tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3811310941500947992024-03-07T21:01:55.340-08:00Traverse Internet Law on HackingInternet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-68240894854969761352012-09-21T08:09:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:09:59.880-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2011 - Hacking LawsuitsTraverse Internet Law Disclaimer<br /><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-52482317642386438282012-07-03T11:26:00.001-07:002012-09-21T08:03:53.552-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2012 - Hacking Lawsuits<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cybertriallawyer.com/">CyberTrialLawyer.com</a> Disclaimer</div>
<br />
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br />
<br />
<br />
MRI SOFTWARE, LLC v. LYNX SYSTEMS, INC.<br />
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO<br />
1:12-CV-01082-CAB<br />
FILED: 05/01/12<br />
<br />
<b>This lawsuit includes many different legal bases for recovery but with respect to “hacking” the claims relate to a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Defendant is alleged to have repetitively accessed the Plaintiff’s computer systems to obtain information in order to provide service for the Plaintiff’s products and services. This type of aggressive business practice, if true, is becoming more prevalent. While businesses in the past have allowed this type of business to thrive, today we see a much more aggressive effort to protect intellectual property and enforce the laws.</b> <br />
<br />
The Plaintiff is a software manufacturer and Lynx is alleged to have illegally accessed its computers, obtained and created derivative works of its software, and used those works in unlawful ways to offer low-cost support and maintenance for MRI Software.<br />
<br />
The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition, misappropriation of confidential business information and/or trade secrets, trespassing, breach of agreement, intentional or negligent interference with existing and prospective economic advantage, trademark infringement, commercial disparagement, false advertising, deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff MRI Software requests that Defendant Lynx Systems be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and from engaging in any acts of unfair competition, unfair practices, trespassing, or computer fraud against Plaintiff MRI. Plaintiff requests that Defendant Lynx be ordered to return MRI’s property including MRI Software and promotional materials and that MRI receive treble, punitive, exemplary, and statutory damages in addition to the recovery of costs for this action, reasonable counsel fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. <a href="http://cybertriallawyer.com/">CyberTrialLawyer.com</a> Cross Reference Number 1569.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-61286398591748786522012-03-22T10:05:00.004-07:002012-09-21T08:05:35.840-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2012 - Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center">
<a href="http://cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.</div>
<br />
<br />
RITLABS, S.R.L. v. RITLABS, INC., ET AL.<br />
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (ALEXANDRIA)<br />
1:12-CV-00215-AJT-IDD<br />
FILED: 2/28/2012<br />
<br />
<b>Whenever an employee or contractor is no longer providing service to your company you need to change all passwords so there can be no further unauthorized access.</b><br />
<br />
The Plaintiff is an Internet technology and software provider located in Moldova. Defendant Demcenko is alleged to have formed a Virginia corporation in the name of the Plaintiff and held itself out as a branch or affiliate of the Plaintiff, all without Plaintiff’s knowledge. Defendant Demcenko is alleged to have accessed the Plaintiff’s domain name registrant account and misappropriated several important domain names owned by the Plaintiff.<br />
<br />
Allegations in the lawsuit include cybersquatting, breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, false designation of origin, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, conversion, tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests that the Court issue temporary and permanent injunctive relief from further infringement, the transfer of all infringing domain names, the award of actual, consequential, and statutory damages, Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains, the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief as the Court deems just and proper. <a href="http://cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1549.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-18604269890451754012011-10-31T06:42:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:06:52.053-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br /><div align="left">The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /></div><br /><br /><div align="left">CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC. v. REALIZED SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.<br />DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (NEW HAVEN)<br />3:11-CV01423<br />FILED: 9/15/2011<br /><br /><strong>With respect to hacking, the Defendants are alleged to have accessed the computer of the Plaintiffs without authorization. This type of allegation is the basis for “hacking” claims in civil, as well as criminal, prosecutions.<br /></strong><br />The Plaintiff owns a unique software program that allows parking facility owners and operators the ability to manage, control and report via wireless handheld computers all revenue and customer service transactions. The Defendants, after being employed by the Plaintiff, have allegedly breached their fiduciary duty by surreptitiously setting up a new competing business using the source code, trade secrets and confidential information of CSI.