July 22, 2011
Authored By: Fernando M. Pinguelo Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., and Stacey A. Hyman, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Twitter This: Apple v. Amazon.com – The War for "App" Dominance Advances (Bloomberg Law) http://ellblog.com/?p=2439
Apple’s recent lawsuit against Amazon opens a new front in the war for app dominance. Apple, it seems, could not abide Amazon’s launch of its own mobile app marketplace – Amazon Appstore. Yet this was not the first shot fired in this battle, as Microsoft last year opposed Apple’s attempt to register the APP STORE brand name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
So, why all this attention? Why are the app “super powers” – Amazon, Apple, RIM/Blackberry, Google, Microsoft – shifting their strategy from development and consumer marketing to the legal battlefield?
Continue reading »
No Comments » |
More...
|
Permalink
View more articles implicating: Miscellaneous
February 20, 2011
Citation: Gates v. Wheeler, 2010 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1136 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2010)
e-Lesson Learned: Do not put anything into your company’s computers that you want to remain private. Do not read your business partners emails.
Twitter This: You may have an expectation of privacy in your emails, but don’t expect your boss to abide by it --> http://ellblog.com/?p=2238

Everyone knows that the iPhone is a superior method of communication. It far surpasses all other computers, smart phones, company email accounts, Morse code, smoke signals and binary code communications. And most importantly, IT CANNOT BE ACCESSED BY YOUR BUSINESS PARTNER. In Gates v. Wheeler, 2010 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1136 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2010), the respondent may have been vindicated, but the problem was partly of his own making.
In Gates, Gates sued his business partner, Wheeler, for equitable relief concerning their jointly held LLC. The two were the sole partners and could not agree on business decisions. As they were deadlocked, Gates sued to have the court remedy the situation. Fairly typical case until Wheeler decided to cheat.
Continue reading »
1 Comment |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Discoverability, Good Faith, Legal Hold/Preservation, Privilege, Work-Product Doctrine
View more articles implicating: Employees, In-House Counsel, Outside Counsel, Owners/Executives, Upper Management
March 30, 2010
Citation: Heriot v. Byrne, 2009 WL 742769 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2009) T.A. Ahern Contrs. Corp. v. Dormitory Auth. of State of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 29125, 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)
e-Lesson Learned: An independently run eDiscovery project performed by qualified and competent vendors can be useful when there’s “loads” of documents to sift through. However, be careful because their mistakes become YOUR mistakes and may result in costing YOU.
Twitter This: Pros & cons of using an independent vendor to solve your eDiscovery woes --> http://ellblog.com/?p=2046
Suppose you’ve got a business. Not just any business, however, but a state-of-the-art business. Not necessarily a business that sells state-of-the-art products or services, but a business that you run in a state-of-the-art manner. Instead of carrying briefcases full of notes, you’ve got compact flash cards full of data. You don’t even remember the cost of a first-class stamp because all of your correspondence is done by email. You don’t have boxes and drawers full of hard files around the office because you’ve got everything stored and backed-up on hard drives and servers. You don’t have a calendar on your desk because you’ve got your daily schedule synched to the Smartphone that never leaves your side. You use every possible gadget to make sure that you are doing everything in the most technologically advanced and efficient way possible.
Now, think to yourself: What happens one day when your company winds up on the wrong end of a lawsuit? Perhaps even a completely bogus, frivolous lawsuit. Even if you know that you’ll end up victorious in the end, you might find yourself bogged down in an eDiscovery quagmire once you have to turn over all of your “documents” during discovery. Continue reading »
2 Comments |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Computer Forensics Protocols, Consent, Cost Sharing & Shifting, Experts, Metadata, Production of Data
View more articles implicating: Experts/Independent Contractors
March 15, 2010
Citation: Southeastern Mech. Servs. v. Brody, No. 8:08-CV-1151, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85430 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2009)
Employee/Employer Implicated: Employees, In-House Counsel
e-Lesson Learned: When the court orders your client to preserve data, don’t let employees wipe their BlackBerrys® before turning them in. A wiped BlackBerry® smartphone could translate into “bad faith” and might just induce a court to impose spoliation sanctions.
Twitter This: Learn a lesson from Smuckers: When the court says “preserve,” that includes BlackBerrys and other handhelds -> http://ellblog.com/?p=2021

Suddenly find yourself at the wrong end of a trade secrets litigation? Heed this advice: When the court says “preserve,” that means documents, files, data, and BlackBerry® smartphones. Thus, be sure to instruct your clients not to wipe the memory from their BlackBerrys or other handheld devices before turning them in; or else, your client may be subject to sanctions.
The defendants in a trade secrets theft case learned this lesson the hard way when the District Court in Florida slapped them with sanctions after they turned in freshly “wiped” BlackBerrys. The court interpreted the freshly sanitized BlackBerrys as evidence of bad faith that justified sanctions. But you might be thinking: “A BlackBerry wiped clean? Who cares! All the e-mails the other side could possibly want are readily available on the server.” This type of thinking could get you in trouble. Let’s see why.
Continue reading »
6 Comments |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Accessibility, Computer Forensics Protocols, Experts, Legal Hold/Preservation, Sanctions, Spoliation
View more articles implicating: Employees, In-House Counsel