Losing access to a deceased loved one’s email address can be devastating for spouses left behind to pay bills online for accounts they do not know the information to. There are also heartbreaking cases like a deceased soldier’s family in 2004 being denied access to their son’s account, which contained photos and other conversations they wanted to remember their son by.

With the increasing prevalence of cloud computing and Google’s other services, friends and family could also lose access to important digital files and documents stored on their deceased loved one’s Google drive. Google is often a driving force for industry standards, and it seems likely that many other email and storage service providers would want to provide a similar service in the future.

This announcement follows last year’s high-profile failed attempt to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which failed after a concerted push against it from tech giants and internet privacy advocates. Goodlatte was a sponsor of that legislation.

Goodlatte did not mention any specifics, but the issues most likely to be reviewed in the coming months include online piracy, music copyright law, and procedures for dealing with orphan works. Proposed policies for dealing with copyright and intellectual property in the digital age have so far alarmed many privacy advocates because of the mechanisms they propose to enforce the law.

This sweeping review may allow Goodlatte and his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to draft new compromise legislation that satisfies both internet privacy advocates and industry lobbies with a vested interest in digital copyright protection, like the RIAA and MPAA. Satisfying both parties will likely be extremely difficult, but taking the steps to research the issues and hear from all parties beforehand will allow the committee to draft more informed legislation that has a better chance of passing.

This move should simplify trademark procedures not just for Indian businesses, but also for the plethora of international companies that have significant holdings in the country. Under the current 1999 Trade Mark Act, someone wishing to protect their trademark in India has to go through a complicated process involving multiple applications to receive trademark protection domestically and internationally. With the adoption of the Madrid Protocol, set to go into effect on 08/07/2013, India will join the growing number of developed and developing countries that recognize the importance of consistent and simplified intellectual property procedures.

While this is no doubt an important step for India’s rapidly expanding business community, there are hopes that it is but a preview of things to come. According to the US patent office, “The protocol is a filing treaty and not a substantive harmonization treaty.” In other words, it will make things easier, but it does not mean that a huge trade barrier is coming down. This is definitely a step in the right direction, however, and India will likely be continuing to work toward further synchronization with the international business community.

Redigi argued that its software prevents the users selling their material from retaining a copy for themselves, which would cover them under the first-sale doctrine. The company further argued that because money earned from selling “used” digital music files can only be spent on new music from existing digital music retailers, that it would actually encourage more customers to purchase new music, benefiting the existing players in the digital music marketplace. Capitol Records and U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan did not agree with this assessment.

Since the lawsuit’s inception ReDigi has updated its software several times, but only version 1.0 was considered in the suit, so the case is not necessarily a death knell for the nascent music reseller. However, many argue that this will have a large impact on future technology start-ups, and that this ruling solidifies a marketplace reality that digital music and books may not generally be resold, unlike their physical counterparts.

Capitol Records and Redigi will file a joint letter by April 12 detailing the next steps in the case, and anyone interested in the law surrounding ownership of digital goods would do well to pay close attention to this story.

In the Facebook post in question, Mr. Hastings revealed (on his personal Facebook page) that Netflix had exceeded one billion hours of streaming-content in one month for the first time ever. This announcement lead to a jump in the companies share value leading some investors to question whether or not disclosing this type of message on Facebook violated SEC rules prohibiting companies from selectively disclosing information. In the official report filed by the SEC on April 2, 2013, the agency stated, “An increasing number of public companies are using social media to communicate with their shareholders and the investing public. We appreciate the value and prevalence of social media channels in contemporary market communications and the Commission supports companies seeking new ways to communicate and engage with shareholders and the market.” The fair-disclosure rule cited in the SEC report requires that companies disclose information in a way that provides everyone an equal advantage to its content. The ruling contended that a company Facebook page or Twitter page could be an appropriate portal for important announcements but questioned whether or not this would apply to personal social media pages and accounts such as Mr. Hastings.

While many companies currently use social media in one form or another, it is less common to find companies that use it to communicate important business and financial information. Will investors be forced to start “following” or “liking” the companies in which they hold a financial stake in order to maintain a competitive advantage?

Google’s stated reason for making this pledge is that Google “is committed to promoting innovation to further the overall growth and advancement of information technology and believes that Free or Open Source Software is a very important tool for fostering innovation.” Google has good reason for encouraging open source development, not just for good press, but also because Mountain View has profited greatly from the open-source operating system Linux. Google’s wildly popular mobile OS, Android, which overtook Apple’s iOS not long ago, is built upon the Linux platform.

