To wrap up the year 2009, lets take a look at the current cases that are conspicuously showcases the constantly changing internet law:
(Information from the Chicago Sun Times):
A Chicago-based financial services company is petitioning Yahoo for information related to defamatory posts about Advance Equities, Inc., 311 S. Wacker Dr., on Yahoo’s financial chat board on Nov. 9. Advances Equities wants the identity of robinlove@yahoo.com, who posted the statement.
Also, on Nov. 17, social networking Web site SoAct.net demanded Twitter and a stock market message board to hand over account information for users who called SoAct.net a “fraud.” – both lawsuits cited Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224, which “compels limited discovery before filing a lawsuit in an effort to determine the identity of one who maybe be liable in damages.”
Google has their own battle, According to Information Week:
The National Arbitration Forum (NAF), which is accredited by Internet overseer ICANN, has dismissed Google’s complaint against Groovle.com filed in November. Google had objected to the site’s domain name, arguing that it was “confusingly similar” to its Google trademark. (Groovle.com provides Internet start pages that people can customize with their own photos.)
The three-person NAF panel said in it’s decision that the name of its site was sufficiently different to avoid confusion with Google. “Accordingly, it is ordered that the Groovle.com domain name remain with respondent.”The panel’s decision was only the second time Google has lost a domain name dispute; they also lost the challenge of the domain name froogles.com, which the NAF panel ruled was sufficiently dissimilar from the Google trademark.
So, Google doesn’t always win, and libel is a prosecutable offence. Good to know.