Court Archives - Page 3 of 5 - JusticeHub Innovation Lab

Volkswagon lawsuits likely to be consolidated

September 30, 2015 Astrid Countee Leave a comment Business, Court, Economy, Ethics, Legal News

Volkswagon has been in the news lately because of a scandal involving software used to trick emissions tests on diesel vehicles. The software was rigged to allow their diesel vehicles to pass their emissions test even though the emissions from the vehicles are well above the standard. Immediately following the news, the US has issued a recall for the vehicles, as well as a federal probe to find out what the company knew and when. In the meantime, lawsuits are being filed all around the country.

Robert Clifford, a prominent plantiff lawyer, expects a consolidation of lawsuits in the near future. Clifford has held a number of leadership roles in the American Bar Association and filed a suit against Volkswagen. “No doubt about it, there will be an MDL [multi-district litigation] here,” said Clifford. An overview done by the Wall Street Journal further confirms that laywers are looking to consolidate the lawsuits against Volkswagon.

Amie Parsons, a real estate agent in Dallas, recently filed lawsuit against Volkswagon. Parsons states that Volkswagon’s dishonesty seriously affects her bottom line as a real estate agent. Her attorney, Charles “Trey” Branham, spoke to a newspaper on her behalf. He stated that his client drives people around everyday for her profession, and [the Volkswagon scandal] causes her a big problem. Branham goes on to say “…it is something that affects real people on a daily basis, and it is a problem for them, not to mention the problem of putting 40 times the legal limit of pollution into the air.”

Article via ABAJournal, 29 September 2015

Photo: VW Kombi via Long Road Photography [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Creative tech improves accessibility to court services

September 29, 2015 Shelby Bice Leave a comment Court, Human Rights, Tech

For parts of northwest Mohave County, Arizona, accessibility to court services used to be a problem. Surrounded by the Grand Canyon, the Colorado River, and the Virgin River Gorge, the closest court building is more than an hour away. This presents a problem for many of the locals. Mohave County has a high poverty rate and many low- and fixed-income residents, many of which have difficulty obtaining transportation. Thankfully, the IT staff of the Mohave County Superior Court under the direction of the court technology systems manager, Kyle Rimel, have been able to find a unique solution. By setting up the North Country Kiosk at a much closer DMV location, residents of Mohave County can now use video chat to obtain multiple court services. The presiding judge of the Mohave County Superior court, Charles W. Gurtler, says that, “The kiosk has been an absolute godsend as far as those people are concerned.” Among its features are the ability to access any courtroom in the county, pay fines, acquire forms, and even make filings or court appearances.

This isn’t the only way that Rimel and his staff are using technology to increase accessibility. Courthouse posters now include scannable bar codes so visitors can learn about jury and divorce information or receive directions. Additionally, an Internet chat line that provides access to court employees has been implemented, and the IT staff has outfitted nineteen courtrooms with audio-video equipment, allowing for different ways of presenting cases. Even though the Mohave Superior Court was woefully under-utilizing technology when Rimel first started working in 2003, he states that now, “our goal is to be one of the most technologically advanced courts in Arizona.”

For others looking to use technology to expand their court’s services, Rimel advises finding sponsors and realizing that courts may have to approach IT solutions differently than other entities. But the results are worth it: Gurtler has high praise for Rimel, calling him the “rock star of the IT world.”

Article via ABA Journal, September 16, 2015

Photo: Student pair video chatting with an ELL via Penn State [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

AT&T sales reps accused of using malware to unlock phones

September 25, 2015 Astrid Countee Leave a comment Business, Court, Criminal Law, Legal News

A southern California company and former AT&T sales reps are being sued by AT&T Mobility. They are accused of uploading malicious software to unlock phones so that the phones can be used by any wireless network without a contract. It is likely that the sales reps were hoping to exploit the resale market for cell phones.

Lawyers for AT&T Mobility stated that schemes like this are not uncommon. The lawsuit names SwiftUnlocks, as the southern California company referenced above. This is a company that unlocks cell phones for a fee. The lawsuit goes on to describe a scheme that involves the former sales reps profiting from using SwiftUnlocks to unlock phones in milliseconds. It was precisely the act of unlocking many phones so quickly, that drew attention to these sales reps, eventually promoting an investigation.

It is alleged that the former reps earned between $10,000 and $20,000 from Swift Unlocks before tipping off their bosses with their questionable behavior.

