The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 8, 2011 in the case of US v. Jones.  The oral arguments are available at UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Antoine JONES. 2011 WL 5360051. The issue presented in the case is an interesting one regarding Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches: “Whether the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violates the Fourth Amendment.” See the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) Amicus Brief: United States of America v. Jones, 2011 WL 4590838.

You can retrieve the briefs filed in this case by going into the database SCT-BRIEF-ALL and running a search such as: da(2011) & GPS & TI(JONES). I have also set up a WestClip in the SCT database to be notified when the Supreme Court issues an opinion in this case. My search for this clip is: TI(JONES) & GPS.

Amazon.com’s recently unveiled Kindle Fire tablet computer is being hailed as the first serious competitor to Apple’s industry-leading iPad. The Fire features a smaller 7 inch screen with no camera and no network plan, but amazon.com will provide access to thousands of apps for the Android-based operating system and free cloud storage. With a starting price of $199, it offers a substantially less expensive option than the iPad, which starts at $499. It also undercuts Blackberry’s Playbook, which was starting at $499, but those prices were slashed days before the reveal of the Kindle Fire.

Westlaw provides many business news and company information resources that may help answer that question.

Analysts Reports (INVESTEXT-PDF)

This collection includes full-text research reports written by investment specialists from leading brokerage houses, investment banks, and financial research firms (Cathay, Datamonitor, Bear Stearns, Credit Suisse, and many others).  A simple search for “tablet” in the title of these reports delivered many results including:

Amazon Fires Up the Kindle, Changes the Tablet Landscape from Current Analysis.  It includes the following sections.

Competitive Strengths Competitive Weaknesses Response & Recommendations

Perphaps the real benefit of this search, however, is that it shows us how we might search for future analysis.  Our relevant result was indexed like this:

Industry: TELECOMMUNICATIONS Language: ENGLISH Report Type: IR

So, a recommended query for a WestClip alert might look like this:

IND(“TELECOMMUNICATIONS”) & TI(TABLET) & RT(IR)

The abbreviations here have the following meanings:

IND = Industry

TI = Title

RT=Report Type

IR = Industry Report (vs. Company Report)

You might consider alternative terms for “tablet” or leave the term out of the title field.  Or, include the term “Kindle,” of course.  The query searches a shell document which houses basic bibliographic information, the table of contents for the report, and a pdf of the report itself .  The search is free.  You pay for the pdf.

Fair Disclosure (FINDISCLOSURE)

This database includes very frequently-requested company information: transcripts of analyst’s calls to the executives of publicly traded companies. This database is also indexed for company name, industry, and other information.  For our purposes, however, we found simple key word searches seemed to work the best:

hld(apple amazon) & ipad! kindle!

The hld (headline) field helps ensure the transcript is from the company you wish to research.  However, we found several transcripts where various firms discussed their use of these devices.  So, if setting up an alert to track adoption and use, the best search might simply be:

ipad! kindle!

EDGAR

EDGAR is another source for valuable corporate financial information.  You’ll also find it on the Westlaw Company Information or Securities Practitioner tab.  For Amazon.com securities filings form the last two years, try the following search:

cn(amazon.com) & da(aft 2009)

Stock Prices

Amazon’s stock price may be another barometer of the Fire’s initial reception.   For daily and historical quotes, try the Quotes Service.  On Westlaw.com you’ll find it on either the Company Information or Securities Practitioner tab, or via Site Map under “Alerts.”  On WestlawNext select “Business Information” on the “All Content” tab. Get the last closing price or track closing prices over a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly range.

News

Of course, there’s always news. For Kindle Fire news and product reviews, try the following search in the database ALLNEWSPLUS on Westlaw.com or the News content on WestlawNext (you may want to sort your results by date):

hld(kindle-fire)

In what it claims is the first offering of its kind in the world, a Chinese company, Sunshine Insurance Group Corporation, is offering an insurance policy for virtual property owned in cyberspace.  The company seeks to fill what, I presume, is a market void in the offering of coverage for property held in fee simple absolutely imaginary.

The market for role playing games has proven to be a profitable one, with users buying the games, paying monthly access fees, and in many cases, using real money to purchase property and items in the virtual realm.  It only stands to reason that the people putting that money out want to know that their interests are protected.  According to China Daily (database identifier CHDY), the company seeks to create the virtual property insurance amid an increasing number of disputes between online game operators and their customers, often related to the loss or theft of players’ “virtual property” such as “land” and “currency.”

A Sunshine Insurance spokesman said the insurance will help to reduce operating risks for online gaming companies, as the companies which purchase the insurance will be covered to compensate customers in the event of lost or stolen property.

