Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we update what happened with the Magic/Hex IP lawsuit covered by a three-week series of this segment in 2014, and then look at the unique legal challenges major presidential candidates are facing in this crazy 2016 circus show of a campaign.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp65
Back in 2014, two of our favorite nerdy game companies went to court as Wizards of the Coast, makers of Magic: the Gathering, sued Cryptozoic for alleged patent, copyright, and trade dress infringement based on the then-new online card game Hex. Unfortunately for legal geeks wanting to see all this intellectual property argument play out, the two companies reached a settlement a few weeks ago to end the conflict.
The terms are undisclosed publicly, as is typical, but Cryptozoic did accept a license of Wizards' intellectual property, so Hex clearly had to pay up some money to keep Hex alive and free of legal interference from the owners of Magic. Perhaps Wizards accepted a smaller royalty payment than normal in the face of perhaps losing on the all-important copyright claim.
The Bottom Line is that consumers win in this circumstance, as both companies avoid protracted and costly IP litigation that drain resources from these projects, while both companies receive some payment for the creative works that have been combined to make Hex.
Turning to a different kind of magic in the presidential campaign, the 2016 field has largely been narrowed to five viable candidates. What makes this campaign even more interesting than usual is not the rising tide of outsiders like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, but the legal challenges that may derail the more traditional front running candidates.
One of these is the potential e-mail confidentiality scandal involving Hillary Clinton when she served as Secretary of State. The other is the challenge to whether Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" eligible to run for president as a result of being born in Canada, and that is an interesting legal question worth discussion here.
There are three requirements to be president as set forth in the Constitution: be at least 35 years old, be a resident for 14 consecutive years, and be a "natural born citizen." That last term is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, nor has it been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the last 240 years. So after Donald Trump pointed out this potential problem for Cruz, who was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father, lawsuits were filed by several citizens in different states and these challenges to Cruz's eligibility are ongoing.
So how does this play out? Legal scholars believe Cruz likely wins these lawsuits because the British used "natural born" at the time the Constitution was written to mean all people subject to the crown, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 determined that any children of a mother OR father who is a citizen of the US is also a citizen, regardless of place of birth. Even though that Act is no longer in force, the closeness in time of that Act and the Constitution provides strong evidence that this is what the framers and lawmakers intended, for people like Cruz to be eligible.
The Bottom Line is, this is an unresolved question left open for nearly two and a half centuries, so it's a fair challenge to Cruz or anyone other similarly-situated candidates. It will be good to hopefully find final resolution for the future, even though it adds to the reality TV circus show this campaign has become.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Legal Geek No. 64: How Scalia's Death Affects SCOTUS in 2016 Term and Beyond
Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we investigate the immediate effects of Justice Antonin Scalia's passing away on the Supreme Court in this 2016 term and beyond.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp64
News broke last weekend that the senior-most member of the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, had passed away of heart failure on a hunting trip in Texas. Scalia had served on the Court since confirmation in 1986, as President Reagan made him the first Italian-American Supreme Court Justice. This will cause the first line-up change at the Court since the retirements of David Souter and John Paul Stevens in 2009 and 2010, who were then replaced by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
So what are the effects of Scalia's death? Let's start with the 2016 term, which must now proceed with the remaining 8 Justices. With four reliable liberals, three reliable conservatives, and one swing vote among the eight remaining justices, there will be many opportunities for 4-4 ties this term. When that occurs, the Supreme Court issues a short per curiam opinion upholding the ruling of the lower court.
For some decisions this term like the teacher's union case and the re-drawing of voter legislative districts, the tie would mean liberal victories based on the lower court decisions. For other decisions like the state challenge to federal immigration policies and a Texas law impairing the rights of abortion clinics to do business, the tie would mean conservative victories based on the lower court decisions. Interestingly, thanks to Justice Kagan being recused from the case, the affirmative action case on the docket will now be guaranteed a 4-3 decision, one way or another.
These issues may be presented once again in other jurisdictions and appeals, so hope is not lost for the losing side to be granted certiorari again, it will just take longer to reach a full Supreme Court panel and a final decision. But a term loaded with huge issues and cases, even more so than the dramatic duo of Obamacare and gay marriage last June, will now unfortunately fizzle on many big issues.
Moving forward, the other important issue will be how and when Scalia will be replaced. The president has sole power to nominate a replacement, but his choice must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Those confirmations used to be pretty smooth sailing, but since the confirmation of Justice Thomas, that has become less and less the case in a more politicized process.
