We've added the following to items posted previously at http://profnet.prnewswire.com/organik/orbital/thewire/lst_leads.jsp?iLRTopicID=2332
**21. EDWARD NAUGHTON, partner at HOLLAND & KNIGHT: "The Supreme Court avoided revisiting the Sony Betamax decision. It focused on the evidence that Grokster and StreamCast deliberately encouraged infringement -- by marketing to and targeting former Napster users, by not attempting to block users' infringement and by building a business based on advertising, which the court viewed as proof that the primary goal of the software was to download free music. Because of this evidence, the court ruled that the record labels should be allowed to present their case to a jury."
**22. ALFRED (FRED) C. FRAWLEY, III, partner at PRETI FLAHERTY: "Whether you download music, share movie files by e-mail, or not, the landmark MGM v. Grokster case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that distributors of file- sharing software can be held responsible for copyright infringements committed by those who use their programs, will have significant repercussions across industry as it relates to key copyright rules." Frawley can help you wade through the tidal wave of issues concerning copyright infringement and other points of law that will be affected. A partner of the firm's intellectual-property practice group, he is one of the nation's most experienced attorneys in intellectual property, antitrust, trade regulation and employment law, and has managed global trademark portfolios and represented clients in a range of Federal Communications Commission issues.
**23. SHUBHA GHOSH, professor of law at the UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO: "The Supreme Court's decision in MGM v. Grokster offers both good news and bad news for copyright law and followers of new technologies, like P2P. The good news is that the decision did not suggest that Grokster and Streamcast are clearly liable for copyright infringement. Instead, the court concluded that a trial was necessary to determine the services' liability. The bad news is the Supreme Court basically created another way for the creator of new technology to be liable for copyright infringement. If the creator intended to induce copyright infringement, then the creator can also be found liable."
**24. JAY L. COOPER, L.A., entertainment practice chair at GREENBERG TRAURIG, a signatory to one of the briefs on behalf of the movie studios and former president of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences: "File- sharing companies that actively encourage illegal downloading had to be held accountable for their customers' unlawful activities if the film industry was to avoid the same dramatic sales and job losses that have plagued the music industry. Without this decision, the motion picture industry would be in the same perilous place the music industry was in 1999 when Napster hit the scene."
**25. MICHAEL GRAIF, counsel at CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP: "This decision shows that the court is willing to look to substance over form. Although the Grokster service was technically capable of being used in a substantially non-infringing way, the fact is the Grokster service was being used substantially to infringe copyrights, with full encouragement of Grokster. 'Sony' is still good law. As long as a device is capable of non-infringing use, the manufacturer will not be liable unless the manufacturer takes active steps to encourage others to use the device in an infringing manner."
**26. WALTER HANCHUK, partner at CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP: "A unanimous Supreme Court handed down an overwhelming victory for copyright owners. The court was clearly moved by the enormity and pervasiveness of ongoing infringement, thereby dismissing Grokster's attempts to convince the court that there were substantial non-infringing uses of its service. Grokster's attempts to solicit former Napster users, as well as Grokster's full knowledge that its service was being actively used to infringe rights of copyright owners, led to the court's decision in this matter. The court's decision could provide a significant boost to legitimate music downloading services, such as Apple's iTunes."
**27. GREGORY G. KERBER, is CEO of WURLD MEDIA, whose Peer Impact (TM) is the first legal P2P compensating both rights holders and network users: "The Grokster ruling is terrific news for those who want to harness the Web's potential while protecting artistic rights -- and terrific news for consumers. Secure in their rights, artists and copyright holders will feel more comfortable making their content available. And spurred by the decision, business models will begin to develop that offer access to high- quality, easily accessible legitimate content that is free of viruses and other unexpected dangers."
**28. TIM HEADLEY, intellectual property partner at GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL in Houston: "The Supreme Court's ruling in Grokster may have a temporary chilling effect on some technology companies, but the real effect will be positive on retailers and the entertainment industry." Headley's intellectual property practice includes litigation of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret disputes; patent prosecution; management of worldwide trademark programs; and software licensing. Headley is a speaker and author on intellectual-property issues affecting large and small businesses.
**29. POLK WAGNER, professor of law at the UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: "The recording industry just doesn't have the resources to sue the number of people necessary to make a dent in piracy. Instead, they need to change their general business practices and approach, including embracing various forms of online music." Wagner teaches courses about copyright, patent and trademark law. He has written and lectured about copyright issues involving online song swapping, digital television, DVDs and the Internet.
**30. KATIE DEAN, digital entertainment beat reporter at WIRED NEWS, covers digital music and media services, copyright law, digital rights management, and the clashes between the entertainment industry and consumers over file sharing. Thus, Dean can speak to the ruling and what it may mean for the future of digital content delivery, amid the increasing use of portable devices capable of playing audio and video files.
**31. VANESSA PIERCE, assistant professor of law at AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF LAW, is available to comment on the decision in MGM v. Grokster. Pierce is a copyright law expert and currently teaches courses on copyright law, intellectual property, trademark law and patent law. She is also a member of the California and Utah bars and is licensed to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Pierce gained front-line experience on intellectual property matters at two law firms in Salt Lake City, Workman, Nydegger & Seeley and Parsons Behle & Latimer, and at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner in Palo Alto, Calif.
