Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Jennifer Granick will be the featured speaker at a Stanford Networking Research Center Special Seminar on March 18th

“Open Access or Legal Trespass? - Rights Clashes Regarding Wireless Network Hotspots”
March 18, 2004, 3:15 p.m. - 5:15 pm
(Reception to follow)
David Packard Electrical Engineering Bldg.
Packard Auditorium
Stanford University

The Clinic filed comments on behalf of the NACDL and the EFF on the CAN-SPAM Act on March 1. The comments argue that the Commission’s proposed guidelines and sentencing enhancements would disproportionately punish CAN-SPAM violators through overly severe and, at times, duplicative application of the federal sentencing guidelines. In the view of the commentators, the key infirmity of the Commission’s proposal lies in its referencing CAN-SPAM violations to the same guidelines used to punish conventional computer crime, trespass, fraud, and privacy violations. Unlike these violations, spamming activities do not involve non-routine intrusions into physical space, property damage, or misuse of the victim’s data.

January 2004: Naval Postgraduate School, CISR Invited Lecture Series

A Washington Post story about this case is here.

After negotiations on behalf of our client by student Bridget Morris, Google has informed us that they will repost our client's ad if he does not use the keyword "eBay". While our client's position is that his use of "eBay" to describe his software is nominative fair use under trademark doctrine, this resolution allows him to get his ads and his business back on line.

Visit DirecTVDefense.org for information about the legality of smart cards, DirecTV's tactics in fighting signal piracy, and our client the EFF's position on these tactics.

Following oral argument on December 5, 2003, the trial court in San Jose stayed the subpoena and required Administaff to return to the Texas court for a determination of whether their interest in discovering our client's personal information outweighed his First Amendment and privacy rights. Administaff was to notify counsel whenever they contacted the Texas court, but we've heard nothing new from them to date. Meanwhile, our client's private information remains private.

Diebold filed papers with the District Court today claiming that the case is moot because the company has stated that it decided not to sue the Swarthmore students or OPG. Download brief here. Download Declaration in Support of Brief.

OPG and the Swarthmore student plaintiffs asked the District Court today to rule that Diebold had no legitimate claim that posting an email archive about electronic voting machines, or hosting a link to that archive, was copyright infringing. Download brief here.

December 19, 2003: San Jose Mercury News on the McDanel victory