13.07.2015 Views

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Similarly, in TracF<strong>on</strong>e Wireless, Inc. v. Bitcell Corp., 514 <strong>the</strong> court found <strong>the</strong> defendant’sunlocking and resale of TracF<strong>on</strong>e ph<strong>on</strong>es to c<strong>on</strong>stitute a violati<strong>on</strong> of Secti<strong>on</strong> 1201. The courtnoted that TracF<strong>on</strong>e ph<strong>on</strong>es were sold subject to terms and c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s restricting use and sale of<strong>the</strong> ph<strong>on</strong>es that were set forth in printed inserts included in <strong>the</strong> packaging with <strong>the</strong> ph<strong>on</strong>es, wereavailable to <strong>the</strong> public <strong>on</strong> TracF<strong>on</strong>e’s web site, and were referenced in printed warnings placed<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> outside of <strong>the</strong> retail packaging of <strong>the</strong> ph<strong>on</strong>es. 515 With no legal analysis, <strong>the</strong> court simplystated that <strong>the</strong> “Terms and C<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s and language <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> packaging c<strong>on</strong>stitute a valid bindingc<strong>on</strong>tract.” 516 The court ruled that <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Copyright</str<strong>on</strong>g> Office exempti<strong>on</strong> did not apply because <strong>the</strong>defendant’s c<strong>on</strong>duct “was for <strong>the</strong> purpose of reselling those Ph<strong>on</strong>es for a profit, and not ‘for <strong>the</strong>sole purpose of lawfully c<strong>on</strong>necting to a wireless teleph<strong>on</strong>e communicati<strong>on</strong> network.’” 517 As in<strong>the</strong> Riedeman case, <strong>the</strong> court entered an injuncti<strong>on</strong> against <strong>the</strong> defendant that prohibited <strong>the</strong>defendant from even “purchasing … any wireless mobile ph<strong>on</strong>e that <strong>the</strong>y know or should knowbears any Registered TracF<strong>on</strong>e Trademark ….” 518 The court ruled that any violati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>the</strong>injuncti<strong>on</strong> would be subject to a finding of c<strong>on</strong>tempt and a payment of liquated damages toTracF<strong>on</strong>e of <strong>the</strong> greater of $250,000 or $5,000 for each TracF<strong>on</strong>e handset purchased, sold,unlocked, altered in any way, or shipped. 519In a virtually identical opini<strong>on</strong> under similar facts, in TracF<strong>on</strong>e Wireless, Inc. v. AnadiskLLC, 520 <strong>the</strong> same court found a violati<strong>on</strong> of Secti<strong>on</strong> 1201, imposed <strong>the</strong> maximum statutorydamages award of $2,500 per ph<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> 4,990 ph<strong>on</strong>es for a total award of $12,375,000, andentered a similar injuncti<strong>on</strong>. The court ruled that any violati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>the</strong> injuncti<strong>on</strong> would besubject to a finding of c<strong>on</strong>tempt and a payment of liquated damages to TracF<strong>on</strong>e of <strong>the</strong> greater of$1,000,000 or $5,000 for each TracF<strong>on</strong>e handset purchased, sold, unlocked, altered in any way,or shipped. 521And again in TracF<strong>on</strong>e Wireless, Inc. v. SND Cellular, Inc., <strong>the</strong> same court imposed <strong>the</strong>maximum statutory damages award of $11,370,000 based <strong>on</strong> trafficking in a minimum of 4,548ph<strong>on</strong>es and entered a similar injuncti<strong>on</strong>. Again <strong>the</strong> court ruled that any violati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>the</strong>injuncti<strong>on</strong> would be subject to a finding of c<strong>on</strong>tempt and a payment of liquated damages toTracF<strong>on</strong>e of <strong>the</strong> greater of $1,000,000 or $5,000 for each TracF<strong>on</strong>e handset purchased, sold,unlocked, re-flashed, altered in any way, or shipped. 5225145155165175185195205215222008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41955 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2008).Id. at *3.Id.Id. at *8.Id. at *9.Id. at *12.685 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2010).Id. at 1317-18 & 1319-20.TracF<strong>on</strong>e Wireless, Inc. v. SND Cellular, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64064 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2010) at *36-40.- 124 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!