**32. MARK MCKENNA, J.D., professor of law at SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, came to the university in 2003 after several years of experience litigating trademark and copyright infringement cases at Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson in Chicago. About half the cases he litigated were related to the Internet and other computer technology. He also drafted and negotiated intellectual property and software licenses and counseled clients on worldwide intellectual-property issues. McKenna also is one of the nation's leading experts on intellectual-property issues.
**33. SUSAN BRENNER, NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and Technology at the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, is a renowned cybercrime scholar, speaks internationally and writes extensively on cybercrime. Her Web site, Cybercrimes.net, was featured on "NBC Nightly News." She is a member of the American Bar Association's International Cybercrime Project and has served on the National District Attorneys Association's Committee on Cybercrimes. She is also a member of the U.S. Department of Justice's National Forensic Science Technology Center Digital Evidence Project.
**34. IAN BALLON, partner and co-chair of the intellectual property and Internet practice at MANATT, PHELPS AND PHILLIPS, will be co-chair with the Honorable Marybeth Peters, registrar of copyrights for the U.S. Copyright Office, of the upcoming conference "Copyright After Grokster v. MGM: Understanding the Supreme Court's Decision and its Impact on Law and Business." Ballon is also the author of the three-volume legal treatise, "E- Commerce and Internet Law: Treatise With Forms," and serves as executive director of Stanford University Law School's Center for E-Commerce.
**35. DARREN CAHR, partner at GARDNER CARTON & DOUGLAS, counsels clients on matters ranging from trademark, patent, and copyright disputes to advertising substantiation and promotion law, and has developed a concentration in the rapidly developing area of online anti-competitive practices. He represents clients in domain name disputes, government regulation of promotion practices on the Internet, false advertising and intellectual- property theft over the Internet. Cahr is a frequent speaker on law and technology, especially on Internet file-sharing services and the impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision.
**36. DOTTI BOLLINGER, attorney with FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, is available for comment on the MGM v. Grokster case. She can explain how a ruling in this case will have implications on the relationship between technology and copyrights. Bollinger's practice focuses on Internet, computer and information technology law in both the private and public sectors. In her practice, she represents clients in matters related to Internet access, security, privacy, censorship, electronic evidence, electronic discovery, criminal, electronic business, Web site development, communications liability, technology and intellectual property issues.
**37. MARK RADCLIFFE, co-chair of international law firm DLA PIPER's technology and sourcing practice group, is a highly accomplished attorney who currently serves as general counsel to the Open Source Initiative. He has excellent perspective on the impact of file-swapping litigation on issues ranging from the availability of VC funding, the design of consumer electronics, First Amendment rights and the changing tide of copyright law precedent. Radcliffe is best known as being one of the first to develop legal policy surrounding domain name registry 1994, when a series of legal disputes surrounding cybersquatting issues initially arose.
**38. DOUGLAS TWEEN of COUDERT BROTHERS LLP is a member of the firm's global antitrust and global litigation practice groups, and resides in the New York office. Tween's primary practice focuses on the defense of white-collar criminal and regulatory investigations, as well as complex civil litigation and class action defense. He represents corporations and individuals in antitrust, fraud, tax, securities, money laundering, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related matters. He also conducts internal investigations, and assists corporations in establishing and monitoring compliance programs.
**39. BRAD WRIGHT, intellectual property attorney from BANNER & WITCOFF LTD., specializes in copyright matters in the electrical and computer industries, and is available to speak about the future of file sharing. Wright has been closely following the Grokster case, and he can address how it will impact intellectual property rights for other e-commerce and technology businesses, such as eBay or cell-phone manufacturers, for instance. Wright will also tell you what technology companies must look out for to avoid being held liable for copyright infringement, and how this case will change those legal steps for protection.
**40. LISA A. DOLAK, associate professor of law at SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, is available to comment on file-sharing lawsuits and teaches courses on patent and trade secrets, patent prosecution, Internet law, technology transfer, civil procedure and federal courts. She has written on ethics issues for intellectual property practitioners, declaratory judgment jurisdiction in patent cases, the use of electronic records to prove invention dates and the inequitable conduct defense.
**41. JEFF ISAAC, Esq. (AKA "The Lawyer in Blue Jeans" ), is a veteran attorney with over 26 years under his proverbial belt. Isaac offers down-to- earth expert perspective on both personal legal issues as well as those current events in law that affect society on a day-to-day basis. Isaac's distinctive style of "Blue Jeans Law" is highly relatable and comforting to a public that is known to harbor negative misperceptions about attorneys-at- large.
**42. TRIS FALL, attorney with FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP specializing in intellectual property, computer law, cyberlaw and internet-related matters, is available for comment on the MGM v. Grokster case. He can discuss the issues of the case and how a ruling in this case will have implications across the United States on the relationship between technology and copyrights.
**43. ALAN GRIMALDI, co-chair of HOWREY LLP's intellectual- property practice group, is an intellectual-property expert who can discuss interplay between copyright law and historical patent law issues as defined by the Supreme Court.
RSS