Google litigation

Last updated

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. [1] [2] Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond. [3]

Contents

Privacy

United States v. Google Inc.

United States vs. Google Inc. is a case in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated order for a permanent injunction and a $22.5 million civil penalty judgment, the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ever historically won. [4] The FTC and Google Inc. consented to the entry of the stipulated order to resolve the dispute which arose from Google's violation of its privacy policy. In this case, the FTC found Google liable for misrepresenting "privacy assurances to users of Apple's Safari Internet browser". [5] It was reached after the FTC considered that through the placement of advertising tracking cookies in the Safari web browser, and while serving targeted advertisements, Google violated the 2011 FTC's administrative order issued in FTC v. Google Inc. [6]

Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González

Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González was a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union holding that an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal information which appears on web pages published by third parties. [7] [8] [9] [10]

Hibnick v. Google, Inc.

Hibnick v Google was a class action suit against Google in 2010. The suit accused Google of breaching several electronic communications laws with the launch of their new product Google Buzz. [11] [12] [13] Google Buzz was a social media network that automatically plugged into Gmail.

Joffe v. Google, Inc.

Joffe v. Google, Inc. was a federal lawsuit between Ben Joffe and Google, Inc. that entered official Supreme Court jurisdiction in November 2010. Joffe claimed that Google broke one of the Wiretap Legislation segments when they intruded on the seemingly “public” wireless networks of private homes through their Street View application. Although Google appealed multiple times, the courts ruled in favor of Joffe.

Mosley v SARL Google

Mosley v SARL Google was a 2013 French court case in which former President of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile Max Mosley attempted to make the internet search engine Google remove images of him engaging in a sado-masochistic sex act with several prostitutes. The publication of the images in the (now defunct) British newspaper The News of the World was litigated in Mosley v News Group Newspapers and resulted in Mr Mosley being awarded £60,000 in damages.

Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google, Inc.

Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google Inc. was a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California holding that Google had to reveal the account information of a Gmail user who had been mistakenly sent sensitive information from Rocky Mountain Bank. [14]

Patacsil v. Google,. Inc.

Patacsil v. Google,. Inc. In re Google Location History Litigation, Case No. 5:18-cv-05062, U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The law firm Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C. was appointed interim class counsel in this privacy case by users of Google Maps or other Google applications, alleging that Google deliberately collected personal information from individuals in order to generate millions of dollars in revenue by covertly recording contemporaneous location data about users on their mobile devices who had specifically opted out of such tracking. [15] [16] [17]

Advertising

Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc. [18] was a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The court concluded that, pending the outcome of a jury trial, Google AdWords may be in violation of trademark law.

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which the court held that recommending a trademark for keyword advertising was a commercial use of the trademark, and could constitute trademark infringement. The case involved Rescuecom. Prior to the case's resolution, Google recommended the 'Rescuecom' trademark to businesses (including Rescuecom's competitors), that were buying keywords through Google's AdWords product.

Rosetta Stone v. Google Inc

Rosetta Stone v. Google was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The Court overturned a grant of summary judgment for Google that had held Google AdWords was not a violation of trademark law.

Goddard v. Google, Inc.

Goddard v. Google, Inc. is a case in which Jenna Goddard alleged that she was harmed by Google as a result of clicking allegedly fraudulent web-based advertisements for mobile subscription services. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the action was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") and dismissed the complaint.

Censorship

Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Garcia v. Google, Inc. is a case where Cindy Lee Garcia sued Google and its video-sharing website, YouTube, to have the controversial film, Innocence of Muslims , taken down from the site. A California district court denied Garcia's motion for preliminary injunction, but, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, ordered YouTube to take down all copies of Innocence of Muslims, and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration. [19] In May 2015, in an en banc opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the panel's decision, vacating the order for the preliminary injunction. [20] [21] [22]

Russia v. Google, Inc.

On October 31, 2024, Google was ordered to pay $20 decillion by the Russian government following the removal of 17 [23] pro-Kremlin YouTube channels, several of which have been blocked since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. [24] Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov defended the large sum of money, as "it is rather filled with symbolism," and stated that "[Google] should not restrict our broadcasters on their platform. This should be a reason for the Google leadership to pay attention to this and improve the situation." [23]

Defamation

Duffy v. Google Inc

On October 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of South Australia found in the case of Duffy v Google Inc [25] [2015] SASC 170 that Google Autocomplete perpetuated a defamation of the plaintiff for which Google was liable.

