Intellectual Property

MongoDB, the developer of a popular document-oriented distributed database server by the same name, has updated the open source license that applies to versions of its software published after October 16, 2018.

Previously, the MongoDB software was licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License v.3 (“AGPLv3”), which is a “strong copyleft” license. Strong copyleft licenses, among other things, require that the source code for the licensed software (including any modifications) be made available to the public, typically when the software is distributed to third parties. AGPLv3 goes further than other strong copyleft licenses in that the obligation to make source code available is triggered not only when the software is distributed, but also when it is accessed over a computer network, such as the Internet.

In an apparent response to attempts by users of MongoDB to architect their services so as to avoid the obligation to make their source code modifications available under AGPLv3, MongoDB has created a modified version of AGPLv3 (see here for a redline comparison) with broader disclosure and licensing obligations. The new license is called the Server Side Public License v.1 (“SSPLv1”).Continue Reading Understanding MongoDB’s New Copyleft Open Source License

City leaders across the globe are predicted to spend upwards of $41 trillion by 2020 to deploy smart city technologies within their locales. From Toronto to Tokyo, cities are vying to harness the benefits of the Internet of Things (“IOT”) in order to help make their streets safer, transportation more efficient, and their environments greener. While exciting, there are a number of challenges facing cities on their quest to get smart. Resources are scarce, building the required infrastructure is expensive and obtaining the necessary consensus and cooperation amongst municipal stakeholders can be downright impossible. For vendors looking to capitalize on this momentum, learning from successful smart city projects and planning around the common conflicts that tend to arise is crucial. Below are a number of best practices gleaned from the strategies and progress of a number of cities who have found success in implementing smart city solutions.
Continue Reading Covington IoT Update: Best Practices for Outsmarting Common Pitfalls in Smart City Projects

In 2017, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), China’s telecom regulator and industrial policy maker, issued the Circular on Comprehensively Advancing the Construction and Development of Mobile Internet of Things (NB-IoT) (MIIT Circular [2017] No. 351, the “Circular”), which sets out the policy goals and plans for NB-IoT development in China and concrete steps in achieving them. NB-IoT is a form of Low-Power WAN (LPWAN) technology dependent on basic telecom carriers’ cellular networks using licensed frequencies.

Highlighting the advantages of mobile IoT (NB-IoT), namely, wide coverage, large amount of connections and low power consumption, the Circular stresses the importance of stepping up the construction of NB-IoT infrastructure, development of related applications, advancing the deployment of NB-IoT networks, and general promotion of innovation in this area in China.
Continue Reading Covington Internet of Things Update: China’s regulatory environment steps up for Low-Power WAN IoT deployment

By Alain Strowel, Michael Clancy and Hee-Eun Kim

On January 23, 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on the legality of anti-circumvention measures or DRMs for video games (Case C-355/12 Nintendo v. PC Box).[1]  Here are the links to the full text of the judgment and the non-binding…
Continue Reading The CJEU’s Nintendo v. PC Box: ‘Proportionate’ DRMs?

On 29 October 2013, the Republic of Ireland’s Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (DJEI) published a report containing proposed amendments to its copyright laws, named “Modernising Copyright” (“the Report”).  Taking account of submissions received during a public consultation that ran between February and May 2012, the DJEI’s Copyright Review Committee (CRC) uses the Report to recommend a series of amendments to the Irish Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (CRRA).

Some of the Report’s key findings and recommendations are outlined below.Continue Reading Ireland Proposes Amendments to Copyright Law

On 3 October 2013, in the case of Peter Pinckney vs. KDG Mediatech AG, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that, with certain qualifications, when a copyrighted work is reproduced in one Member State, and offered for sale online by companies established in another, the author of the work can bring an action for copyright infringement in the courts of their own home Member State if infringing copies are accessible from that State – even if that State is not among the States where the work was reproduced and/or made available online.
Continue Reading European Court Issues Ruling on Jurisdiction in Cross-EU Copyright Infringement Case

This post highlights material recent developments in Europe concerning standard essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licensing, including Samsung’s commitments proposed in the context of the ongoing antitrust probe of the European Commission (see our previous post).

Samsung’s Commitments Proposal  

In its commitments proposal, Samsung offered not to seek injunctions based on its patents essential…
Continue Reading Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing: An Update from Europe

The Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) has now ruled on the Pinckney case, dealing with national courts’ competence to hear online copyright infringement cases in the EU.  See our post on the Opinion of Advocate General (“AG”) Niilo Jääskinen of 13 June 2013 here.

In his Opinion, AG Jääskinen took the view…
Continue Reading EU’s Highest Court Rules on the Situs of Damage of Online Copyright Infringements (Pinckney)

A federal court last week ruled that copyright owners can only sue multiple peer-to-peer users if all of the defendants participated in the same infringement scheme.

In recent years, copyright owners have sued people who have shared their movies, songs, and other content via peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent. The copyright owners use proprietary software to obtain the IP addresses of BitTorrent users who are downloading and sharing the copyright holders’ content. Rather than filing individual lawsuits against each user, the copyright owners often name dozens of alleged John Doe infringers in the same complaint. After filing the complaint, the copyright owners typically issue subpoenas to the customers’ Internet service providers to determine the identities of the John Doe defendants.

Although courts have generally approved the subpoenas for the identities of John Doe defendants in copyright infringement cases, plaintiffs are encountering a new obstacle, as illustrated in the September 27 opinion by Judge John Z. Lee, a district judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Continue Reading Copyright Suits Against Anonymous Defendants Must Involve Common ‘Swarm’

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Tuesday in the so-called “Aereokiller” litigation.  The case tests whether services that allow subscribers to stream broadcast television on their computers and mobile devices infringe the exclusive right of copyright owners to publicly perform their copyrighted works.  Specifically, the Ninth Circuit will decide whether to uphold a December 2012 district court decision granting a preliminary injunction sought by NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, and others to stop FilmOn X LLC (formerly known as Aereokiller) from re-transmitting broadcast television to its subscribers without a license.

The key legal issue in the case is whether FilmOn’s re-transmission of broadcast TV programming constitutes a public performance or a private one.  Copyright owners have the exclusive right to publicly perform their copyrighted works, but cannot stop the private performance of their works.  At oral argument, counsel for FilmOn argued that the company provides only private performances, as it re-transmits broadcast TV programming to each of its subscribers via individual antennas and DVRs.  As one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit panel observed, FilmOn appears to have chosen the individualized antenna and DVR system for the specific purpose of attempting to circumvent the prohibition on publicly performing copyrighted works without a license.Continue Reading Oral Arguments Tee Up Widely Anticipated 9th Circuit Decision in “Aereokiller” Case