Given that this is a contentious election year and the Senate has a strong republican majority, this could shape up to be a long battle of delays. It will be interesting to see if President Obama nominates a more moderate justice than his first two a few years ago in an effort to avoid gridlock, although don't expect any strong conservative or constitutional originalist like Scalia to be the replacement.
Instead, the Court will take a different course with a new line-up, and a new voice in the room could challenge the current justices in new and different ways. If Obama adds a third Justice to the Court, then this will likely mark a true shift from a couple decades of general conservatism to the potential for a liberal-leaning court for the next few years at least. That could bring some interesting shifts in law and policy.
If the Court is stifled for a replacement for a staggering 10+ months to wait on a new President, then the gridlock in Washington will jeopardize some cases on the 2017 docket as well. Although this politically-charged process is interesting, we should hope for compromise and avoidance of gridlock so the Court can continue to operate normally.
The Bottom Line is, the Supreme Court lost a great mind this week. Even if you strongly disagreed with Justice Scalia, his legacy over three decades in the highest court will stand as one filled with strong judicial principles and well-reasoned opinions and dissents that raised the game of all Justices on the Court with him. But as with life, the Court will go on, and Justice Scalia would not want it any other way.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp64
News broke last weekend that the senior-most member of the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, had passed away of heart failure on a hunting trip in Texas. Scalia had served on the Court since confirmation in 1986, as President Reagan made him the first Italian-American Supreme Court Justice. This will cause the first line-up change at the Court since the retirements of David Souter and John Paul Stevens in 2009 and 2010, who were then replaced by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
So what are the effects of Scalia's death? Let's start with the 2016 term, which must now proceed with the remaining 8 Justices. With four reliable liberals, three reliable conservatives, and one swing vote among the eight remaining justices, there will be many opportunities for 4-4 ties this term. When that occurs, the Supreme Court issues a short per curiam opinion upholding the ruling of the lower court.
For some decisions this term like the teacher's union case and the re-drawing of voter legislative districts, the tie would mean liberal victories based on the lower court decisions. For other decisions like the state challenge to federal immigration policies and a Texas law impairing the rights of abortion clinics to do business, the tie would mean conservative victories based on the lower court decisions. Interestingly, thanks to Justice Kagan being recused from the case, the affirmative action case on the docket will now be guaranteed a 4-3 decision, one way or another.
These issues may be presented once again in other jurisdictions and appeals, so hope is not lost for the losing side to be granted certiorari again, it will just take longer to reach a full Supreme Court panel and a final decision. But a term loaded with huge issues and cases, even more so than the dramatic duo of Obamacare and gay marriage last June, will now unfortunately fizzle on many big issues.
Moving forward, the other important issue will be how and when Scalia will be replaced. The president has sole power to nominate a replacement, but his choice must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Those confirmations used to be pretty smooth sailing, but since the confirmation of Justice Thomas, that has become less and less the case in a more politicized process.
Given that this is a contentious election year and the Senate has a strong republican majority, this could shape up to be a long battle of delays. It will be interesting to see if President Obama nominates a more moderate justice than his first two a few years ago in an effort to avoid gridlock, although don't expect any strong conservative or constitutional originalist like Scalia to be the replacement.
Instead, the Court will take a different course with a new line-up, and a new voice in the room could challenge the current justices in new and different ways. If Obama adds a third Justice to the Court, then this will likely mark a true shift from a couple decades of general conservatism to the potential for a liberal-leaning court for the next few years at least. That could bring some interesting shifts in law and policy.
If the Court is stifled for a replacement for a staggering 10+ months to wait on a new President, then the gridlock in Washington will jeopardize some cases on the 2017 docket as well. Although this politically-charged process is interesting, we should hope for compromise and avoidance of gridlock so the Court can continue to operate normally.
The Bottom Line is, the Supreme Court lost a great mind this week. Even if you strongly disagreed with Justice Scalia, his legacy over three decades in the highest court will stand as one filled with strong judicial principles and well-reasoned opinions and dissents that raised the game of all Justices on the Court with him. But as with life, the Court will go on, and Justice Scalia would not want it any other way.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Friday, February 5, 2016
Legal Geek No. 63: Robotic Falconry and Air Space Property Rights
Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we return to the subject of drones with a look at a new patent filing on a system of catching rogue or unauthorized drones, in a manner safe to those of us on the ground below.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp63
We discussed drones a couple months ago when FAA regulations were about to be increased because these unmanned aerial vehicles are becoming one of the most popular tech toys as well as potentially a big commercial success story for companies like Amazon, etc. Of course, one of the biggest concerns with drones is the unwanted invasion of your property and the associated privacy law concerns with having drones all over the place.