If this pledge catches on, Google has plans to expand it, along with hopes that it will be adopted as an industry standard. This sort of independent action to reform patent law is quite interesting and could potentially have a large effect on the intellectual property landscape in the US, given the seeming lack of impetus for change among America’s legislative bodies.

In this case, plaintiff Greg Knowles alleged that Standard Fire, a homeowner’s insurance company, failed to pay out general contractor fees when making loss payments. Mr. Knowles hoped to certify a class action suit with possibly thousands of other policyholders but indicated in an affidavit to the court that the class would not seek damages in excess of the $5 million threshold. Standard Fire attempted to bring the case to the federal district court, but the court sent the case back to state court citing the affidavit filed by the plaintiff. When this issue was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, the judges ruled unanimously that plaintiffs cannot bind members of a proposed class prior to the class being certified. The Supreme Court opinion further cites to Knowles as an “inadequate representative due to the artificial cap he purports to impose on the class’ recovery.”

This ruling is especially interesting seeing as federal courts are considered to be more “business-friendly” than state courts so it is oftentimes advantageous to big businesses to take part in larger class action suits. The attorney who represents Standard Fire stated, “[t]he Court’s unanimous decision in Standard Fire enforces the clear terms of the Class Action Fairness Act to ensure that class-action plaintiffs cannot manipulate the system by slicing and dicing claims in order to defeat federal jurisdiction, and it will prevent the state-court class-action abuses that Congress intended to prohibit. We are very pleased with the decision.” It will be interesting to see in the future if individuals filing a class action suit seek to maintain a smaller class in order to remain under state court jurisdiction.

In his opinion for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that publishers and manufacturers lose U.S. copyright protections after a work is lawfully sold abroad.

“We hold that the ‘first sale’ doctrine applies to copies of a copyright worked lawfully made abroad,” he said.

A ruling the other way would have greatly complicated matters for many online and discount stores across the United States, as well as creating a legal headache. Retailers testified to the court that more than $2.3 trillion worth of goods were imported in 2011, and significant portion of those goods had been purchased abroad previously.

The ruling in favor of Kirtsaeng may create a disincentive for publishing and other industries to sell goods abroad at lower prices than in the United States, creating a barrier to access for people in many foreign countries. Justices Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito wrote in a separate opinion that Congress can change the law if it believes copyright holders require greater protection.

These changes came about as a result of the 2011 America Invents Act and are designed to streamline the US patent system with the hope that it will reduce the ever-increasing stream of patent litigation. The majority of the world has used a first-to-file system for some time, so these changes also bring America’s patent system into alignment with the global community.

There is a great deal of speculation surrounding the potential effects of these changes, but a common belief is that patents will become easier to challenge and invalidate. There are several reasons for this, one of which is that the definition of prior art is broadening. It will encompass: any information available to the public, rather than just that known or used by others; sales or uses of a technology anywhere in the world, rather than just the United States; and international applications regardless of their original language of publication (previously international applications were only considered prior art if they were in English).

Another change that will make challenging patents easier is that inventors and their attorneys can challenge patents on the same grounds as they would in a federal court, but before the Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board—so long as it is within nine months of the patent’s issuance. This would cost less than federal court litigation, reducing the barrier to attempting to invalidate existing patents.

Additionally, small inventors may be a casualty of these streamlined procedures because companies tend to have international interests and already file quickly regardless, and they also have teams of attorneys to advise them about the new rules and help them to get patents filed quickly. Without those resources, small inventors who create something first could get beaten to the patent office by larger competitors.

The real results of these changes won’t be seen for at least a year or two because of the length of time it takes for patents to be issued, but those with a stake in intellectual property and invention would do well to keep an eye on this development.

The revised version of the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013 is intended to provide for the recovery of patent litigation costs in unsuccessful patent lawsuits. The Act indicates that in cases involving the validity of infringement of a patent, if the court determines there has been no patent infringement, the defendant has the opportunity to recoup all legal costs by showing that the plaintiff does not meet at least one of the following conditions:

• Original inventor – Such party is the inventor, a joint inventor, or in the case of a patent filed by and awarded to an assignee of the original inventor or joint inventor, the original assignee of the patent.
• Exploitation of the patent – Such party can provide documentation to the court of substantial investment made by such party in the exploitation of the patent through production or sale of an item covered by the patent.
• University of technology transfer organization – Such party is (A) an institution of higher education (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 1001); or (B) a technology transfer organization whose primary purpose is to facilitate the commercialization of technology developed by one or more institutions of higher education.

