I wrote previously on the Troll Tracker case (see Update on Patent Troll Tracker; Troll Tracker Lands Job Fighting Patent Trolls!). This case concerns defamation suits filed against "Troll Tracker," aka Rick Frenkel, by two Texas lawyers, in the aftermath of Frenkel's identity being revealed, after bounties put up by one of the subjects of his criticism, patent attorney Ray Niro. (It's convoluted, but all you need to know is that Frenkel is the good guy here.)

An updated is provided by Dennis Crouch on Patently-O in Troll Tracker Defamation Lawsuit: Trial Underway. As Crouch notes,

Eric Albritton's defamation lawsuit against Rick Frenkel and his former employer Cisco Systems is underway in the Eastern District of Texas. In my opinion, the case is ridiculous. However, it should serve as a reminder that those vehemently against certain types of speech can often shut-down that speech. Frenkel has indicated that he will not revive his troll tracker blog.

Yet another example of how state law and institutions--including defamation law, state courts themselves and the hideous expense they impose and the injunctive remedies available to judges, and the admixture of IP law--chills free speech.

[StephanKinsella.com cross-post; Mises blog cross-post]

As was noted here in August, Canadians were offered a chance to express their wishes for the next version of the Copyright Act of Canada. The volume of submissions (estimated to be over 8,000) may have caught the Federal Government off guard; the consultation period is now closed, but many submissions have not yet been posted.

My favorite might well be the remarks of David Allsebrook, submitted August 10, who observed that the protection of copyright should require adherence to the prevailing legal limitations of copyright - those who deny the public legitimate access to copyrighted materials through "restrictive license terms, technical protection means, or abuse through collective administration," should have the their entire protection revoked!

I am less enthusiastic about the request from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, for a special exception so that students and faculty may utilize publicly available works from the Internet (as discussed in the Gatineau roundtable of July 29). To give the Association the benefit of the doubt, I must say that Canadian education operates under tightly constrained and cumbersome educational exceptions to copyright. That said, it's a little hard to overlook the fact that this request is being made in the name of works that are "publicly available." The Association is conceding infringement where none has happened, which raises concerns of liability to all those who will not be sheltered within an educational institution.

Moreover, once published, all material is available for the good-faith productive uses that are specified under fair dealing (private study, research, criticism, review, and news reporting) provided that the conditions of fair dealing are met (citation, appropriateness of use, etc.) Unlike fair use, fair dealing is this closed set of activities. However, in 2004, a unanimous Canadian Supreme Court described fair dealing as an integral part of copyright law, stated that it should be interpreted liberally, and offered considerable guidance regarding how to use fair dealing.

One advocate of the Association's proposal informed me that other jurisdictions are considering similar schemes. But, there was no mention of which jurisdictions. If anyone has information to share, please do.

More information on the Association's proposal can be found in my submission.

As noted here (see also here, here, here),

Texas Instruments has issued a DMCA notice to United TI, a group of enthusiasts. They had been cracking the keys that sign the operating system binaries in an attempt to gain access and possibly expand on the features.

Suing your own most dedicated fans of your increasingly outmoded device (its calculators), for trying to modify it to make it more useful to them. It's hard to decide what's more ridiculous: IP law, or the way companies use them. [SK cross-post; mises cross-post]

A Baltimore startup with less than 5 employees, WhoGlue, is suing Facebook for patent infringement, based on a patent it previously--unsuccessfully--tried to unload at a patent auction. The patent, no. 7,246,164, is for a "Distributed personal relationship information management system and method". In essence, they claim that Facebook infringes their patent by permitting members to send one another "friend requests" and sharing information online, tracking each others activities, and so on. I.e., they are claiming a state-granted monopoly on a crucial aspect of social networking.

WhoGlue wants to make it clear they are not a patent troll, heaven forfend. No,

"The patent is a key part of WhoGlue's business, and the lawsuit is meant to protect his company's livelihood, Hardebeck said. ... "We didn't patent something that we thought would be an opportunity to license" to other companies, he said. "We patented it because it was core to our business."

So... they are not some nasty patent troll who is just suing Facebook for some invention they never practiced or sold. They just want to protect something that's "core to their business." Something so core they tried to auction it off (but failed). But do they claim that Facebook copied this "invention" from them? I doubt it--it's unlikely Facebook did copy it, and copying need not be shown to prove patent infringement anyway. And what does this non-troll want? "Unspecified monetary damages"--probably hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, if the Blackberry patent suit is any guide--plus a permanent injunction issued by the state preventing Facebook from using this "invention". I bet Facebook is so glad WhoGlue is not some annoying troll.