Defteros v. Google LLC

On April 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of Victoria found in the case of Defteros v Google LLC [26] [2020] VSC 219 that Google could be held liable for defamation in Australia. "The Court held that Google does publish webpages reached by clicking on hyperlinks within Google search results. The resolution of the publication issue was a necessary step to Google’s liability; Google succeeded on some defences and failed on others. Defteros was awarded $40,000." [27]

On August 17, 2022, Australia's highest court ruled that Google was not liable. [28] A joint statement by Chief Justice Susan Kiefel and Justice Jacqueline Gleeson said, “In reality, a hyperlink is merely a tool which enables a person to navigate to another webpage." [29]

Intellectual property

Agence France Presse

In March 2005, Agence France Presse (AFP) sued Google for copyright infringement in federal court in the District of Columbia, a case which Google settled for an undisclosed amount in a pact that included a license of the full text of AFP articles for use on Google News. [30]

Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. is a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case in which Viacom sued alleging that YouTube had engaged in "brazen" and "massive" copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view hundreds of thousands of videos owned by Viacom without permission. [31] A motion for summary judgement seeking dismissal was filed by Google and was granted in 2010 on the grounds that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provisions shielded Google from Viacom's copyright infringement claims. [32] In 2012, on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, it was overturned in part. On April 18, 2013, District Judge Stanton again granted summary judgment in favor of defendant YouTube. [33] An appeal was begun, but the parties settled in March 2014. [34]

Authors Guild, Inc. V. Google, Inc.

Authors Guild v. Google was a copyright case litigated in the United States centering on the allegations by the Authors Guild that Google infringed their copyrights in developing its Google Book Search database. The Google Book Search Settlement Agreement was a proposed settlement agreement between the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers and Google in settlement of Authors Guild v. Google|Authors Guild et al. v. Google, a class action lawsuit alleging copyright infringement. The settlement was initially proposed in 2008, and ultimately rejected by the court in 2011. In late 2013, the presiding U.S. Circuit Judge dismissed Authors Guild et al. v. Google. [35]

Field v. Google, Inc.

Field v. Google, Inc. is a case where Google successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Field argued that Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works when it "cached" his website and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised multiple defenses: fair use, implied license, estoppel, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment and denied Field's motion for summary judgment.

Mian Mian lawsuit

In December 2009, Chinese writer Mian Mian filed a lawsuit against the company, for scanning her entire novel without notifying her or paying her for copyright permission. [36] Google removed Mian's work from its online library shortly after learning of the suit. In January 2013, a Chinese court ordered Google to pay Mian compensation of 5,000 yuan (US$800) for scanning her works without permission. [37]

Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC vs. Google, Inc

In 2016, a Texas jury awarded Bedrock Computer Technologies $5 million in a patent lawsuit against Google. [38] [39] The patent allegedly covered use of hash tables with garbage collection and separate chaining in the Red Hat Linux kernel. Google and Bedrock later settled the case and the judgment was vacated by the court. [40]

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. is a dispute related to Oracle's copyright and patent claims on Google's Android operating system specifically in context of the application programming interfaces (APIs) from the Java implementation that Google had initially used in developing the Android system. The case, originally filed by Oracle in 2010, has had a complex history between two separate hearings and jury trials at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and two subsequent appeals at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In May 2012, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California ruled that APIs are not subject to copyright. Judge Alsup determined that where "there is only one way to declare a given method functionality, [so that] everyone using that function must write that specific line of code in the same way," that coding language cannot be subject to copyright. [41] In May 2013, Oracle appealed Judge Alsup's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and on May 9, 2014, the Federal Circuit reversed Judge Alsup's finding that Java APIs are copyrightable, leaving open the possibility that Google might have a fair use defense. [42] In October 2014, Google filed a petition to ask the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit's decisions and was denied. [43] As the case returned to the district court for Google's fair use defense, in May 2016, a jury unanimously agreed that Google's use of the Java APIs was fair use. [44] Oracle then filed another appeal and in March 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the jury's verdict and reversed the district court's decision again held that Google's use was not a fair use as a matter of law. [45] In 2019, Google filed another petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review both Federal Circuit decisions. The Court heard oral arguments in October 2020 and issued its opinion in April 2021, reversing the Federal Circuit and holding that Google's use of Java APIs was protected by fair use. [46] [47]

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., et al. was a U.S. court case for Google to stop creating and distributing thumbnails of Perfect 10's images in its Google Image Search service, and for it to stop indexing and linking to sites hosting such images. In early 2006, the court granted the request in part and denied it in part, ruling that the thumbnails were likely to be found infringing but the links were not.

