By Boris Reznikov
4 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 5 (2007)
Corporate & Commercial
10/17/2007.
Teenagers are starting to use the Internet to circumvent the ordinarily stringent restrictions on the sale of alcohol to underage individuals. Since states have always punished vendors for furnishing alcohol to minors, companies that choose to sell alcohol online must recognize that they could be criminally and civilly liable if they do not take reasonable precautions to ensure that minors do not obtain their product. This Article examines the steps online alcohol vendors might take in order to protect themselves from liability so that they can continue to run their ventures in a profitable manner.
by Cooper Offenbecher
4 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 6 (2007)
Litigation
10/17/2007
In re Vinhnee, a Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision, employed Edward Imwinkelried’s eleven-step foundation process for authenticating computer records. In employing the eleven-step process, the Vinhnee court articulated a stricter standard than has previously been used by most courts for admitting computer records into evidence. This Article will first consider the various foundation standards that courts have applied to computer records. Next, the Article will analyze the Vinhnee standard, consider its elements, and compare it to the previous standards and commentary. Finally, the Article will conclude that the Vinhnee approach reflects common concerns by courts and commentators, and may influence other jurisdictions.
by Jeffrey Bashaw
4 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 7 (2007)
Intellectual Property
10/17/2007
In Aspex Eyewear v. Miracle Optics, a patent infringement claim was initially dismissed because the court found that the parties bringing suit, a patentee and a patent sub-licensee, lacked standing because although the patentee had given all substantial rights to a licensee, the sub-licensee’s license did not convey “all substantial rights.” Thus, neither party had “all substantial rights,” the traditional threshold test for patent licensee standing. While the Federal Circuit ultimately reversed and allowed the suit to go forward, the case demonstrates how the current patent standing rule only magnifies the expense of litigating an infringement suit by requiring additional resources for debating “all substantial rights.” This Article analyzes the current standing rules for licensees of intellectual property under the various federal intellectual property statutes. In general, exclusive licensees have standing to sue, either alone or by joining the licensor. Although the fundamental motivation for this rule is sound, the rule can be unnecessarily rigid as applied and can prevent licensing arrangements from reflecting the intent of the parties. This article will also analyze FRCP 19’s approach, which provides a more flexible and predictable rule.