Volume I

Issue : 1: July 10, 2003

• The Dangers of Text Messaging
• Pop Up Purveyor Prevails in District Court
• Intel Loses Email Trespass Case on Appeal in California
• U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Aimster Decision
• U.S. Federal Court of Appeal Reverses "Must Carry" Java Order Against Microsoft
• New York Court of Appeals Releases Key Decision in Telecommuting Case
• Quebec Court Upholds Websites Terms of Use Based on Implied Consent
• Adware Company Wins U.S. Summary Judgment Against U-Haul
• Government of Canada Wins Back Dot-Ca Domain Names in CDRP Proceeding
• Industry Canada Releases Authentication Consultation Report
• U.S. Supreme Court Upholds CIPA in Software Filtering Case
• U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Two Key Cases
• Doctor Suspended Over Prescribing Medication For Customers of Online Pharmacies
• U.S. Court of Appeals Overturns Texas Online Wines Sales Law

Home > Volume I > Issue 1: July 10, 2003 > U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Two Key Cases

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Two Key Cases

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) declined to hear two key technology cases. The first case, Bowers v. Baystate Technologies Inc., involved competing add-on products for CadKey, a computer-aided design product, and raised issues relating to shrinkwrap contracts and reverse engineering. Among other things, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the U.S. Copyright Act did not pre-empt the prohibition of reverse engineering embodied in a shrinkwrap license agreement. By letting the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision in this case stand, the USSC effectively upholds the law that a shrinkwrap license can forbid reverse engineering.

The USSC also refused to hear an appeal from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Southern Building Code Congress International Inc v. Peter Veeck. Veeck had published on his website building codes that had been written by SBCCI for the cities of Anna and Savoy and that had become city regulations. SBCCI claimed copyright in those codes and demanded that Veeck remove them from his web site. Veeck claimed that people who must live by a law or under a code, own that code, and that once codes are adopted and become law, they are part of the public domain. Although SBCCI was successful in the local federal court, the 5th Circuit held in favour of Veeck.

For a copy of the Baystate decision, visit:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/fed/case/011108&exact=1

 

For a copy of the Veeck decision, visit:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-40632-cv0.htm