Roey Gorodish v. Waze & Google Israel

A class action suit was filed in March 2014 by accountant Roey Gorodish against Google Israel and Waze (acquired by Google), claiming intellectual property violations for the use of open-source FreeMap map and code from the open-source RoadMap software, [48] a project which Ehud Shabtai had contributed for the Windows PocketPC version in 2006. [49] [50] [51] The lawsuit was dismissed twice in Israeli courts, final verdict given by the Israeli supreme on 28 January 2019. [52]

In January 2020, Roey Gorodish and Baruch Krotman, filed a regular lawsuit against the company. [53]

Genericide of "google"

In 2017, David Elliot and Chris Gillespie argued before the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals that "google" had suffered genericide. The controversy began in 2012 when Gillespie acquired 763 domain names containing the word "google". The company promptly filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). Elliot then filed a petition for canceling the Google trademark. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Google because Elliot failed to show a preponderance of evidence showing the genericide of "google". [54]

Discrimination

Google is currently fighting a lawsuit filed by the US labor department claiming gender discrimination. Officials of Google said it was too financially burdensome and logistically challenging to hand over salary records that the government requested in order to investigate. [55] A judge has however ordered Google to hand over salary records to the government in this ongoing investigation by the US Department of Labor. [56]

James Damore et al. v. Google, LLC

In a lawsuit filed January 8, 2018, multiple employees and job applicants alleged Google discriminated against a class defined by their “conservative political views[,] male gender[,] and/or […] Caucasian or Asian race”. [57]

Arne Wilberg v. Google, Inc.

On January 29, 2018, YouTube technical recruiter Arne Wilberg filed a suit accusing Google “of systematically discriminating in favor of job applicants who are Hispanic, African American, or female, and against Caucasian and Asian men.” [58]

Kelly Ellis et al VS. Google, Inc.

On August 14, 2017, three former employees of Google have filed a class action lawsuit against the internet company, alleging a pattern of discrimination against women workers, including systemically lower pay than their male counterparts. [59]

Microtransactions

In-app purchases class action

In 2014 a parent filed a class action lawsuit against Google for "in-app" purchases, which are microtransactions that can be made within applications. [60] This lawsuit followed a class action lawsuit and investigation by the Federal Trade Commission against Apple Inc. over similar complaints. (See Apple Inc. litigation -- In-app purchases class action ). The parent contended that there is a 30-minute window during which authorizations can be made for credit card purchases that are designed to entice children to make such purchases in "free apps", and that Google should have been aware of the issue because of the Apple litigation. [60]

Epic Games v. Google

On August 13, 2020, Epic Games filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google following the removal of the Epic-developed game Fortnite from Google Play, after an update release allowed Epic to directly sell microtransactions, bypassing the 30 percent revenue share with Google. Epic alleges that Google is using the 30 percent revenue share imposed on developers to enforce a monopoly on development for Android. [61] Simultaneously, Epic filed a similar lawsuit against Apple Inc, which had also removed Fortnite from the App Store (iOS) for similar reasons. [62]

In October 2021, Google launched a counter-suit against Epic Games, asserting that Epic was in violation of its Play Store contract terms when it added a new Fortnite version without its payment system. [63]

Match Group v. Google

On May 9, 2022, Match Group sued Google over its strategic manipulation of markets and abuse of power where mandating Match Group to use Google's billing system to remain in the Google Play Store. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, accuses the company of deploying “anticompetitive tactics” to maintain a monopoly on the Android mobile ecosystem. [64]

Antitrust

Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Ors.

