By: Dana Ziker As best we understand the government, its first argument runs along the following lines: that health claims lacking “significant scientific agreement” are inherently misleading because they have such an awesome impact on consumers as to make it virtually impossible for them to exercise any judgment at the point of sale. It would be as if the consumers were asked to buy something while hypnotized, and therefore they are bound to be misled. We think this contention is almost frivolous. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0024
Author: dukelawtechreview
Music Piracy and the Audio Home Recording Act
By: Tia Hall In spite of the guidance provided by the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992, music companies are once again at odds with consumer electronics manufacturers. This time around, the dispute is over certain information technology products that enable consumers to copy digital music and transfer them to different formats, or exchange them over the Internet. This article will discuss anti-piracy measures being taken by digital content owners and the United States legislature to combat piracy and evaluate them in light of the AHRA. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0023
Online Brokers and the SEC: Still Working Out the Glitches
By: Philip J. Bezanson Common sense dictates that some customers of an on-line brokerage service are bound to have some of the same difficulties in conducting business but that does not mean all customers or even many customers had the same problems. In addition, as to customers who may have had problems executing buy and/or sell orders, there are many variables regarding the circumstances and conditions for each customer’s transaction. Variables such as, but not limited to, account status, time of order, i.e., time of day and day of the week, and the customer’s computer modem capabilities and internet service provider. Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient evidence that this claim is typical of the proposed class under like or similar circumstances. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0022
The Future of Wireless Spam
By: Evan Cramer Though US cellular networks currently lack the capacity for widespread distribution of unsolicited wireless advertising (wireless spam), these advertisements are already well known in Japan and Europe, where they have proven to be a significant burden on cellular users. This iBrief examines the recently ratified legislation in Japan and Asia that have attempted to stop the glut of wireless advertisements, as a foreshadowing of the problems and questions that will soon have to be addressed in the United States. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0021
Vigilantes v. Pirates: The Rumble Over Peer-To-Peer Technology Hits the House Floor
By: Christopher Fazekas Content providers are using the digital rights management technology contained in this product to protect the integrity of their content (“Secure Content”) so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated… if you elect to download a license from the Internet which enables your use of Secure Content, Microsoft may, in conjunction with such license, also download onto your computer such security updates that a secure content owner has requested that Microsoft distribute. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0020
Virtual Child Pornography on the Internet: A “Virtual” Victim?
By: Dannielle Cisneros Child pornography is an exception to First Amendment freedoms because it exploits and abuses our nation’s youth. The latest trend in that industry is “virtual child” pornography. “Virtual child” pornography does not use real children or images of real identifiable children. When the object of desire is not a child, but merely a combination of millions of computer pixels crafted by a skilled artist, can the government ban this allegedly victimless creation? Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0019
Protecting the Homeland by Exemption: Why the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002 Will Degrade the Freedom of Information Act
By: Brett Stohs To protect against “cyberterror,” the House version of the Homeland Security Act exempts information related to the nation’s critical infrastructure from the Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements. The proposed exemption unnecessarily threatens public access to vital information about health and safety information; information the Freedom of Information Act was designed to guarantee. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0018
Festo: Blessing to Patent Holders or Thorn in Their Sides?
By: Jennifer Miller The Supreme Court makes another attempt to strike a balance between protecting an inventor’s patent rights and ensuring adequate notice to the public of what constitutes patent infringement. This iBrief discusses the Supreme Court ruling in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd. and its foreseeable effects on the practice of patent law. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0017
New “Unbundling” Rules: Will the FCC Finally Open Up Cable Broadband?
By: Sarah North This iBrief discusses a recent Court of Appeals decision remanding FCC rules on the “unbundling” of Internet services by telephone exchange carriers. These rules ordered many Internet service providers to share their equipment with competitors, so that consumers could choose their providers instead of having to accept all services from the company who installed the physical Internet connection. Cable Internet providers are not included in these rules. This iBrief predicts that cable broadband operators will soon be governed by the same “unbundling” provisions as other ISPs. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0016
Genetic Testing in the Workplace: The Employer’s Coin Toss
By: Samantha French A toss of the coin by the modern-day employer reveals two options regarding genetic testing in the workplace. The employer may choose to take advantage of increasingly precise, available, and affordable genetic testing in order to ascertain the genetic characteristics – and deficiencies – of its employees. This outcome exposes the employer to a vast array of potential litigation and liability relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fourth Amendment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and state legislation designed to protect genetic privacy. Alternatively, the employer may neglect to indulge in this trend of genetic testing and may face liability for employer negligence, violations of federal legislation such as OSHA regulations, and increased costs associated with insuring the health of genetically endangered employees. In the rapidly developing universe of genetic intelligence, the employer is faced with a staggering dilemma. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0015