Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

High court won't consider FCC media ownership rules

By Jasmin Melvin and James Vicini

WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:01am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Friday rejected challenges to the Federal Communication Commission's U.S. media-ownership rules, longtime limits on cross-ownership of a newspaper and a broadcast outlet in a single market

The justices refused to hear appeals by Media General Inc, by broadcast and newspaper groups and by a broadcasting trade group arguing that the Supreme Court should reconsider past precedents that broadcast "scarcity" justified the ownership restrictions under the Constitution's First Amendment.

At issue before the Supreme Court was the FCC's loosening of some of its rules in 2008. Media owners challenged the rules on the grounds the FCC failed to go far enough to lift ownership caps.

A U.S. appeals court based in Philadelphia a year ago left most of the 2008 order intact, along with the FCC's authority to preserve media competition. That was a setback for proponents of fewer ownership restrictions, such as the National Association of Broadcasters.

The association appealed to the Supreme Court. The FCC opposed the appeal, saying the appeals court correctly upheld the local television ownership rule implementing a long-standing policy of limiting the number of licenses in a local market that a single entity may own or control.

The FCC narrowly approved a loosening of its three-decade-old restrictions on ownership of a newspaper and a broadcast outlet in the 20 biggest U.S. cities.

A number of broadcast and newspaper groups separately appealed to the Supreme Court. They included the Tribune Co, News Corp's Fox television, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Clear Channel Communications Inc and the Newspaper Association of America.

They argued that the so-called "scarcity doctrine" involving the broadcast industry dating back to a 1969 Supreme Court decision should be overruled, invalidating the FCC's media ownership rules.

The appellants said continued restriction on cross-ownership in the same market is unconstitutional because it singled out newspapers among all forms of mass communication for unequal treatment.

Media General filed a separate Supreme Court appeal making similar arguments.

The appeals court upheld the FCC's rules limiting the number of television stations and radio stations a company can own in a market, depending on market size and other factors.

Broadcasters argued that the competitive landscape has vastly changed since the FCC ownership rules were adopted decades ago, due to competition from cable and satellite-delivered services.

The three appeals had been held by the Supreme Court, pending its decision on the FCC's separate indecency crackdown on broadcast profanity and nudity. The court ruled narrowly and unanimously against the FCC on that issue June 21.

The justices did not reach the argument by the television networks that the media landscape has changed dramatically over the past 30 years and the court as a result should overturn its 1978 ruling upholding the FCC's power over broadcast indecency.

The Supreme Court denied the appeals on the media ownership rules without any comment, leaving in place the appeals court ruling for the FCC.

The Supreme Court cases are Media General v. FCC, No. 11-691, Tribune Co v. FCC, No. 11-696, and National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, No. 11-698.

(Reporting by James Vicini and Jasmin Melvin; Editing by Dan Grebler)


View the original article here

Friday, June 29, 2012

NZ court finds Megaupload search warrants illegal

The founder of file-sharing website Megaupload Kim Dotcom, a German national also known as Kim Schmitz, is seen at court in Auckland in this still image taken from video January 23, 2012. REUTERS/TV3 via Reuters Tv

The founder of file-sharing website Megaupload Kim Dotcom, a German national also known as Kim Schmitz, is seen at court in Auckland in this still image taken from video January 23, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/TV3 via Reuters Tv

By Mantik Kusjanto

WELLINGTON | Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36pm EDT

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - Search warrants used when 70 New Zealand police raided the mansion of the suspected kingpin of an Internet piracy ring were illegal, a New Zealand court ruled on Thursday, dealing a blow to the FBI's highest profile global copyright theft case.

German national Kim Dotcom, also known as Kim Schmitz, was one of four men arrested in January as part of an investigation of his Megaupload.com website led by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Prosecutors say Dotcom was the ringleader of a group that had netted $175 million since 2005 by copying and distributing music, movies and other copyrighted content without authorization.

Dotcom's lawyers say the company simply offered online storage.