A 7-year antitrust probe by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) was launched into Google's Android dominant business in India. [65]

The CCI found that Google had broken EU antitrust rules when it [66] "abused its market dominance as a search engine by promoting its own comparison shopping service in its search results, and demoting those of competitors." [65] The company was ordered to alter its algorithm search ranking websites and fined US$2.7 billion by the European Union. [65]

United States v. Google (2020)

In 2020, the US Department of Justice and a group of 38 state attorneys general sued Google for monopolizing the search engine market in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. They accused the company of acquiring competitors, locking in clients with its platforms, and exploiting or distorting auction mechanisms for ads. [67] It has also been accused of paying billions each year to mobile network operators and smartphone manufacturers to ensure that Google's service remains as the default search engine on their devices. Microsoft testified at the trial saying that even revenue-sharing deals at 100% or more for phone makers were at times turned down by them, preventing Microsoft Bing from scaling and improving the quality of its search results. Google's lawyer questioned whether it was money or quality that has made it difficult for Bing to challenge Google. [68] In August 2024, the Department of Justice ruled that Google violated the Sherman Act. [69]

United States v. Google (2023)

In January 2023, the DOJ filed a lawsuit accusing google of monopolizing the digital advertising industry. The complaint alleged that the company had engaged in "anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct" over the previous 15 years. [70] The trial began on September 9, 2024. [71]

Law enforcement

Gonzales v. Google

On January 18, 2006, the U.S. Justice Department sought to compel Google to turn over one million web addresses from the company's database and one week's worth of search engine queries absent any personal information. [72] Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the request was intended to help fight Internet pornography and counter legal challenges to the Child Online Protection Act. Google maintains that their policy has always been to assure its users' privacy and anonymity and challenged the subpoena on the grounds that its trade secrets would be compromised. On March 18, 2006, a federal judge ruled that while Google must surrender 50,000 random URLs, the Department of Justice did not meet the necessary burden to force Google to disclose any search terms entered by its users in Google. [73]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair use</span> Concept in United States copyright law

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. The U.S. "fair use doctrine" is generally broader than the "fair dealing" rights known in most countries that inherited English Common Law. The fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works. In the U.S., fair use right/exception is based on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

<i>Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.</i> 1994 copyright infringement lawsuit

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435, was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...". In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's. The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's. Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

Rambus Inc. is an American technology company that designs, develops and licenses chip interface technologies and architectures that are used in digital electronics products. The company, founded in 1990, is well known for inventing RDRAM and for its intellectual property-based litigation following the introduction of DDR-SDRAM memory.

Beginning in 2003, The SCO Group was involved in a dispute with various Linux vendors and users. SCO initiated a series of lawsuits, the most known of which were SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell, that had implications upon the futures of both Linux and Unix. SCO claimed that Linux violated some of SCO's intellectual properties. Many industry observers were skeptical of SCO's claims, and they were strongly contested by SCO's opponents in the lawsuits, some of which launched counter-claims. By 2011, the lawsuits fully related to Linux had been lost by SCO or rendered moot and SCO had gone into bankruptcy. However the SCO v. IBM suit continued for another decade, as it included contractual disputes related to both companies' involvement in Project Monterey in addition Linux-related claims. Finally in 2021 a settlement was reached in which IBM paid the bankruptcy trustee representing what remained of SCO the sum of $14.25 million.

Perfect 10 was a monthly men's magazine, and adult website that featured high resolution topless or nude photographs of women who had not had cosmetic surgery. Perfect 10 also promoted and filmed boxing matches between a number of their models, which were called Perfect 10: Model Boxing on the Showtime and HDNet cable channels. The last print edition of the magazine was published in the summer of 2007, after which it switched to a subscription-based website-only presentation.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1-800 Contacts</span> American contact lens retailer

1-800 Contacts Inc. is an American contact lens retailer based in Draper, Utah. The brands that 1-800 Contacts use includes Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Alcon, Bausch & Lomb and CooperVision. The company was founded as the industry's first way to buy contacts online and has since expanded to provide online prescription renewals, glasses, lens replacements, and the in-house AquaSoft Daily contact lenses brand. In 2006, its last year as a public company, the company reported net sales of US$247 million.

Illumina, Inc. is an American biotechnology company, headquartered in San Diego, California. Incorporated on April 1, 1998, Illumina develops, manufactures, and markets integrated systems for the analysis of genetic variation and biological function. The company provides a line of products and services that serves the sequencing, genotyping and gene expression, and proteomics markets, and serves more than 155 countries.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i> Legal case

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.</i> 2007 American legal decision

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a copyright infringement claim against Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc., by the magazine publisher Perfect 10, Inc. The court held that framing and hyperlinking of original images for use in an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, and thus not an infringement of the magazine's copyright ownership of the original images.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an international non-profit advocacy and legal organization based in the United States and serves its operations worldwide.