<br /><br />Allegations in the lawsuit include copyright infringement, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Connecticut Computer Crimes Statutes and violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1527.</div>Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-32460317551919720022011-09-28T13:48:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:08:12.163-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />NATHAN E. BLAIR and CEBERUS ONLINE GAMES, LLC v. CHARLES ADKINS<br />NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA (ATLANTA)<br />1:11:CV-02555<br />FILED 8/3/2011<br /><br /><b>Be very careful about the contractors you use. This alleged “high jacking” is not unusual. </b><br /><br />The Plaintiffs are the owners and developers of a multiplayer online videogame. The Defendant is a developer who is alleged to have modified files in Plaintiffs’ game with malicious computer code and subsequently “high jacked” all of the traffic leading to Plaintiffs’ website.<br /><br />Allegations in the lawsuit include violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, unfair competition, violation of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The prayer for relief includes requests for permanent injunctive relief, punitive damages, actual and consequential damages, an accounting and disgorgement of Defendant’s revenue, attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1523.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-29839713360544064252011-07-06T09:31:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:09:03.371-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer<br /></div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />SQUARE ENIX LIMITED v. JOHN DOES 1-15<br />WESTERN DIVISION OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)<br />2:11-CV-01045<br />FILED: 6/22/2011<br /><br /><strong>Anytime you use someone else’s password and access a computer you are likely violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or local computer crime statutes. These are typically criminal and civil in nature. Don’t use someone else’s password or log-in information to get into a program or on to a website.<br /></strong><br />The Plaintiff is a UK company developing and distributing home video game computer programs. The Defendants are alleged to have logged into the restrictive account hosting the game preview and copied the game preview from the server and distributed it to other Defendants and third parties using peer to peer file sharing protocol.<br /><br />Allegations in the lawsuit include copyright infringement and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The prayer for relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1508.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-50336450560874966162011-05-05T12:13:00.000-07:002012-09-21T12:55:45.714-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><div><br />XEROX CORPORATION v. JOHN DOES<br />DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (NEW HAVEN)<br />3:11-CV-00590<br />FILED: 4/14/2011<br /><br /><b>This is the first time I’ve seen a hacking case brought based upon access to computers not owned or controlled by the Plaintiff. A recent 9th circuit decision has extended the application of this hacking law and it is now being applied very broadly to include authorized access to a computer based upon subsequent unauthorized use of the information obtained. This lawsuit and the recent court decision show a tendency to expand protections.</b><br /><br />The Defendants are alleged to have impersonated a Xerox executive by creating a Gmail and Facebook account in his name and then using the Gmail account to spam. The violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is alleged to rise from the Defendants’ access of a third party’s computer system, namely Google and Facebook. <br /><br />The law suit alleges violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Lanham Act, violation of the Connecticut Computer Crimes Statutes, and trespass to chattels. Plaintiff requests temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants along with compensatory damages, actual damages, costs, statutory damage, punitive damages, exemplary damages, and any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law </a>Cross-Reference Number 1487.</div>Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-21360488369442794262011-03-29T08:18:00.000-07:002012-09-21T12:55:57.525-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC. d/b/a YALE MATERIALS HANDLING CORPORATION v. THE LILLY COMPANY<br />EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA<br />4:11-CV-00028<br />FILED: 2/22/11<br /><br /><b>The use of a password to get access to a competitor’s private resource area is typically characterized as “hacking”. If the allegations are true the Defendant is exposed to a broad range of potential liabilities under the federal and state hacking laws. Make sure that your staff understands it is not permitted to use someone else’s passwords to gain access to any websites.</b><br /><br />The Plaintiff manufactures and sells lift trucks. It maintains a dealer resource site restricted to authorized users. Lilly allegedly obtained unauthorized access to the secure dealer resource site. The Defendant is a direct competitor of the Plaintiff. The unauthorized access allegedly provided detailed specifications and trade secrets.<br /><br />Plaintiff alleges violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, computer trespass, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contract and business relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and copyright infringement. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief, destruction of infringing materials, punitive damages, actual damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other such relief the Court deems just and proper. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Cross-Reference Number 1477.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-62760076173276015382011-02-22T11:48:00.000-08:002012-09-21T08:13:19.087-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Disclaimer<br /></div><p>The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />YARDI SYSTEMS, INC. v. REALPAGE, INC. and DC CONSULTING, INC.