Click the play button below to listen, or click here to subscribe to us on iTunes!

Click here to download this week’s show.

Here are the show notes for this week’s episode:

Shownotes for The Singularity Law Podcast: Episode 5 for October 27, 2008

Our Panel for Today:

• Josh Kagan, author of The Josh Kagan Blog
• Prof. Michael Scott of The Singularity Law Blog

Search Engine Caches Covered by Implied Licenses: Parker v. Yahoo!, Inc.

• Parker v. Yahoo!, Inc. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74512 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 26, 2008).
• Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., et al., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
• Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.32 701 (9th Cir 2007).
• Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir 2003).
• S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1989).
• MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1344 (C.D. Cal 2000). This is an unpublished decision.
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 97-3055 DDP (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 28, 1997).
• Josh Kagan: Is a Search Engine Cache a Copy? Revisiting Kelly v. Arriba Soft through Parker v. Yahoo!, Inc.
• Eric Goldman: Search Engine “Cache” Function Covered by Implied License–Parker v. Yahoo.
• Jeff Neuburger: Challenge to Search Engine Caching Dismissed on Most (But Not All) Grounds.

eBay Libel and the Danger of Libel Tourism

• Eric Krangel, writing for Silicon Valley Insider: eBay Business Sues Buyer For Leaving Bad Feedback.

Apple Drops the iPhone NDA for Released Applications

• Robert Palmer, writing for The Unofficial Apple Weblog: iPhone NDA dropped, developers rejoice.
• Josh Kagan’s Recommended Reading: The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It by Jonathan Zittrain.

Practical Corner: The Dangers of Screening Employees via Social Networking Sites

• William-Arthur Haynes, writing for The San Jose Business Journal: Screening via social media sites may leave employers exposed.

Final Thoughts: Murder in Cyberspace!

• Mari Yamaguchi, writing for the Associated Press: Japanese Woman Jailed After “Killing” Virtual Husband.

This recording is an informational resource only. It is not designed to offer legal advice.

The information contained in this message is under non-disclosure.

I’d love to hear one of Apple’s attorneys explain what the company’s damages would be if a developer were to breach this.

That aside, there’s a bigger problem here: this is bad business sense, no matter how you spin it.

It’s also bad for society.  In stark contrast to Apple’s approach, Google seems to be going in the opposite direction with their new “Android” platform.  The platform is wide-open, so anyone can develop almost anything for it without any limitations.  I think it’s obvious why that’s dangerous.  So, as of today the market has exactly two major choices: Apple’s closed system that’s hostile to developers, and Google’s open system that’s a malware attack just waiting to happen.

I don’t think this can last.

I wonder whether an iPhone-specific version of the Firefox web browser would similarly be rejected because it’s too similar in functionality to the iPhone’s built-in Safari browser.  If so, this reminds me a little (and I mean just a little) of United States v. Microsoft.¹

1. 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000).