<i>Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright law case, 2015

Authors Guild v. Google 804 F.3d 202 was a copyright case heard in federal court for the Southern District of New York, and then the Second Circuit Court of Appeals between 2005 and 2015. It concerned fair use in copyright law and the transformation of printed copyrighted books into an online searchable database through scanning and digitization. It centered on the legality of the Google Book Search Library Partner project that had been launched in 2003.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<i>Cambridge University Press v. Patton</i> American copyright case law

Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., 1:2008cv01425, was a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in which three publishers, Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press, initially filed suit in 2008 against Georgia State University for copyright infringement.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

<i>Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.</i> Legal dispute between Atari and Nintendo

Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc., 975 F.2d 832, is a U.S. legal case in which Atari Games engaged in copyright infringement by copying Nintendo's lock-out system, the 10NES. The 10NES was designed to prevent Nintendo's video game console, the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), from playing unauthorized game cartridges. Atari, after unsuccessful attempts to reverse engineer the lock-out system, obtained an unauthorized copy of the source code from the United States Copyright Office and used it to create its 10NES replica, the Rabbit. Atari then sued Nintendo for unfair competition and copyright misuse, and Nintendo responded that Atari had engaged in unfair competition, copyright infringement, and patent infringement.

FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another company, ordinarily a generic drug manufacturer, to stay out of the market, thus avoiding generic competition and a challenge to patent validity. The FTC sought to establish a rule that such agreements were presumptively illegal, but the Court ruled only that the FTC could bring a case under more general antitrust principles permitting a defendant to assert justifications for its actions under the rule of reason.

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc, 573 U.S. 431 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that the service provided by Aereo, which allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices, violated copyright laws.

Open source license litigation involves lawsuits surrounding open-source licensed software. Many of the legal rights of open source software licensors enforceable against users violating licensing agreements are untested by the U.S. legal system. Free and open source software (FOSS) is distributed under a variety of free-software licenses, which are unique among other software licenses. Legal action against open source licenses involves questions about their validity and enforceability.

