Weintraub Firm

Subscribe to Weintraub Firm's Posts

By: Jeff Pietsch and Michael Robinson

It is Monday morning and you are recovering from a bachelor party in Sin City. Thankfully, your privacy settings on Facebook allow you to share pictures of your shenanigans in Vegas with only your friends. But what happens when your boss asks a friend and coworker to show him your embarrassing and private photos? Should a status update intended for a select few be protected from the prying eyes of your employer?

At an age when over 900 million people use Facebook, it is no surprise employers increasingly use social media in evaluating current and prospective employees. For example, last week the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a process allowing a background check company to screen job applicants’ Internet photos and postings. The FTC determined that such actions were in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This means a search of what you have said or posted to Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, blogs, and the Internet may become a standard part of background checks when you apply for a job.  Continue Reading Shoulder Surfing: Can Employers Access Your Facebook Account

By: Audrey A. Millemann

 

The Supreme Court, in a very thoroughly written decision, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (March 20, 2012), has reiterated that laws of nature are not patentable.

 

The patent laws define patentable subject matter as “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”  35 U.S.C. §101.  In a long line of cases going back to the mid-1800s, however, the Supreme Court has upheld an exception to patentable subject matter for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.”  Thus, while pretty much anything is patent-eligible, laws of nature (along with mental processes and abstract ideas) are not.

 

Continue Reading Supreme Court: Einstein’s Discovery (and Other Laws of Nature) Not Patentable

By: Scott Hervey 

Businesses that feature music, either in the background, through a DJ, or live, must secure a public performance license from one or both of the major U.S. performance rights organizations, ASCAP and BMI.  The corporate operator of the Southern California chain of Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles, East Coast Foods, Inc., learned this lesson the hard way; so did East Coast’s owner.  It came as no surprise that the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s finding of copyright infringement against the corporate operator of the restaurant chain.  What should be a wake up call for all business owners is that East Coast Foods’ president and primary shareholder, Herbert Hudson, was held individually liable for vicarious copyright infringement. 

East Coast operates a number of Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles throughout Southern California, including a location in Long Beach.  Herbert Hudson is the sole officer and director of East Coast.  Attached to the Long Beach Roscoe’s is a bar and lounge area called the Sea Bird Jazz Lounge.Continue Reading Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles Runs Afoul Of Music Publishers

By: Nathan Geronimo

We have all participated in practical jokes.  If good-natured, executed correctly, and within the bounds of civility, practical jokes can be a fun way to get closer to people.  However, sometimes jokes can be anything but funny, and in the worst cases can constitute a crime.  In a recent case involving social media sites, California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal found that a minor’s conduct on Facebook constituted identity theft, which can be a misdemeanor or a felony.  In In re Rolando S., a juvenile obtained a classmate’s Facebook login information and accessed her Facebook page.  The minor was able to access the victim’s Facebook page because he received an unsolicited text message with the victim’s email password.  Armed with the email account information and password, he used this information to log into the victim’s Facebook account.  Once in the account, he made obscene changes to the victim’s profile, and posted lewd messages on two of the victim’s male friends’ pages purportedly as the victim. 

The minor was charged with willfully obtaining personal identifying information (which includes unique electronic data) and using it for an unlawful purpose, a violation of California Penal Code section 530.5.  The minor admitted to accessing the victim’s Facebook page and making the offending posts and changes, and he was convicted of identity theft.  On appeal, the minor argued that because he received the victim’s login information via unsolicited text message, that he did not “willfully” obtain the personal identifying information.  The Court disagreed, finding that the minor willfully obtained the information when he chose to remember the password from the text, and used the password to access the victim’s Facebook account.  Essentially, the Court found that the minor demonstrated a willingness to commit the act. Continue Reading Facebook Hijinks No Joking Matter

By: James Kachmar

The Ninth Circuit recently dealt with the issue of whether the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) prevents a plaintiff from bringing a Lanham Act claim alleging that the name and labeling of a juice beverage is deceptive and misleading.  The plaintiff Pom Wonderful LLC (“Pom”) produces and sells pomegranate juice and pomegranate juice blends.  In 2007, Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”) announced that it would start selling a new product called “Pomegranate Blueberry” and “Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices.”  Despite its name, only 0.5% of the juice was actually pomegranate/blueberry juice, while the rest of it was apple, grape and raspberry.  Believing that it was losing sales to Coca-Cola’s product, Pom sued Coca-Cola alleging that it violated the false advertising provision of the Lanham Act for making a false or misleading description or representation about its goods.

Coca-Cola moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that plaintiff’s claims were barred because in construing the product’s name and labeling, Pom’s claim “could improperly require the court to interpret and to apply FDA regulations on juice beverage labeling.”  After allowing Pom to file an amended complaint and conduct discovery, the court granted summary judgment to Coca-Cola and held that Pom’s Lanham Act challenge to the product’s name and labeling was barred by the FDCA’s implementing regulations.  Pom appealed this ruling.Continue Reading What’s in a Name?