White House free to ignore emails … just like everyone else

A federal judge today sided with the Bush administration in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit related to missing White House e-mails. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who is probably most familiar to Ars readers for her role in the Microsoft antitrust case, held that the White House’s Office of Administration was not a federal agency as that term is defined by the FOIA and was therefore not obligated to respond to FOIA requests.

The ruling represents a setback for the plaintiff, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which was also behind the White House e-mail lawsuit we covered in April. That lawsuit was heard by a different judge, was directed at a different federal agency, and was filed under different federal statutes: the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act. The White House has denied wrongdoing in that case, and the case is still being litigated. (link)

Amazon vs. French Booksellers Union, free shipping

Who ever heard of a company getting sued for offering something for free? Enter Amazon vs. France. Apparently the French Booksellers Union is against free shipping. The wine sipping, cheese snacking judge agreed and stuck Amazon with a 1000 euro/day fine. Amazon is standing it’s ground and is accumulating fines up the whaazoo. So let this be a lesson to all you companies operating in France. Charge for everything, nothing should be free.

“Did you hear the one about Amazon? It offered free shipping in France, got sued for it by the French Booksellers’ Union, and lost. Now it’s choosing to pay €1,000 a day rather than follow the court’s order. Ba-da-bing!

No, it’s not funny, but that’s because it’s not a joke. The Tribunal de Grande Instance (a French appeals court) in Versailles ruled back in December that Amazon was violating the country’s 1981 Lang law with its free shipping offer. That law forbids booksellers from offering discounts of more than 5 percent off the list price, and Amazon was found to be exceeding that discount when the free shipping was factored in. “(link)

Hard drives to be expert witness against you

The government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer’s hard drive, the government says, is no different than looking through a suitcase.

One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit.

There is one lonely voice on the other side. In 2006, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of Federal District Court in Los Angeles suppressed the evidence against Mr. Arnold.

“Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory,” Judge Pregerson wrote, in explaining why the government should not be allowed to inspect them without cause. “They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound.”

Computer hard drives can include, Judge Pregerson continued, diaries, letters, medical information, financial records, trade secrets, attorney-client materials and — the clincher, of course — information about reporters’ “confidential sources and story leads.”

But Judge Pregerson’s decision seems to be headed for reversal. The three judges who heard the arguments in October in the appeal of his decision seemed persuaded that a computer is just a container and deserves no special protection from searches at the border. The same information in hard-copy form, their questions suggested, would doubtless be subject to search. (story)

Judge rules against eBay in “But it now” lawsuit

A US district judge has penned the latest chapter in eBay’s long-standing patent infringement battle with MercExchange LLC. Since 2003, eBay has been fighting a jury’s decision that its Buy It Now feature infringes on two patents held by MercExchange, originally an auction site itself over a decade ago. eBay fought off an injunction earlier this year, but the judge’s ruling today orders eBay to pay $30 million to MercExchange, LLC.

This patent dispute hails all the way back to 2001 when licensing talks broke down between eBay and Tom Woolston, founder of MercExchange. Woolston promptly filed suit against eBay, fighting for an injunction to stop the service from using the feature. A US District Court sided with MercExchange in 2003, but eBay’s appeals eventually escalated the case up to the Supreme Court, where the focus shifted and subsequently garnered the attention of IP lawyers in everything from the software industry to the pharmaceutical business. (link)

Spammers to be punished: once in court, the other in jail

More big-time spammers may find themselves doing longer stretches behind bars if a federal judge’s first-of-its-kind sentencing decision in a Denver case becomes widely applied.

At issue in this case, which featured testimony from Microsoft anti-spam experts, was the thorny matter of determining the actual financial harm to ISPs done by a particular spammer over a particular period of time. When Congress enacted the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 it anticipated this difficulty and included language allowing for a spammer’s profits to be considered in sentencing when financial damages caused by his crimes could not reasonably be calculated.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock accepted a Colorado prosecutor’s contention that this case, the United States vs. Min Kim, represented just such a situation. Microsoft says this is the first time a judge has applied CAN-SPAM sentencing guidelines in this manner. (link)