References

  1. ↑ Hafner, Katie (23 October 2006). "We're Google. So Sue Us". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
  2. ↑ "In House Playbook 2014" (PDF). The American Lawyer. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 20 March 2015.
  3. ↑ "About - Google". about.google. Archived from the original on 9 February 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
  4. ↑ Forden, Sara (17 November 2012). "Google Judge Accepts $22.5 Million FTC Privacy Settlement". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 18 March 2014. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
  5. ↑ Federal Trade Commission-FTC (9 August 2012). "Google Will Pay $22.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges it Misrepresented Privacy Assurances to Users of Apple's Safari Internet Browser". Archived from the original on 18 March 2014. Retrieved 2 March 2014.
  6. ↑ Federal Trade Commission-FTC (20 November 2012). "Statement by FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director David Vladeck Regarding Judges Approval of Google Safari Settlement". Archived from the original on 20 April 2021. Retrieved 2 March 2014.
  7. ↑ "EU court backs 'right to be forgotten' in Google case". BBC News . 13 May 2014. Archived from the original on 25 November 2020. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
  8. ↑ "Press release No 70/14 (Judgment in Case C-131/12)" (PDF). CJEU. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 September 2014. Retrieved 16 March 2015.
  9. ↑ David Streitfeld (13 May 2014). "European Court Lets Users Erase Records on Web". New York Times . Archived from the original on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
  10. ↑ Julia Powles (15 May 2014). "What we can salvage from 'right to be forgotten' ruling". Wired.co.uk. Archived from the original on 16 May 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
  11. ↑ Streib, Lauren. "Harvard Law Student Files Class Action Suit Against Google Over Buzz" Archived 2014-11-17 at the Wayback Machine , Business Insider , 18 February 2010. Retrieved on 08 October 2014.
  12. ↑ "Local class action complaint filed over Google Buzz" Archived 2014-10-23 at the Wayback Machine , "SF Gate", 17 February 2010.
  13. ↑ Heussner, Ki Mae. Archived 2020-08-11 at the Wayback Machine "Google Buzz Draws Class-Action Suit From Harvard Student"], "ABC News", 18 February 2010.
  14. ↑ Gallob, Joel (29 September 2009). "E-mail with bank information was deleted, Google says". Laramie Boomerang . Archived from the original on 25 May 2024. Retrieved 28 April 2011.
  15. ↑ "Case 5:18-cv-05062-EJD - Courthouse News Service" (PDF). Court House News. Retrieved 19 August 2022.
  16. ↑ "AP Exclusive: Google tracks your movements, like it or not". Associated Press. 20 April 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2022.
  17. ↑ "Google Tracking Lawsuit: Location Stored W/O Permission" . Retrieved 19 August 2022.
  18. ↑ Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc. No. 03-cv-05340 JF (RS) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007).
  19. ↑ Garcia v. Google Archived 2014-07-04 at the Wayback Machine , no. 12-57302 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014). Accessed November 3, 2014.
  20. ↑ Chappell, Bill (18 May 2015). "Google Wins Copyright And Speech Case Over 'Innocence Of Muslims' Video". NPR.org. Archived from the original on 19 May 2015. Retrieved 12 June 2020.
  21. ↑ "Controversial 'Innocence of Muslims' Ruling Reversed By Appeals Court". The Hollywood Reporter. 18 May 2015. Archived from the original on 12 June 2020. Retrieved 12 June 2020.
  22. ↑ "Garcia v. Google" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 May 2015. Retrieved 12 June 2020.
  23. 1 2 Limehouse, Jonathan (31 October 2024). "Russian court orders Google to pay $20 decillion for blocking media on YouTube: Reports". USA Today.
  24. ↑ Ziady, Hanna; Chernova, Anna (31 October 2024). "Russia fines Google $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000". CNN.
  25. ↑ "DUFFY v GOOGLE INC [2015] SASC 170 (27 October 2015)". AustLii. 19 August 2019. Retrieved 8 June 2020.
  26. ↑ "Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219". Jade.io. Archived from the original on 8 June 2020. Retrieved 8 June 2020.
  27. ↑ Douglas M., Tharby A., and Border J. (7 May 2020). "Google as publisher of everything defamatory on the internet: Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219". Bennett + Co. Archived from the original on 8 June 2020. Retrieved 8 June 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ↑ "Google wins defamation battle as Australia's high court finds tech giant not a publisher". The Guardian. 17 August 2022. Retrieved 19 August 2022.
  29. ↑ "Australia's top court finds Google not liable for defamation". Reuters. 17 August 2022. Retrieved 19 August 2022.
  30. ↑ Travis, Hannibal (2008). "Opting Out of the Internet in the United States and the European Union: Copyright, Safe Harbors, and International Law". Notre Dame Law Review. 55: 391–92. SSRN   1221642.
  31. ↑ "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages by Viacom against Google". Docket Alarm, Inc. Archived from the original on 20 April 2021. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
  32. ↑ "Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment that Defendant YouTube Qualifies for Protection of 17 U. S. C. § 512 (c) Against all of Plaintiffs' Claims for Direct and Secondary Copyright Infringement". Docket Alarm, Inc. Archived from the original on 20 April 2021. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
  33. ↑ "Granting Defendant YouTube's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; Entering Judgement that Defendants are Protected by the Safe-Harbor Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) from all of Plaintiffs Copyright Infringement Claims". Docket Alarm, Inc. 18 April 2013. Archived from the original on 20 April 2021. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
  34. ↑ "Docket Information for Viacom v. YouTube". Archived from the original on 20 April 2021. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
  35. ↑ Google Wins: Court Issues a Ringing Endorsement of Google Books Archived 2015-02-21 at the Wayback Machine , Publishers weekly, Nov 14, 2013
  36. ↑ "Writer sues Google for copyright infringement". Chinadaily.com.cn. 16 December 2009. Archived from the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 30 October 2012.
