Scorer also claims that the church adheres to a ‘Code of Canon’ Law where these secret files are to remain guarded from the public until a time of true need. The Manchester attorney insists these files have been protecting the Catholic Church from public scrutiny and legal prosecution for centuries.

In any event, Scorer maintains this is the time of need and the alleged files should be released and examined for evidence in his current case . This could be a trend setting case if it is found the legal system has the right to order them “open”. Given it is “Canon Law” to protect these locked boxes (and their existence), it is unlikely we will be hearing a rebuttal from church officials anytime soon.

It’s not exactly the Da Vinci Code but considering all these rumors, secrets, abuses, scandals, and litigaton, there’s probably a book in it somewhere once this all plays out.

Richard Scorer is a member of the Pannone law firm in Manchester, England

Just part of putting my name and mug out there in unprotected glory, or lack thereof.

But sometimes the fiery vengeance is justified, and a consequence of so many people (commentators, generally) having the shield of anonymous commentary so readily at their disposal.

A man threatening TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington, for example, is feeling the heat, even singled out for online Jihad. At TechCrunch, a commentator posted a link to a photo of Ashton Kutcher, which leads us now to an accusation of copyright infringement, demand for shush money, requirement that Arrington delete the image from Google’s index, and a desire to "settle this quietly."

Like I said, bloggers have learned nothing is settled quietly in the blogosphere.

That link, which caused the photo to appear in Google’s results attributed to TechCrunch, would, if quietly settled, cost Arrington $150,000 now, or $1.5 million if it goes (quietly) to court.

Arrington, being Arrington, posted the threat, which garnered 475 comments on the post, a couple of which are from the one making the threats, digging his hole deeper by making the subsequent accusation of "robing people of there work."

I’ve refrained from using his name. I know how it feels. I write now to illustrate a point at his expense, not so much to dogpile.

The point is: The blogosphere is a powerful weapon – the people’s press (read: not owned by conglomerates with every inclination to shape the news) – and the physical, established world outside is learning (slowly) that it stings. Not kills. Just stings.

Because they do forget about you eventually, once they’ve tired of stoning.

But what’s also interesting (and laudable) is that as the – what shall we call them? – the Litigious Class abuses the privileges of the courts with unfounded threats, DMCA takedown notices, and even claims to copyrights of cease and desist letters as attempts to silence critics, the Blogging Class has a breathtaking method of fighting back.

Simpler (I’m always having to do this), the transparency that gets it trouble is the same transparency used to rouse the masses to their defense, and, in the end, gauge and/or sway public opinion.

Maybe that wasn’t simpler. Oh well, sue me then.

 If you’ve been following the copyright battles YouTube is embroiled in, then you can probably guess what happened next.

Universal, who owns the rights to the song, might have thought he was a cute kid, but he didn’t pay for the rights to dance to their intellectual property on video.

The company sent YouTube a standard-issue Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice and YouTube, an entity not in a position to question given its current legal troubles, removed the video, as is policy.  

"I was really surprised and angry when I learned my video was removed," said Lenz in a statement. "Universal should not be using legal threats to try to prevent people from sharing home videos of their kids with family and friends."

But the EFF has her back and has filed suit against Universal, alleging abuse of the DMCA, and is asking for damages and injunctive relief restraining the company from bring further copyright claims against Lenz.

"Universal’s takedown notice doesn’t even pass the laugh test," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "Copyright holders should be held accountable when they undermine non-infringing, fair uses like this video."

It’s worked so far. YouTube has since reposted the video. (Warning: The video may give you cavities.)

"Copyright abuse can shut down online artists, political analysts, or — as in this case — ordinary families who simply want to share snippets of their day-to-day lives," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Universal must stop making groundless infringement claims that trample on fair use and free speech."

The full text of the claim can be found on the EFF website.

As soon as Google bought YouTube, Viacom slapped them with a $1 billion lawsuit. But before that was made known to everyone, journalist Robert Tur filed suit months earlier after footing of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, which he owns, appeared on the site.

At issue in all of these cases is determining whether, as YouTube lawyers claim, the site is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Defense attorneys have argued that YouTube is entitled to safe-harbor protection because it has no way to prevent users from uploading copyrighted material and removes copyrighted material upon notification.

The plaintiff doesn’t buy that argument however, noting advertising money earned disqualifies the site from safe-harbor protections.

The judge, as said already, denied both pleas for summary judgment, saying there needed to be a larger examination of the facts. Judge Florence-Marie Cooper also used the term "videotapes," perhaps indicating she does, indeed, need some digital education.

At any rate, we’re not that much closer to a ruling, but we are on the road to discovery at least.

The list goes on and on… 

Could litigation and regulation kill the new music business?  Maybe not.  But just when new ways of doing business are beginning to show concrete results and profits to offset declining CD sales lawsuits, excessive royalties, lawsuits plus dated or excessive regulations will dramatically slow its growth.

Far worse is the fact that litigation and regulation is driving the true fan – the core consumer that starts most trends -  so far underground that the industry can never monetize their love of music.  That thought should strike fear in us all.

Comments

Tag:

Let’s hope Paul Otellini picked up some Pepcid last night, because Hector Ruiz and AMD are doing their best to give him a bad case of indigestion.

It appears AMD’s patience with the marketplace has finally run out. After years of rejection by PC market leader Dell, and being passed over by Apple when it switched to Intel processors, AMD seems to be saying enough is enough.