These conditions or definitions are intended to determine whether or not the party alleging patent infringement is a “patent troll.” In discussing these conditions Peter DeFazio stated the following, “We’ve got the three-part test, which is for the people who do R&D, people who manufacture—and the third part is the toughest part, to have some allowance for people who hold patents beyond what they’ve developed themselves, but are not trolls. That’s the trickiest standard.”

While this act is an important step in helping protect companies from the actions of patent trolls, if passed, it still leaves much to be desired. Companies of all sizes would still be taking on a great risk by going to court against patent trolls with only a chance of recouping legal costs. However, if this act can help discourage patent trolls from filing frivolous lawsuits in court, that fixes a large part of the problem.

On the morning of the explosion there was a ten-minute ship to shore call between two BP engineers discussing the unusual results from a safety test performed to ensure that the sealing of the bottom of the oil well was successful. This call was made less than an hour before the explosion occurred. Transocean, the owner of the drilling rig, feels that it was made a victim by BP and claims that BP’s instructions to continue working on the rig knowing these test results was, “reckless, in utter and wholesale disregard of the facts.” However, attorney for BP, Mike Brock, argued that the incident was caused by multiple parties on the rig and stated, “a number of mistakes and errors in judgment that were made by BP, Transocean, and Halibuton.” The Justice Department argues that if BP had postponed operations after the results of the test were known, they could have saved the lives of the 11 people killed on the rig. These types of accusations are likely to continue and get worse as the trial progresses and more evidence is presented.

BP has already agreed to pay over $30 billion in fines related to settlements with multiple parties as well as cleanup costs for the oil spill. Transocean has agreed to pay $1 billion in civil fines as well as $400 million in criminal penalties. It is being reported that there is potential for a settlement between the Justice Department, the Gulf Coast Stated affected and BP in the amount of $16 billion. Some argue that this settlement would not be enough of a deterrent for wealthy oil companies to prevent future environmental catastrophes. It will be interesting to see how this very high profile case plays out both in and outside of the courtroom.

While Nike has so far refused to comment, it is probable they will argue that the phrase “I will” is one of the most common in the English language. However, given the prominence of the “I will” slogan in UA’s new ads (they have a whole website dedicated to it) and the close competition between the two companies, UA’s lawyers may have a strong case to make. Apple successfully argued in its lawsuit with Samsung that its trademark for rounded corners, a certain shade of green, and an icon based on the decades-old “Ma Bell” were all legitimate. It remains to be seen if Under Armour will be able to replicate Apple’s success in upholding copyrights on intellectual property that many in the public would see as commonplace.

This is all undoubtedly very, very cool; there’s just one snag—copyright law. Owners of Makerbots can download digital designs for 3D objects the Thingiverse, a website run by Makerbot. As it happens, some of the most popular items on Thingiverse are copyrighted. Anything from Mario figurines to Darth Vader busts can be downloaded and created at home. So far most major intellectual property holders have either not noticed or turned a blind eye to these designs, but that can only last so long.

According to the NPR report, “Moulinsart, which owns the rights to the cartoon Tintin, served Thingiverse with a Millenium Digital Copyright Act takedown notice” for designs of Tintin’s moon rocket. Copyright experts say that Moulinsart is legally in the right, but many aren’t so sure that attempting to “Sue The Genie Back Into the Bottle” is the best course of action. Just as music piracy has continued to proliferate, and indeed expand exponentially since Napster was first shut down, it seems unlikely that copyright holders will have much success preventing denizens of the internet from creating and spreading designs of copyrighted characters and other IP. One alternative would be to take the classic, ‘if you can’t beat them, join them.’ Rather than spending resources and public goodwill in protracted legal battles, Moulinsart could create their own official Tintin designs and sell them to the superfans who are creating and downloading copyrighted designs.

The potential ramifications for this impending revolution of things are huge, and intellectual property holders who learn from the successes and failures of the digital music revolution may stand to gain a great deal from it.

Happy Presidents’ Day!