Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts Issues
Volumes 1 - 5 were published under the journal name
"Shidler Journal of Law, Commerce + Technology".
Volume 6
Issue 4
Spring 2011
| Article | Title | Author |
|---|
| 259 |
Choose Your Words Wisely: Affirmative Representations as a Limit on § 230 Immunity
abstract
full article
|
Jeffrey R. Doty |
| 273 |
United States v. Berger: The Rejection of Civil Loss Causation Principles in Connection with Criminal Securities Fraud
abstract
full article
|
James A. Jones II |
| 285 |
Gimme a Brekka!: Deciphering “Authorization” Under the CFAA and How Employers Can Protect Their Data
abstract
full article
|
Amber L. Leaders |
| 297 |
A Survey of the DMCA’s Copyright Management Information Protections: The DMCA’s CMI Landscape After All Headline News and McClatchey
abstract
full article
|
Susuk Lim |
| 311 |
Jacobson Revisited: Conditions, Covenants and the Future of Open-Source Software Licenses
abstract
full article
|
Yamini Menon |
Issue 3
Winter 2011
| Article | Title | Author |
|---|
| 171 |
The "Three Strikes" Policy in Korean Copyright Act 2009: Safe or Out?
abstract
full article
|
Sun-Young Moon & Daeup Kim |
| 185 |
Standardizing Warhol: Antitrust Liability for Denying the Authenticity of Artwork
abstract
full article
|
Gareth S. Lacy |
| 217 |
“Capital” Punishment: Evaluating an Investor’s Secondary Copyright Infringement Liability after Veoh
abstract
full article
|
James L. Proctor, Jr. |
| 233 |
Exportability’s Effect on Process Patent Enforcement: Why § 271(f) Export Restrictions Do Not Apply to Intangible Process Claims
abstract
full article
|
Homer Yang-hsien Hsu |
| 247 |
How Much is too Much? Copyright Protection of Short Portions of Text in the United States and European Union after Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades
abstract
full article
|
Connor Moran |
Issue 2
Autumn 2010
| Article | Title | Author |
|---|
| 93 |
Neutralizing Actual Controversy: How Patent Holders Can Reduce the Risk of Declaratory Judgment in Patent Disputes
abstract
full article
|
Homer Yang-hsien Hsu |
| 111 |
Outsider Hacking and Insider Trading: The Expansion of Liability Absent a Fiduciary Duty
abstract
full article
|
James A. Jones II |
| 125 |
Inducement or Solicitation? Competing Interpretations of the “Underlying Illegality” Test in the Wake of Roommates.com
abstract
full article
|
Jeffrey R. Doty |
| 143 |
Location Surveillance by GPS: Balancing an Employer’s Business Interest with Employee Privacy
abstract
full article
|
Kendra Rosenberg |
| 155 |
Death of the Spam Wrangler: CAN-SPAM Private Plaintiffs Required to Show Actual Harm
abstract
full article
|
Susuk Lim |
Issue 1
Summer 2010
| Article | Title | Author |
|---|
| 1 |
Walking from Cloud to Cloud: The Portability Issue in Cloud Computing
abstract
full article
|
Robert H. Carpenter, Jr. |
| 15 |
Arbitration Nation: Wireless Services Providers and Class Action Waivers
abstract
full article
|
Alexander J. Casey |
| 33 |
Mobile Marketing Derailed: How Curbing Cell-Phone Spam in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster May Have Banned Text-Message Advertising
The risk of receiving cell-phone spam—in the form of unsolicited text messages—grows as advertisers increasingly target cell-phone users. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) clearly prohibits unsolicited telephone calls made by an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) without the recipient’s express prior consent. But until the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, it was unclear how TCPA applied to text messages. Simon & Schuster argued their text messages were not “calls” under the TCPA and were not sent by an ATDS. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and held a text message is a “call.” The court also held an ATDS means any equipment with capacity to store or dial random or sequential telephone numbers, regardless of whether such calls were actually made. This sweeping rule arguably applies to any computer. The court also adopted narrow legal definitions of “brand” and “affiliate” that could hinder any business seeking third-party advertisers to send messages on its behalf. This Article explores how Satterfield exposes mobile advertisers to significantly increased liability.
full article
|
Gareth S. Lacy |
| 49 |
Communications Decency Act Provides No Safe Harbor Against Antifraud Liability or Hyperlinks to Third-Party Content Under the Securities and Exchange Act
abstract
full article
|
Sheri Wardwell |
| 67 |
Stevens v. Publicis: The Rise of "No E-Mail Modification" Clauses?
abstract
full article
|
Stephanie Holmes |
| 83 |
Trusting the Machines: New York State Bar Ethics Opinion Allows Attorneys to Use Gmail
abstract
full article
|
Kevin Raudebaugh |