<br />CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)<br />2:11-CV-00690<br />FILED: 1/24/2011<br /><br /><strong>If you are going to hire employees from a competitor make sure you conduct appropriate due diligence, make sure that they understand that no trade secret information or passwords of any kind can be brought with them to their new job, and have them sign a contract promising that they are not bringing with them any trade secret, confidential or proprietary information. It is also important that you find out if they have signed a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement with their previous employer so you can assess the risk. And remember, using passwords acquired during a previous employment to now compete against a business is most likely going to be considered “hacking”.</strong><br /><br />Yardi and the Defendants compete in the sale of property management software and related services. RealPage acquired a consulting group, today known as “DC Consulting, Inc.”, which was a consulting company providing technology and software support services almost exclusively for Plaintiff’s users. Defendants have allegedly continued to access the Plaintiff’s “client central” software using stolen credentials acquired by the consulting company when it was providing services to Plaintiff’s clients.<br /><br />Plaintiff alleges violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition. The prayer for relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1468.<br /><br /></p>Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-39445362127717567252011-02-02T09:38:00.000-08:002012-09-21T08:14:11.179-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2010 - Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer<br /></div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />VITAL SOUNDS, INC. and THERAPEUTIC RESOURCES, INC. v. VISION AUDIO, INC. and WILLIAM P. MUELLER<br />WESTERN DSITRICT OF WISCONSIN (MADISON)<br />3:10-CV-00602<br />FILED: 10/13/2010<br /><br /><strong>If you are buying email lists make sure that you understand the source of the email addresses. While CAN-SPAM does not require “opt-in” addresses, it is certainly advisable to conduct some reasonable degree of due diligence so that you are not purchasing a stolen email list.<br /></strong><br />Vital Sounds is in the business of selling audio CDs, headphones, books and other tools to teachers, therapists, and families for use in providing counseling and rehabilitative services. The Defendant is alleged to have sent emails selling audio CDs to the Plaintiffs’ confidential and proprietary mailing list. The Defendant is alleged to have hacked into Plaintiffs’ computers to obtain the list.<br /><br />Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, fraud in connection with computers, offense against computer data under Wisconsin law, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The lawsuit requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as well as actual damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Cross-Reference Number 1453.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-69591442556056601532011-01-26T07:22:00.000-08:002012-09-21T08:15:18.406-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2010 Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer<br /></div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />MICAH BREDEN and FORESIGHT HOLDINGS, INC. v. TC CORRIHER IMPLEMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL.<br />WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (ASHEVILLE)<br />1:10-CV-00210<br />FILED: 9/24/2010<br /><br /><strong>This whole problem arose because the retailer signed a three year contract promising to pay 4% of the costs of goods sold through its website each month in exchange for search engine optimization services. These types of agreements are fundamentally problematic because compensation to the search engine optimization service provider is not tied directly to its performance, but rather to the overall performance of the retail website irrespective of the success of the search engine optimization efforts. When you are creating these types of vendor relationship take great care in structuring an agreement that makes sense.</strong><br /><br />Plaintiff is a search engine optimization company and Defendant is a retailer that hired the Plaintiff to provide search engine optimization services for its retail website. The Defendant, or an agent, is alleged to have obtained a domain name log-in and password through unauthorized access to the Plaintiff’s computers and took possession of disputed domain names.<br /><br />The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plaintiff requests that the Court grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief along with actual damages, treble damages, interest, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Cross-Reference Number 1446.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-55950404525296839752011-01-18T10:53:00.000-08:002012-09-21T08:16:07.505-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2010 Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer<br /></div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />PEARSON EDUCATION, INC. v. RAMEEZ RAZZAQ BALAGAMWALA and SAMAR R. BALAGAMWALA<br />SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON)<br />4:10-CV-03038<br />FILED: 8/24/2010<br /><br /><strong>Don’t use other people’s passwords to gain access to any website. Today most user agreements specifically prohibit the transfer of log-in and password information to third parties and specifically prohibit a third party from accessing the site. There are state and federal civil and criminal laws that are being used today to police this type of conduct.