The spokesman said that the insurance agreement is also a landmark achievement for the insurance industry, as it marks the industry’s first foray into the online gaming sector.

7/7/11 WRLDNWSC 07:49:02

So does a gamer have an insurable interest in his pretend property?

According to Couch on Insurance, they just might!

Generally, a person has an insurable interest in a property whenever he or she would profit by or gain some advantage from the property’s continued existence or suffer some loss or disadvantage by its destruction.  If the insured would sustain a loss by the destruction of the insured property, it is immaterial whether he or she has any title in, lien upon, or possession of, the property itself.  Any right that may be enforced against the property and that is so connected with it that its injury or destruction will cause loss is an insurable interest.  Thus, any interest in property, legal or equitable, conditional, contingent, or absolute is insurable.  Even a mere right to use property is insurable, and the lack of an obligation to pay rent is inconsequential to the property’s insurability.

3 Couch on Ins. § 41:11

So if the loss or destruction of your Abandoned Greatsword puts you at a disadvantage against the trolls and goblins, you might be able to collect!  I wonder if this means I can carry full coverage on my Mario Kart?

Other References

See also this from Robert Paul Norman:

This article discusses some of the insurance issues arising from e-commerce conducted under traditional insurance products and reviews the new policies being promulgated for cyberspace.

Virual Insurance Risks, Brief, FALL 2001, at 14, 15

As I was reading about the launch last week of Facebook’s face recognition software that automatically “tags” photos that look like you, I was reminded of those “separated at birth” magazine features that would pair two carefully selected photographs of unrelated celebrities and the juxtaposition would highlight their similarities to funny, sometime hilarious, effect.  Now, instead of magazine editors eyeballing side-by-side photographs, Facebook software is drawing the comparisons. While having a computer map your face and match it to a photo might be kinda creepy, I for one will not object to an automatic photo tag and might even enjoy a mis-tag if it means the revelation of some random far away twin.   

Privacy advocates are less humored.  The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), joined by The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and Consumer Watchdog and others, has filed a complaint (pdf) with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to order Facebook to suspend the feature.  Members of the Congress have expressed public support for the complaint and have encouraged further FTC involvement. Yesterday the Connecticut Attorney General requested a meeting with Facebook to discuss photo tagging. 

The concerns center less on the creepy factor, and more on Facebook’s policy of automatically enabling the feature instead of offering its users the option of enabling it themselves in the first instance. Unless Facebook users affirmatively opt-out by following a series of detailed steps on the site, they will automatically be subject to the feature and run the risk of having the system identify (or misidentify) them is photos. Further, once an automatic tagging takes place, the tag might be shared and stored without the knowledge of the user. To undo this, users are forced to search for the disclosures and then figure out how to deactivate the tags. 

Facebook defends opting-out by pointing out that the policy facilitates “sharing” and “community building,” concepts that all Facebook users buy into when they sign up for the service.  But some commentators are suggesting ulterior motives – that by capturing identity information from unwitting users and those less savvy about navigating the (somewhat confusing) privacy settings, Facebook is mining for data in an attempt to “inflating its commercial value as it nears an initial public offering.”    

Facebook is certainly no stranger to privacy objections. EPIC  has now filed three complaints with the FTC questioning Facebook privacy settings and challenging the dissemination of address and phone information to third-parties.  Facebook has also been listed as a defendant in at least a dozen cases involving privacy concerns, the two most notable of which are the In re Facebook Privacy Litigation (5:10cv02389) case currently making its way through the Northern District of California court system and a class action complaint (2011 WL 1663627) filed in the Eastern District of New York just last month alleging that Facebook misappropriated the names and likeness of minors without parental consent.* 

But it remains unclear whether any laws have been broken or rights violated.  Courts have long held that there is no expectation of privacy in information an individual knowingly exposes to the public. See e.g. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).  Nor was I able to find any case drawing into question the practice of up-front gathering of personal information on websites for behavioral or advertising purposes.

To date, no court has ruled against Facebook in a case with wide ranging privacy implications.  

*I searched Westlaw for Complaints against Facebook using the following terms and connectors in FILING-ALL:

 (TI,PR(FACEBOOK) & (PRIVACY /3 INV! ACT SETTING CONCERN) & (CONSUMER /3 PROTECT!) (UNFAIR! /3 COMPET!)) & ((DT(COMPLAINT PETITION) % DT(BRIEF MOTION MEMORAN! REPLY RESPONSE ANSWER COUNTER-CLAIM COUNTER-PETITION CROSS-CLAIM COUNTER-COMPLAINT COUNTER-SUIT)))

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s complaint  is on Westlaw at 2010 WL 3370282.  Mr. Allen is suing AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube for patent infringement.  Links to the four patents-in-suit can be found within the complaint.