AMD claims Intel used a combination of financial inducements and threats to keep AMD out of dozens of companies. It is likely AMD will seek damages equal to billions of dollars in the suit.

Japan’s Fair Trade Commission ruled in March that Intel had violated antitrust laws there. Intel was compelling computer makers there to not use semiconductor chips from other companies. While Intel said it did not agree with the allegations, it removed wording to that effect from its contracts.

AMD filed suit in US District Court for the District of Delaware. The 48-page complaint identifies 38 companies that have been victims of alleged coercion by Intel – including large scale computer-makers, small system-builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers, through seven types of illegality across three continents.

According to AMD, then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying “he had a gun to his head,” he told AMD he had to stop buying.

Lawsuits happen frequently in the high-tech industry. While many are minor and at best nuisances, Intel could be in trouble if the District Court considers the Japanese FTC ruling as well as an ongoing European Commission investigation into the same issues.

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business. Email him here.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered into a Consent Dismissal ending the pending litigation between the two companies. These arrangements have been established to provide benefits to millions of female patients who have multiple lipid disorders and are candidates for Kos’ niacin-based pharmaceutical cholesterol products.

Co-Promotion Agreement

The Co-Promotion Agreement provides that Kos and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will co-promote the current Niaspan and Advicor products, as well as future dosage formulations, strengths or modified versions of those products (“the Products”), to obstetricians, gynecologists and other practitioners with a focus on women’s healthcare in the United States using a Duramed specialty sales force. Under the terms of the seven-year agreement (with renewal rights), Kos will train a 40-person Duramed specialty sales force, which will begin promoting the Products in mid- 2005. In consideration of the Co-Promotion, Kos will pay Duramed royalties based on quarterly and yearly net sales of the Products, subject to certain maximum sales levels. The Co-Promotion would address a new discrete population of obstetricians, gynecologists and other practitioners with a focus on women’s healthcare who have not previously been detailed on Kos’ cholesterol products. Kos’ cholesterol products could directly serve the growing need to treat the risks of cardiovascular disease in the 28 million women identified by the American Heart Association (AHA) who require HDL-C (the “good” cholesterol) raising therapy.

In February 2004, the AHA raised its guidelines for HDL-C in women from 40 mg/dl to 50 mg/dl. The new guidelines also recommended that women maintain triglycerides levels below 150 mg/dl, a 25% change from past guidelines. These new guidelines essentially tripled the number of women who are candidates for Niaspan and Advicor therapy to about 28 million.

At the same time, a second study published in Circulation found that nearly two-thirds of women at highest risk for a heart attack receive no treatment at all, despite having levels of “good” and “bad” cholesterol that endanger them. Only 7 percent of women had lipid levels considered optimal by the AHA women’s guidelines issued last year (LDL-C of less than 100mg/dL and HDL-C above 50 mg/dL).

Settlement and License Agreement

The Settlement and License Agreement permits Barr Laboratories to launch generic versions of Niaspan and Advicor, as well as future dosage formulations, strengths or modified versions of the Products, under terms of an exclusive license commencing on September 20, 2013, approximately four years earlier than the last-to-expire Kos patent. Upon launch, Barr would pay Kos a royalty equal to a portion of profits generated from the sales of generic versions of the Products. As part of the settlement, Barr admits that Kos’ patents are valid and enforceable and that Barr infringes the Kos patents.

License and Manufacturing Agreement

In a separate License and Manufacturing Agreement, Barr Laboratories has agreed to stand ready to supply Kos Life Sciences, Inc. quantities of Niaspan 500 mg, 750 mg and 1000 mg Extended-Release Niacin Tablets and Advicor 500 mg/20 mg, 750 mg/20 mg and 1000 mg/20 mg Extended Release Niacin/Lovastatin Tablets, under or pursuant to the approval of Barr’s Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs). Under the terms of the License and Manufacturing Agreement, Barr will receive an initial license fee and quarterly payments to stand ready to meet Kos’ manufacturing requirements. In addition, if Kos engages Barr to manufacture these products, Kos will purchase such products at an agreed upon supply price.

“We believe the agreements announced today provide an equitable way to resolve our Niaspan patent litigation that creates a benefit for consumers, as well as Barr’s shareholders,” said Bruce L. Downey, Barr’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “We believe these agreements open the door for significant opportunities for both Barr and Kos, including an additional Duramed sales force that can be utilized to promote Kos’ products, Duramed’s products, and other proprietary products. In addition, the agreements provide the certainty of generic entry four years before the patents expire, or potentially earlier in certain circumstances.”

“This agreement with Barr not only benefits both companies, but most importantly, it broadens the utility of our niacin-based pharmaceutical cholesterol products to a wider female patient population, thereby saving more lives,” said Adrian Adams, President and CEO of Kos. “Kos has spent significant time and money developing these products, conducting studies, securing and defending intellectual property and expanding medical education on the need to treat a broad range of lipid parameters. Now, not only will we be able to continue to market and grow our cholesterol franchise, but we will also be able to leverage Barr’s excellent relationships and competencies with the obstetric/gynecology community that expands our products’ reach into an entirely new market segment. This partnership will proliferate the medical education on the unique benefits of Niaspan and Advicor in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease in women, a uniquely underserved population. Lastly, it provides us with additional manufacturing capabilities if needed, which we were already exploring.”

WebProNews | Breaking eBusiness News
Your source for investigative ebusiness reporting and breaking news.