U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli urged the Supreme Court not to hear Google's appeal of Oracle's lawsuit against the company over claims that Google copied Oracle's Java application programming interface (API) technology in its Android mobile operating system. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in May that APIs are copyrightable and separately remanded Google's argument that use of APIs qualifies under the fair use doctrine to the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, which originally ruled on the 2012 case (see report in the May 12, 2014, issue). Verrilli argued in a brief Tuesday sought by the Supreme Court that the court shouldn't rule on Google's appeal and should instead allow U.S. District Judge William Alsup to rule on the fair use argument in the San Francisco federal court. APIs are materially indistinguishable from other types of computer codes and are therefore copyrightable, Verrilli said. Legal experts have told us they believe there's a substantial chance the Supreme Court could agree to hear the case, Google v. Oracle, because of its substantial implications for the computer programming community (see 1411100027). Google said in a statement that it's disappointed by Verrilli's brief, but “we look forward to supporting the clear language of the law and defending the concepts of interoperability that have traditionally contributed to innovation in the software industry.” Verrilli's brief “agrees with the Federal Circuit's decision and affirms the importance of copyright protection as an incentive for software innovation,” Oracle said in a statement. The Computer & Communications Industry Association decried Verrilli's brief, with President Ed Black saying in a statement that “even after conceding that there are ‘concerns about the effects that enforcing [Oracle’s] copyright could have on software development,' the Solicitor General has told the Supreme Court that this case isn’t worth its attention. This would have been an opportunity for [President Barack Obama's administration] to demonstrate its forward-looking technological leadership.”

The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit Wednesday against Wolfgang's Vault over claims that the company illegally transmitted concert video and audio recordings via its websites and YouTube. Wolfgang's Vault, whose websites include ConcertVault.com and MusicVault.com, refers to itself as the “largest collection of live audio and video recordings online.” NMPA's complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, is seeking an end to Wolfgang's Vault's unlicensed use of the recordings and restitution for their past use, the complaint says. NMPA estimates that Wolfgang's Vault receives about 50,000 visitors per day. “Systematic copyright infringement cannot be a business model, and it is unfortunate that Wolfgang’s Vault chose not to compensate all of the creators responsible for their content,” NMPA President David Israelite said in a news release. “Hopefully, this lawsuit will bring publishers and many iconic songwriters the revenue they deserve for the use of their music.” Wolfgang's Vault didn't comment.

RadioShack agreed to limit the sale of consumers’ personally identifiable information, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said in a news release. Wednesday's settlement announcement came after General Wireless obtained approval from the bankruptcy court that day to buy RadioShack’s entire e-commerce business, intellectual property and remaining assets, the release said. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon ruled that of the 117 million customer files, no more than 67 million will be transferred. The remaining data will be destroyed, the release said. General Wireless will “not gain access to the most sensitive personally identifiable information, including credit or debit card information, social security numbers, telephone numbers or dates of birth,” the release said. General Wireless will have email addresses provided to RadioShack by customers in the past two years, but RadioShack will give customers the ability to opt out before their email address is shared with the new owner. Physical address information also will be transferred to General Wireless, and consumers can restrict the use of the information, it said. The settlement is the result of mediation in RadioShack’s federal bankruptcy proceeding, the release said, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called it a “victory for consumer privacy nationwide.” Thirty-eight states joined together in this case to safeguard sensitive, personally identifiable information, Paxton said. “Consumers should be able to rely upon a company’s promise that their personal information will never be sold,” Koster said. “RadioShack has agreed to limit the sale of customers’ data, and provide additional protection for consumers to prevent the unexpected sale of their information,” he said. “RadioShack customers should be on the alert for information from RadioShack on how to opt out of having their data transferred,” Koster said, adding his office will make the information available on its website, too. As part of the settlement, General Wireless is prohibited from selling or sharing this customer data with any other entity, including its new business partner for phone sales, Sprint, the release said. The FTC had urged the court to protect personal data (see 1505180043).

