LawTalk Blog

Apple Places New Limits on App Developers

Apple is now placing more limitations on outside programmers with regard to what software can run on the iPhone. The new rules mandate that app developers must use Apple’s programming tools instead of other services. This creates a serious problem for programmers using other systems, like Adobe, that can generate a version of the app for the iPhone as well as other devices. While Apple wants to encourage the development of apps, developers from now on may only do so on the Apple platform.

These changes are putting some app developers on hold as they determine whether compliance with new standards is possible. For some companies the new rules will result in a few minor adjustments but for others, pre-existing agreements with other services will make compliance far more difficult.

The new programming rules are partly the result of a substantial shift in Apple’s main source of revenue. Mobile devices are becoming a more significant source of revenue than desktop computing, and there is far more pressure on app developers as a result.  While some argue that new standards will promote the development of quality apps, others contend that these changes will ultimately stifle creativity.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/technology/companies/13apple.html?hpw

UK Passes Controversial Digital Economy Bill

UK Passes Controversial Digital Economy Bill

The UK’s parliament passed the Digital Economy bill, which allows for ISP throttling and clears the path for the implementation of a so-called “three strikes” antipiracy regime.  A “three strikes” system, also known as “graduated response,” requires ISPs to send cease and desist letters to its users who violate copyright law through file sharing, and eventually disconnect the service of repeat offenders.  A similar law passed in France last year has been shown to be an ineffective antipiracy measure.  In France, file sharers have simply migrated to other services which better mask their activities. 

UK Bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/technology/09piracy.html?ref=technology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8569750.stm

re French Law’s ineffectiveness:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8592444.stm 

Comcast Victory Against FCC Deals Setback to Net Neutrality

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) decision to sanction Comcast for slowing the Internet service of certain users.  Comcast’s practice, known as “throttling,” targets users of peer-to-peer file sharing programs that occupy immense amounts of Comcast’s bandwidth.  The Court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority from Congress to impose the sanction under Title I of the Communications Act, which allows the FCC to regulate “information” services.  Comcast’s victory appears to be a blow to the FCC’s promotion of Net Neutrality, which requires Internet services to be content neutral.  The FCC’s lack of authority to regulate Internet service providers (ISPs) seemingly clears the way for ISPs to begin charging for certain content, much as a cable television provider would.  However, it is expected that the FCC will seek to reclassify ISPs as “telecommunications” providers under Title II of the Communications Act, which, if successful, would grant the FCC the authority to regulate ISPs. 

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201004/08-1291-1238302.pdf  (decision)
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/04/comcast-1-fcc-0-what-to-look-for-in-the-inevitable-rematch.ars

Google Avoids Liability within EU for Keyword Advertising Program

GOn Tuesday, March 23, 2010, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the European Union’s top judicial body, issued its long-awaited opinion on whether Google’s Adwords program infringes trademark owners’ rights.  Through its Adwords program, Google sells keyword phrases, often consisting of trademarks, to advertisers, who are sometimes competitors of the trademark owners.  When a user searches for the phrase via Google’s search engine, an advertisement for the competitor will appear on the search results page. 

 In the instant case, Google sold the keyword phrase consisting of the trademark “Louis Vuitton” to a counterfeiter of trademark owner Louis Vuitton’s goods.  In its opinion, the ECJ found that Google’s Adwords program did not constitute an actionable “use” of the Plaintiff Louis Vuitton’s trademark, thus relieving Google of liability.  Facially, the decision appears to be a major victory for Google.  However, the ECJ made clear that liability could attach to advertisers who purchase competitors’ trademarks as keywords.  As such, even where Google will have a legitimate defense going forward, its advertisers will not, which could have a chilling effect on Google’s Adwords business. 

 Stanford Law School

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

 Decision

Hulu Will Create an Application for Apple’s iPad

Hulu, the free online video website, has plans to create an application for Apple’s iPad. While Hulu has been successful in bringing online TV to a mainstream audience, there has been increasing pressure from the companies that supply its content. Aiming to earn more in advertising, such companies are in favor of setting up a subscription service where customers would be required to pay a monthly fee to access some of the website’s content. Hulu has resisted implementing a subscription service in the past, but some say Hulu is now open to the possibility as the industry continues to change.

Some believe a subscription service might be put into practice with the Hulu iPad application. More than ever, consumers want Hulu access from other platforms including mobile devices and HDTVs that connect to the internet, but media companies have been resisting moving Hulu content to other platforms out of concern for low advertising revenue, even as use of the site has grown.

Finding a business model that would allow Hulu to move its content to other platforms and also increase revenue has been a challenge, and because of pressure from content suppliers, consumers might see a Hulu subscription service in the future.

 Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/technology/01hulu.html?ref=technology