alleging patent infringement against online retailers using webcam-based augmented reality user interfaces.  Each complaint was based on the same patent: US 6,624,843 B2, issued Sep. 23, 2003 and titled “Customer Image Capture and Use Thereof in a Retailing System.”  Three of those lawsuits–the[...]

Continue Reading …

The 6th Circuit Copyright Updates Are Out!

What do alarm monitoring software, Tim McGraw, and Teens in Tight Jeans have in common?  They have all been the subject of copyright infringement litigation in the courts of the Sixth Circuit within the past six months.  Particularly interesting are the growing tidal wave of decisions from BitTorrent cases in the Eastern District of Michigan,[...]

Continue Reading …

Conference Speakers Should Follow FTC Guidelines for Sponsored Social Media Posts

I’ve done quite a bit of public speaking over the past few years, including on the rules governing commercial use of social media.  Recently, I was invited to present to a conference of speakers bureau professionals on the rules their speakers should follow when writing in social media about the events at which they speak.[...]

Continue Reading …

Does Your Workplace Have a Sousveillance Policy?

Remember the good old days–like, last year–when all that most companies needed to know about their employee’s social media activity is that the company should have a policy about it?  Well, those halcyon days are long gone.  Now it’s only a matter of days before thousands of newly minted “Google Explorers” start wearing their Google[...]

Continue Reading …

SEC Gives Green Light to Social Media Disclosure… Or Does It? [GUEST POST]

This post was authored by Joseph R. Morrison, Jr., an associate attorney (MI Bar admission pending) at Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP. On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) posted Release No. 69279 concerning the SEC’s investigation of Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix.  In December 2012, the SEC had issued a “Wells Notice“ when[...]

Continue Reading …

Augmented Reality as Free Speech – A First Amendment Analysis

Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protect the right to augment reality? As with most legal questions about augmented reality (or “AR”), we can’t answer definitively, because no court has yet considered the issue.  But with consumer-level digital eyewear just around the corner, we will soon be faced with questions just like[...]

Continue Reading …

Delete at Your Own Risk: Spoliation of Social Media Evidence

Spoliation is defined as “intentional alteration or destruction of a document” that could have been used as evidence in litigation.  Destroying a document in this way is abhorrent to our adversarial legal system, because it deprives the parties and the court of the information necessary to learn the truth about the issues in the case.[...]

Continue Reading …