Posts
Click here to read this mailing online.
"E-Commerce Law" - 2 new articles
Identity of Anonymous Wikipedia Editors Not Protected by First AmendmentIn Faconnable USA Corporation v. John Does 1-10, 2011 WL 2015515 (D. Colo. May 24, 2011), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado rejected a ISP's motion to quash a subpoena issued to discover the identity of anonymous editors of Wikipedia. Plaintiff alleges that the anonymous editors violated the Lanham Act and comitted trade libel and commercial disparaging by falsely posting that plaintiff is a support of Hezbollah, a Shiite Islamist militia and political party which has been designated as a terrorist organization. With its Verified Complaint, Plaintiff Faconnable USA Corporation filed a Motion for Expedited Order Authorizing Discovery to permit it to conduct immediate discovery from third-party Internet service providers (ISPs) and website operators who may have information about the identity of the anonymous Defendants who edited Faconnable's Wikipedia entry to falsely associate the company with Hezbollah. The court granted the motion and Faconnable issued a subpoena to Skybeam, Inc. asking Skybeam to produce personally identifiable information about Skybeam's subscribers who are the alleged Defendants. Skybeam filed a motion to modify the order permitting expedited discovery and for entry of a protective order. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the freedom of individuals to speak anonymously. That right extends to anonymous speak on the Internet, but is not unlimited. The degree of protection afforded to anonymous speech depends on the nature of the speech, whether it is political, commercial, or actionable. In analyzing this issue with respect to Skybeam's motion, the Court recognized that there was some apparent "coalescence" of courts around applying a heightened standard to discovery designed to "unmask" anonymous online speakers, such as that initially articulated in Dendrite Int'l v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001). However, the Court rejected such a heightened standard, finding that "[n]either the Constitution, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not any decision of the Supreme Court has imposed special discovery rules in cases implementing the First Amendment." Applying the traditional discovery standards set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with a particular sensitivity to the First Amendment implications of the request, the Court held that the burden placed on the anonymous speaker's exercise of free speech was content neutral as the subject subpoena was not "designed to suppress the express of unpopular views," but instead to allow an allegedly injured victim to seek relief against anonymous Internet posters for actionable speech. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion and ordered Skybeam to comply with the subpoena. 
Former ConnectU Partner Sues Over Facebook SettlementWayne Chang, a former partner in ConnectU, Facebook's social networking rival, brought suit against his former ConnectU partners (the "Winklevoss Defendants") and their attorneys over a settlement reached with Facebook in a separate litigation. Chang v. Winklevoss, No. 09-5397-BLS1, 2011 WL 1758963 (Super. Ct. Mass. May 3, 2011). After the defendants filed motions to dismiss, the Superior Court of Massachusetts held that Chang lacked standing to assert claims against the attorneys, but found that Chang's complaint sufficiently alleged subject matter jurisdiction and state law claims. The dispute between Chang and the Winklevoss Defendants arose from the partnership entered into between the parties. The Winklevoss Defendants contacted Chang, the creator of i2hub, a peer-to-peer file sharing software, in an effort to increase ConnectU's user base by employing Chang to integrate the i2hub software with the ConnectU Web site. The parties agreed to form a partnership called the Winklevoss Chang Group (WCG) and further agreed that after Chang's completion of the integration, he would acquire a 15% ownership in ConnectU. Thereafter, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the "Memorandum") to reflect their agreement. After Chang successfully integrated i2hub and ConnectU, his relationship with the Winklevoss Defendants began to deteriorate and ultimately terminated at the urging of the Defendants. Meanwhile, ConnectU and Facebook became entangled in separate litigation arising out of their rivalry. Chang, though not a party to the litigation, was subpoenaed and subsequently added as a party to the action against ConnectU. The attorneys retained to defend the Winklevoss Defendants in the Facebook litigation, Mosko and Finnegan, agreed to represent Chang as well. The Facebook litigation culminated in a mediation and subsequent settlement agreement, though Chang alleged that he was never informed of the mediation or terms of the settlement. Chang filed the instant action against the Winklevoss Defendants, ConnectU, and Mosko and Finnegan. His claims against the Winklevoss Defendants stemmed from his partnership interest in ConnectU and sought a portion of the Facebook settlement as a result of his interest in the partnership. Additionally, Chang alleged that Mosko and Finnegan intentionally excluded him from settlement discussions and conspired with the Winklevoss Defendants to deprive him of his interest in the settlement proceeds. Although the Court found that "lost settlement opportunities may constitute injury sufficient to support a claim for legal malpractice," it nevertheless found that Chang lacked standing to assert claims against Finnegan and Mosko. In doing so, the Court reasoned that "any injury as a result of missed settlement opportunities is far too speculative, and any causal connection to the defendants' conduct far too attenuated, to confer standing." The Winklevoss Defendants, however, did not fare as well as their attorneys. Though the Defendants argued that Chang lacked standing because the settlement proceeds had not yet been disbursed and thus, Chang had suffered no injury, the Court acknowledged that although Chang sought "as his remedy his share of the proceeds, the basis of his claims is that he has rights either under the Memorandum or as a partner in WCG." Therefore, the Court held that "[w]hile Chang's claims with respect to the settlement proceeds are too speculative to confer standing, his claims with respect to an ownership in ConnectU are not." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Winklevoss Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Winklevoss Defendants also launched challenges to Chang's state law claims, most of which hinged on whether the parties had entered into a valid contract. The Defendants asserted "that the Memorandum was merely an 'agreement to agree,'" while Chang argued that the Memorandum embodied the full understanding between the parties, containing most of the material terms of the parties' agreement. Noting that "it is not required that all terms of the agreement be precisely specified, and the presence of undefined or unspecified terms will not necessarily preclude the formation of a binding contact," the Court held that the Memorandum set forth "all of the material terms of the agreement, and is thus sufficient to form a valid contract." The mere fact that the parties intended to draft a more "formal contract" to memorialize the terms set forth in the Memorandum did not preclude a finding that the parties "intended to be bound by the terms of the Memorandum." Accordingly, the Court denied the Winklevoss Defendants' motions to dismiss Chang's breach of contract claims. Furthermore, the Court found that Chang's complaint sufficiently alleged a partnership between the parties with respect to the formation of WCG and thus, Chang alleged a valid cause of action for breach of partnership and breach of fiduciary duty. Because the parties failed to execute a formal partnership agreement, the Court applied basic partnership principles and noted that "[w]here persons associate themselves together to carry on a joint business for their common benefit, to which each contributes either property or services . . . the essential elements of a contract of partnership are made out." Considering ConnectU's monetary contributions and the services provided by Chang to ConnectU, the Court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the parties formed a valid partnership.
More Recent Articles |
 |
Unsubscribe from all current and future newsletters powered by FeedBlitz
| Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 |
No comments:
Post a Comment