Although the suit does not mention criminal fraud, it could still prove expensive for Swift Unlocks and the former sales reps. It is expected that the damages would include lost profit as well as factoring in the revenue that the sales reps made during their alleged scheme.

Article via CNET, 19 September 2015

Photo: This trip to the at&t store is taking longer than I expected via Keith Lam [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Uber appeals class action status ruling

September 18, 2015 Astrid Countee Leave a comment Business, Court, Legal News, Tech

On Tuesday, Uber requested an appeal to a ruling made earlier this year that determined Uber drivers are employees and not independent contractors. The company has claimed that it is merely an app and not an employer of the nearly 160,000 drivers that are affliated with Uber in the US.

In an effort to defend itself again a class-action suit, uber filed a motion shortly after the ruling which opposes any class action driver suit. The company claims that the few drivers who believe that the Uber should reimburse them for expenses and tips do not represent the majority of drivers who are happy with the relationship that they have with the tech company.

But on September 1, US District Judge Edward Chen approved a class action status for that lawsuit. Uber is currently appealing this ruling in the hopes that the appeal court with reverse the judges order. In a 22 page request for appeal, Uber attorney Ted Boutrous wrote,”The potential ramifications of this closely-watched class-certification order are difficult to overstate.”

Uber has been battling this case since 2013 in an effort to get it thrown out. If the court upholds the Judge’s decision it would mean big changes for Uber. Not only would it have to start paying for expenses, such as vehicle upkeep, but it would also have to pay other costs such as social security, health care, paid time off and overtime.

Article via CNET, 15 September 2015

Photo: Taxi Driver/Santiago, Chile via Hotch Chang[Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Should APIs be copyrightable?

Due to confusion about the definition of an application programming interface, or API for short, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that they are are subject to copyright. The confusion surrounds the distinction between software and APIs. While the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, also known as the CAFC, appears to have made the ruling based on the idea that software and APIs are the same, it is clear that there are many differences between the two. According to Pam Samuelson, a highly respected authority on copyright law, “The design of many program structures, including APIs, is inherently functional and aimed at achieving technical goals of efficiency.” Basically, saying an API is the same as software is akin to thinking “a dictionary is the same as a novel that uses those words”, as explained in an article by Techdirt concerning the CAFC’s ruling. Therefore, APIs aren’t copyrightable just because software is.

If APIs are more similar to “processes, procedures, systems, and methods” than software as Samuelson says in her paper “Three Fundamental Flaws in CAFC’s Oracle v. Google Decision”, does the CAFC ruling make sense? In accordance with section 102 of the Copyright Act, which states, “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system…regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work”, APIs should not be copyrightable. However, due to more confusion concerning the purpose and function of APIs, the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case. Therefore, as of now, the ruling made by the CAFC will remain in place.

Article via Techdirt, August 18, 2015

Photo: Free Stock: Copyright sign 3D render via MusesTouch – digiArt & design [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Tech companies settle antipoaching lawsuit

September 9, 2015 Shelby Bice Leave a comment Business, Collaborative Economy, Court, Justice

Antipoaching, the act of refusing to hire employees from a rival company, may not seem like the best business strategy for large tech companies like Google or Apple who are always capitalizing on the “next big thing”. However, a civil law suit was filed against several companies including Google, Apple, Adobe, and Intel for antipoaching and is now recently being settled for $415 million after movie studios Pixar and Lucasfilm and financial software company Intuit settled previously. The companies involved in the lawsuit were accused of agreeing to not hire certain employees from each other which allowed each company to retain employees they would rather not lose. While antipoaching does sometimes serve the best interests of the company as a whole, some employees looking to earn a higher salary or explore other opportunities outside their place of work feel that the antipoaching agreement hindered their abilities to move up in their fields. Earlier versions of the lawsuit also included allegations that the antipoaching agreement allowed companies to artificially keep salaries low.

Even though all of the companies involved in the lawsuit chose to settle, many of the companies continued to state that they believed they had done nothing wrong. A statement released to CNET from Adobe by one of their spokespeople explained that, “Adobe firmly believes that our recruiting policies have in no way diminished competition for talent in the marketplace…Nevertheless, we elected to settle this matter in order to avoid the uncertainties, cost, and distraction of litigation.” A similar statement was released by Intel back in January when the settlement was originally proposed.

Article via CNET, September 3, 2015

Photo: Google Headquarters – Mt View via Servizi Multimediali [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]