A Michigan Technological University professor and his students have now taken a new stab at solving such rogue drone problems. The professor has released a video on YouTube entitled Robotic Falconry - Drone Catcher System showing a prototype drone catching system in use. This drone catching system is also the subject of a patent application recently filed by the university, although that patent application has not yet been published for public review.
Although I highly recommend looking up the YouTube video by searching for Robotic Falconry, the general operation is simple. A security drone approaches a rogue or unauthorized drone and fires a net at the unauthorized drone to incapacitate the rogue. This net remains tethered to the security drone, so that the rogue drone is captured but does not fall to the ground. The security drone can then land in a secure location, allowing for the disablement and removal of unauthorized drones from an area without jeopardizing safety of humans, animals, or property below the air space, which would be a problem with force-landing or shooting down unauthorized drones.
Much like the new registration requirements from the FAA, these types of innovations are highly important to address the most pressing concerns associated with the rise of drones. Furthermore, anything that encourages incapacitation without destruction and the associated net losses is a good engineering step to avoid drains on society's overall resources.
It will be interesting to see what the legalities will become regarding defense of personal property and airspace with drone catching devices such as this. Property owners already cannot stop commercial airplanes from traveling through the air space well above houses and buildings, according to a 1946 Supreme Court decision entitled United States v. Causby. That decision limited a property owner's actual rights, which were previously everything from the depths to the heavens, to everything under the land and the air space within a minimum safe altitude, which was deemed to be about 500 to 1000 feet in the air. Anything higher than that is public domain air space. However, an update to the property rights rules in the Causby decision could now be merited by drone-on-drone combat brought on by innovations such as Robotic Falconry.
The Bottom Line is, the law often takes a long time to catch up to innovation, which could be bad for companies like Amazon, which want to rely more on drones but obviously don't want to risk losing drones and parcels to devices such as this. But it's an interesting legal question to watch for further development as innovation and popularity continue in this drone field.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp63
We discussed drones a couple months ago when FAA regulations were about to be increased because these unmanned aerial vehicles are becoming one of the most popular tech toys as well as potentially a big commercial success story for companies like Amazon, etc. Of course, one of the biggest concerns with drones is the unwanted invasion of your property and the associated privacy law concerns with having drones all over the place.
A Michigan Technological University professor and his students have now taken a new stab at solving such rogue drone problems. The professor has released a video on YouTube entitled Robotic Falconry - Drone Catcher System showing a prototype drone catching system in use. This drone catching system is also the subject of a patent application recently filed by the university, although that patent application has not yet been published for public review.
Although I highly recommend looking up the YouTube video by searching for Robotic Falconry, the general operation is simple. A security drone approaches a rogue or unauthorized drone and fires a net at the unauthorized drone to incapacitate the rogue. This net remains tethered to the security drone, so that the rogue drone is captured but does not fall to the ground. The security drone can then land in a secure location, allowing for the disablement and removal of unauthorized drones from an area without jeopardizing safety of humans, animals, or property below the air space, which would be a problem with force-landing or shooting down unauthorized drones.
Much like the new registration requirements from the FAA, these types of innovations are highly important to address the most pressing concerns associated with the rise of drones. Furthermore, anything that encourages incapacitation without destruction and the associated net losses is a good engineering step to avoid drains on society's overall resources.
It will be interesting to see what the legalities will become regarding defense of personal property and airspace with drone catching devices such as this. Property owners already cannot stop commercial airplanes from traveling through the air space well above houses and buildings, according to a 1946 Supreme Court decision entitled United States v. Causby. That decision limited a property owner's actual rights, which were previously everything from the depths to the heavens, to everything under the land and the air space within a minimum safe altitude, which was deemed to be about 500 to 1000 feet in the air. Anything higher than that is public domain air space. However, an update to the property rights rules in the Causby decision could now be merited by drone-on-drone combat brought on by innovations such as Robotic Falconry.
The Bottom Line is, the law often takes a long time to catch up to innovation, which could be bad for companies like Amazon, which want to rely more on drones but obviously don't want to risk losing drones and parcels to devices such as this. But it's an interesting legal question to watch for further development as innovation and popularity continue in this drone field.
----------------------------------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)