  37. ↑ "Google told to pay Chinese writer US$800 for copyright violation" Archived 2014-11-06 at the Wayback Machine , Want China Times (Taiwan), January 20, 2013. Retrieved November 17, 2013.
  38. ↑ Idiotic Anti-Linux & Google Patent Decision Archived May 12, 2012, at the Wayback Machine . ZDNet. Retrieved on May 29, 2011.
  39. ↑ / Media – Google loses Linux patent lawsuit Archived September 15, 2011, at the Wayback Machine . Ft.com (April 23, 2011). Retrieved on May 29, 2011.
  40. ↑ "ORDER granting 829 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC, Google Inc for Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al". Justia Dockets & Filings. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016.
  41. ↑ Samuels, Julie (31 May 2012). "No Copyrights on APIs: Judge Defends Interoperability and Innovation". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 12 November 2020. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
  42. ↑ McSherry, Corynne (9 May 2014). "Dangerous Decision in Oracle v. Google: Federal Circuit Reverses Sensible Lower Court Ruling on APIs". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 5 November 2020. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
  43. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 August 2020. Retrieved 27 October 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  44. ↑ Higgins, Parker (26 May 2016). "EFF Applauds Jury Verdict In Favor of Fair Use in Oracle v. Google". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 21 October 2020. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
  45. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 November 2020. Retrieved 27 October 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  46. ↑ "Docket for 18-956". Supreme Court of the United States. Archived from the original on 5 April 2021. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
  47. ↑ "18-956 Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. 5 April 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 April 2021. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
  48. ↑ "Waze – Copyrights and licenses". Archived from the original on 4 March 2011. Retrieved 29 April 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  49. ↑ "Accountant Sues Waze for Allegedly Stolen Code". tmcnet.com. 31 March 2014. Archived from the original on 2 May 2014. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
  50. ↑ "Waze founder in 2006: Maps belong to the community". Haaretz. 31 March 2014. Archived from the original on 3 May 2014. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
  51. ↑ "$1B exit and you don't cut us in? No Waze Jose!". Geektime.com. 30 March 2014. Archived from the original on 2 May 2014. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
  52. ↑ "Supreme court dismisses suit as baseless". law.co.il. 2 February 2019. Archived from the original on 12 February 2019. Retrieved 2 February 2019.
  53. ↑ גרינצייג, אבישי (29 January 2020). "המפתחים של Waze נגד המייסד: "ניכס לעצמו פרויקט שלא היה שלו"". Globes. Retrieved 17 August 2022.
  54. ↑ "Elliott v. Google, Inc., No. 15-15809 (9th Cir. 2017)". Justia Law. Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 28 November 2017.
  55. ↑ Levin, Sam (26 May 2017). "Accused of underpaying women, Google says it's too expensive to get wage data". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 4 May 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019– via www.theguardian.com.
  56. ↑ Levin, Sam (17 July 2017). "Google told to hand over salary details in gender equality court battle". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019– via www.theguardian.com.
  57. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 July 2018. Retrieved 21 August 2018.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  58. ↑ "18-CIV-00442 - ARNE WILBERG vs. GOOGLE, INC, et al - Recruitment - Discrimination". Scribd. Archived from the original on 3 March 2018. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
  59. ↑ Google Gender Pay Lawsuit
  60. 1 2 Gibbs, Samuel (11 March 2014). "Google facing US lawsuit over $66 of in-app purchases". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 April 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019– via www.theguardian.com.
  61. ↑ Brandom, Russell (13 August 2020). "Epic is suing Google over Fortnite's removal from the Google Play Store". The Verge . Vox Media. Archived from the original on 14 August 2020. Retrieved 14 August 2020.
  62. ↑ Statt, Nick (13 August 2020). "Epic Games is suing Apple". The Verge . Vox Media. Archived from the original on 13 August 2020. Retrieved 14 August 2020.
  63. ↑ Kwan, Campbell (11 October 2021). "Google countersues Epic for allegedly breaching Play Store contract". ZDNet . Retrieved 21 December 2021.
  64. ↑ Hatmaker, Taylor (10 May 2022). "Match Group sues Google over 'monopoly power' in Android app payments". techcrunch.com. Retrieved 12 May 2022.
  65. 1 2 3 Hollister, Sean (27 June 2017). "The Epic v. Google lawsuit finally makes sense". The Verge. Vox Media. Archived from the original on 14 August 2020. Retrieved 21 December 2021.
  66. ↑ Kaira, Aditya. "India antitrust probe finds Google abused Android dominance, report shows". Reuters. Retrieved 21 December 2021.
  67. ↑ "Justice Department Sues Monopolist Google For Violating Antitrust Laws". United States Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs. 20 October 2020.
  68. ↑ Bartz, Diane. "Microsoft executive says Google deals kept Bing small". Reuters.
  69. ↑ Duffy, Clare; Fung, Brian (5 August 2024). "Google has an illegal monopoly on search, judge rules. Here's what's next | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
  70. ↑ "Justice Department Sues Google for Monopolizing Digital Advertising Technologies". U.S. Department of Justice . 24 January 2023. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
  71. ↑ Elias, Jennifer (6 September 2024). "Google's second antitrust trial could help shape the future of online ads". CNBC. Retrieved 18 September 2024.
  72. ↑ "Gonzales: Google suit no invasion of privacy". Orange County Register. 21 January 2006.
  73. ↑ Gonzales v. Google, Inc. Archived April 8, 2016, at the Wayback Machine January 18, 2006.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.