//

On Monday, Google and Verizon unveiled their Legislative Framework Proposal.   The proposal outlines what these two key players might deem an acceptable statutory scheme for managing internet traffic.  For some, Google’s broken it’s promise to do no evil.  It’s the end of the Internet as we know it, according to the Huffington Post.   Public Knowledge says, Google sold you out.  What’s at stake here? Try searches for net neutrality:

• Database: JLR
• Query: atleast2(net-neutrality) & da(2010)

A great deal of information can be found on your existing blogroll – without a doubt.  Still, there are times I want to use boolean.  The Blogs on Demand datababase (BLOGSOD) contains text from a variety of widely-read blogs.  It’s certainly not a comprehensive list nor are comments viewable but  the text is indexed.  I can search for author, title, company, date:

• Database: BLOGSOD
• Query: net-neutrality and da(aft 06/2010)

The FCC has been net-neutral.  But, their authority to regulate doesn’t extend as far as they thought.  The Comcast v. FCC decision referred to in some of this reading is at  600 F.3d 642.

Of course, the late Senator Ted Stevens is credited with bringing net neutrality to Congress’ attention.  His proposed bill amending the Communications Act is here: 2005 CONG US S 2686. //

We have had many Summer Associates contact the Reference Attorneys asking how to limit their searches to a particular court.  Westlaw does has very granular case law databases — meaning that you can always get to a particular state, or US District Courts within a state.  If you need to isolate your results to a particular court within that state, you will need to add a court restrictor to your search. 

The Reference Attorneys are always available to help you put together a court restrictor, but if you are the kind of person who wants to have the information yourself, you can print out a free user guide.  It is entitled “Research Tips for Case Law“, and will teach you how to create a court restrictor for almost any particular court.

We have hundreds of User Guides, all of which can be downloaded for free, and sometimes you can get a free copy shipped to you as well.  You can find those user guides here.

One last note regarding court restrictors.  On WestlawNext they are entirely unnecessary!  When searching on WestlawNext you can limit your search to any court you would like simply by checking appropriate boxes.  If you are interested in learning more about WestlawNext, you can take a tour here.

//

//

Google has been in hot water lately. First, they were in trouble for mistakenly capturing private WiFi data with their Street View cars. Then, a woman in Utah filed a complaint against Google for allegedly dangerous directions she received using GoogleMaps.

We regularly receive calls from Summer associates with research projects given to them by partners after hearing about cases like these in the news.  A good place to start is in the Westlaw Dockets database databases. I will show you how to search in dockets to find the GoogleMap complaint filed in Utah.

1. Click on “Court Docs” on the top of your Westlaw screen.
2. Scroll to the bottom of the page. On the left hand side (in the blue section) you’ll see a section labeled “Dockets”. Click on the “More” link. This brings you to the directory.
3. Select your jurisdiction. Here, we’ll scroll to the folder that says “U.S. District Courts”.
4. Scroll down and select  “Dockets—U.S. District Court Utah”.
5. Type “Rosenberg” in the “Participant Name” box and under “Party Type” select “Plaintiff”.
6. Open up the second docket—Rosenberg v. Harwood et al. –this will open the docket and you can scroll down and open a PDF of the complaint.

And, as my colleague Casey wrote in his blog earlier this week—using GoogleMaps (or any other “virtual map”) in the commission of a crime can actually enhance your sentence in Louisiana.

//

You’re likely familiar with recent cases challenging the constitutionality of the law mandating all individuals purchase health insurance.  Cases are pending in Florida and Virginia U.S. District Courts.

Advancements in these cases are not always deemed newsworthy.  So, to stay ahead of the game,  track these dockets:

• To bring up the Florida case, run this search in DOCK-FL-DCT: DN(3:10CV00091) & DEF(SEBELIUS)
• To bring up the Virginia docket, run this search in DOCK-VA-DCT: DN(3:10CV00188)

TRACKING

From either docket, click “Track this Docket” on the upper left portion of the docket:

Track this Docket Link

Entry Details

// < ![CDATA[ var sc_project=5841089; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_security="013ba72d"; // ]]>

Can a robot solemnize your marriage? Unclear. Evan Brown of Internet Cases referenced this video from Mashable where a robot performs the service in (where else?)  Japan.  Evan Brown states:

I expected the [Illinois] statute to be phrased in a way that would at least strongly imply that the ceremony has to be solemnized by a person. But I’m not sure it’s totally clear.

Corpus Juris Secundum puts it this way:

Statutes usually provide that certain persons shall have authority to solemnize marriage, and where the ceremony is performed by one not authorized it is void, …

55 C.J.S. Marriage § 31