On Thursday, High Court Judge Justice Helen Winkelmann found the warrants used in the seizure of property from Dotcom's mansion near Auckland were illegal and that moves by the FBI to copy data from Dotcom's computer and take it offshore were also unlawful.

"The warrants did not adequately describe the offences to which they related," Winkelmann said in her ruling. "Indeed they fell well short of that. They were general warrants, and as such, are invalid."

In response, New Zealand's police said in a statement they were considering the judgment and were in discussions with Crown Law "to determine what further action might be required".

Police said no further comment would be made until that process was complete.

FIGHTING EXTRADITION

Dotcom is on bail in New Zealand, fighting attempts by U.S. authorities who are seeking to extradite him on charges of copyright theft and money laundering. An extradition hearing is set for August.

Dotcom and his lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Television New Zealand quoted a spokesman for Dotcom as saying he was "pleased" but he would not be making any further comment on the court decision as appeals were likely.

Lawyers representing the U.S. government said the ruling had come as "no surprise" and that their legal team would be discussing options, including whether an appeal will be lodged, TVNZ reported.

Armed officers, backed by helicopters, cut Dotcom out of a safe room he had barricaded himself in within the sprawling country estate, reputedly New Zealand's most expensive home. Millions of dollars in assets were seized or frozen including almost 20 luxury vehicles, dozens of computers and art works.

Before it was shut down in January, Megaupload was one of the world's most popular websites, where millions of users stored data, either for free or by paying for premium service. Authorities say megaupload.com and related sites cheated copyright holders out of more than $500 million.

U.S. lawyers for Megaupload have also argued that U.S. federal authorities cannot charge the company with criminal behavior because it is Hong Kong based, and also that no papers have ever been formally served.

(Reporting by Mantik Kusjanto; Writing by Lincoln Feast; Editing by Robert Birsel)


View the original article here

Friday, June 22, 2012

Dutch court orders Apple to pay Samsung damages over patent

An employee of South Korean mobile carrier KT holds a Samsung Electronics' Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet (R) and Apple Inc's iPad tablet as he poses for photos at a registration desk at KT's headquarters in Seoul August 10, 2011. REUTERS/Jo Yong-Hak

An employee of South Korean mobile carrier KT holds a Samsung Electronics' Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet (R) and Apple Inc's iPad tablet as he poses for photos at a registration desk at KT's headquarters in Seoul August 10, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Jo Yong-Hak

AMSTERDAM | Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:27pm EDT

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch court ordered Apple Inc to pay damages to Samsung Electronics Co Ltd over a patent violation in the Netherlands, the latest twist in the global legal battle waged by the two rival phone and computer makers.

Apple and Samsung have been suing each other in about a dozen countries for the last few years as they compete globally for consumers in the fast-growing markets for smart phones and tablet computers.

The U.S. company has accused Samsung of "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad tablet through products that run on Google's Android software. The Korean firm has counter-sued with claims accusing Apple of infringing its patents.

A court in The Hague ruled Apple had violated a Samsung patent used in some of Apple's phones and tablet computers to connect to the Internet, and said damages should be based on certain iPhone and iPad sales in the Netherlands.

The violation applies to iPhone 3G, 3GS, and 4 and iPad 1 and 2, the court said.

Damages should be based on Dutch sales figures since August 4, 2010, which the court said was the date when Apple could have known it was violating Samsung's patent.

A Samsung spokeswoman said she did not know whether the ruling had any international implications, nor did she know how much money Samsung would ask for.

An Apple spokesman had no immediate comment.

The Dutch court dismissed three other patent infringements claimed by Samsung.

Apple has a complex relationship with Samsung, a conglomerate that makes computer chips, Galaxy smartphones and televisions.

While Samsung's smartphones and tablet computers run on Android and compete with Apple's products, Samsung is also a key components supplier to Apple.

(Reporting by Gilbert Kreijger and Bart Meijer; Editing by David Holmes)

(The photo attached to this story earlier has been removed as it was not related to the Dutch court order)


View the original article here