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals en banc ruling against requiring Google remove the controversial anti-Islam video Innocence of Muslims from YouTube (see 1505180063) “artificially shrunk” U.S. copyright rights “by deciding that actors do not have copyright interests in their own dramatic performances,” said The Armenta Law Firm in a news release Monday. Armenta is one of the firms representing actress Cindy Lee Garcia in her request for a mandatory preliminary takedown of the video, which Garcia claims she was falsely lured into briefly appearing in. The 9th Circuit's en banc ruling reversed an earlier ruling by three of the circuit's judges that allowed for the video's takedown (see report in the March 3, 2014, issue). The en banc ruling “short changes the threats” Garcia has received since the video first appeared online in 2012 and didn't address Garcia's “First Amendment right to be free of the speech crudely dubbed over her performance,” Armenta said. Google has “long believed that the previous ruling was a misapplication of copyright law,” said a spokesman. “We're pleased with this latest ruling.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald’s ruling in Los Angeles against requiring Google to take off of YouTube a trailer for controversial anti-Islam video Innocence of Muslims. The 9th Circuit said Monday that the district court ruling “did not abuse its discretion” in denying actress Cindy Lee Garcia’s request for a mandatory preliminary takedown of the video. Garcia claimed in her original lawsuit, filed in 2012, that she had been tricked into briefly appearing in the video. Garcia was clearly “bamboozled” into appearing in the film, but the law and facts in the case didn’t “clearly favor” her copyright claim, the 9th Circuit said, saying the U.S. Copyright Office had refused to register Garcia’s performance separately from the Innocence of Muslims video. In the context of copyright infringement, “the only basis upon which the preliminary injunction was sought, Garcia failed to make a clear showing of irreparable harm to her interests as an author,” the 9th Circuit said. The circuit court’s en banc ruling Monday reversed a 2014 three-judge ruling by the circuit court that ordered the video’s takedown despite finding that Garcia’s copyright claim on the video was “doubtful" (see report in the March 3, 2014, issue). Neither Garcia nor Google immediately commented on the ruling. Multiple public interest groups that had criticized the 9th Circuit’s original ruling in the case praised the en banc reversal. The en banc ruling “is a victory for free speech and the First Amendment,” said Public Knowledge Policy Counsel Raza Panjwani in a statement. “In the case of controversial expression, like the trailer for Innocence of Muslims, copyright law should not trump the public’s right to discuss, criticize, or comment or report on that expression.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Akamai Technologies' appeal of its $45.5 million patent infringement lawsuit against Limelight Networks, ruling Wednesday that U.S. District Court Judge Rya Zobel's original ruling in Boston against Akamai was correct. The Supreme Court had remanded Akamai's appeal to the Federal Circuit last year, ruling then that a company can claim patent infringement only if another company was involved in every step of the infringement (see report in the June 3, 2014, issue). The Federal Circuit vacated its original ruling in Limelight's favor in July (see report in the July 29, 2014, issue). Federal Circuit Chief Judge Sharon Prost and Judge Richard Linn ruled for Akamai, saying in their majority opinion “there is nothing to indicate that Limelight’s customers are performing any of the claimed method steps as agents for Limelight, or in any other way vicariously on behalf of Limelight.” Judge Kimberly Moore dissented in the case, saying the majority opinion “creates a gaping hole in what for centuries has been recognized as an actionable form of infringement.” Limelight shouldn't be immune from liability just because its customers perform a few of the requisite steps for patent infringement on Limelight's behalf, she said. Moore's dissent “provides all the more reason for the court” to reconsider what constitutes patent infringement, an Akamai spokesman said. “We have used precious assets and time to defend our position, and we are very pleased with today’s outcome,” said Limelight CEO Bob Lento in a statement.

The FTC and Department of Justice “support increasing patent quality as part of their mission to protect and promote competition and consumer welfare,” and offered recommendations to the Patent and Trademark Office on how to balance the interests of patentees and the public, in joint comments submitted to the office in response to the PTO’s “comprehensive initiative to increase the quality of granted patents,” an FTC news release said Thursday.

The National Music Publishers’ Association and SoundCloud agreed on terms of a rights agreement that will let NMPA’s independent music publishers and songwriters monetize content on SoundCloud that contains their work, the association said Wednesday. “This agreement ensures that when SoundCloud succeeds financially, so do the songwriters whose content draws so many users to their site," NMPA President David Israelite said in a news release. SoundCloud declined to comment beyond confirming NMPA’s announcement.

Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said the “winner” of Saturday's welterweight boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao was the company's Periscope live-stream app, one of several services that were used to transmit unauthorized live streams of the fight. HBO and Showtime charged $100 for pay-per-view access to the fight. HBO, Showtime and Twitter didn’t comment on the use of Periscope as a technology for unauthorized live streams of the fight. HBO and Showtime had successfully sought a court order in advance of the fight against boxinghd.net, sportship.org and entities that are in “active concert or participation with them” to prohibit them from live streaming the fight. The HBO/Showtime injunction request also asked the court to order ISPs used by the websites and associated entities to “suspend all services with respect to Defendants’ Infringing Websites, including all registrars, hosts, name servers, site acceleration providers, providers of video delivery resources, and providers of computer and network resources through which video transits.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized HBO and Showtime Friday, saying in a blog post that “this kind of site-blocking, without real legal process, is essentially one of the worst parts of the ill-conceived, long-dead Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) being brought in through the courtroom back door.” Costolo's remarks were in a Sunday tweet.

The U.S. Trade Representative’s 2015 Special 301 Report “is another one-sided and harmful missive to the rest of the world that names and shames countries for not mirroring, or even exceeding, the United States’ restrictive copyright rules,” said Electronic Frontier Senior Global Policy Analyst Jeremy Malcolm and Global Policy Analyst Maira Sutton in a blog post Thursday. The report, released Thursday, said USTR kept China and India among the 13 countries on its priority watch list for copyright and other IP rights violations. USTR had elevated Ecuador and Kuwait to the priority watch list since it published its 2014 report (see 1504300061). The 2015 report places a high importance on trade secret protections as criteria for criticizing other countries’ IP rights practices, with the USTR never specifically defining what it considers a trade secret protection. That means the term “can encompass a wide range of information that it encourages nations to protect with heavy-handed enforcement,” EFF said. The Trans-Pacific Partnership’s most recent draft IP language is “dangerously broad,” and if “this is the kind of language that the USTR holds as a minimum standard for enforcement, we should expect to see the agency to increasingly push for draconian rules that would threaten critical reporting published online,” EFF said. The 2015 report also includes a renewed emphasis on domain name disputes, calling on countries to protect U.S. trademarks.