<br /></strong><br />Pearson is the world’s leading publisher of textbooks and online educational products. The Defendants are residents of Texas who offer to complete students’ homework on Plaintiff’s website for a fee by obtaining the password from the student. This use of a student’s password is unauthorized and contrary to the rules of Plaintiff’s website and is putting at risk Plaintiff’s reputation.<br /><br />The lawsuit claims violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Texas Computer Crimes Act, trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, tortious interference with contractual relations, and fraud. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of Defendants’ domain names, an accounting of profits, actual damages, treble damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Cross-Reference Number 1445.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-72069994773594837582010-08-20T08:57:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:16:47.550-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2010 Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />BRITANIC VENTURES 1 L P, ET AL. v. MICHAEL STUART, ET AL.<br />SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON)<br />4:10-CV-02604<br />FILED: 7/22/2010<br /><br /><strong>Hacking isn’t what most people think of when lawsuits are filed alleging unauthorized access. But in fact any unauthorized access to a computer that causes damage is considered hacking under federal and state laws, and in this case the hacking action was brought under a state law prohibiting harmful access to a computer. You’d be surprised how often contractual disputes relating to IT and computer services support turn into allegations of “hacking”.</strong><br /><br />Britanic Ventures is the developer of high-end oceanfront living located in Mexico in the form of a condominium development. Defendants were responsible for developing Plaintiffs’ website. Defendants are alleged to have accessed the computer network and website of the Plaintiffs and hijacked it.<br /><br />Plaintiffs allege distributing false copyright management information in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, breach of contract, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets, harmful access by a computer, tortious interference with existing contracts, tortious interference with prospective relations, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of confidentiality, fraud by non-disclosure, conspiracy, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Lanham Act, violation of the Texas Anti-Dilution Statute, common law unfair competition, violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, violation of Texas Pen. Code § 33.02, infliction of bodily injury, and offensive physical contact. Relief requested includes declaratory judgments on behalf of the Plaintiff, a temporary restraining order, temporary injunctive relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual and consequential damages, statutory damages in an amount of $250,000 for each violation, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a request for accounting. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Cross-Reference Number 1439.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-1915084772467559852010-06-28T10:01:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:17:29.351-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2010 Hacking Lawsuits<center><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</center><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />3BA INTERNATIONAL LLC v. KEVIN LUBAHN, ET AL.<br />WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)<br />2:10-CV-00829<br />FILED: 5/18/2010<br /><br /><strong>If you are an email administrator, or have administrative access, and get into a dispute the last thing you want to do is surreptitiously obtain copies of all emails flowing in and out of a business server. This raises such a broad range of potential liability that it is almost unmanageable in terms of the risk to you and your financial well being.</strong><br /><br />3BA International is a professional basketball league that was formed in 2007. The individual Defendants were involved with the basketball league in one way or another and are alleged to have conspired to steal and misappropriate confidential and proprietary trade secret information. Defendant LuBahn is alleged to have hacked into all of the employees email accounts and directed that all incoming and outgoing emails be blind carbon copied to his personal email account.<br /><br />Plaintiff alleges breach of common law confidentiality obligations, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty/common law duty of loyalty, tortious interference with business relationships, libel and slander, violation of the Lanham Act, conversion, misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Stored Communications Act, and violation of the Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Prayer for relief includes requests for injunctive relief along with actual damages, consequential damages, an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other and further relief the court deems just and proper. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1430.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-84391984445441503882010-03-19T07:19:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:18:19.626-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2010 Hacking Lawsuits<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />LOOPNET INC. v. CAROLINABIZBUYSELL INC. AND GINO CALEJO<br />NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)<br />3:10-CV-00612<br />FILED: 2/11/2010<br /><br /><b>When your use of a website exceeds the use permitted by the website owner in its “user agreement” or other contract to which you are bound, it is unauthorized access and the federal hacking law applies if damages reach a certain level. The courts are split as to how to evaluate damages in situations like this, but the rule of thumb is that you must abide by the contract terms of a website.</b><br /><br />Loopnet is a leading commercial real estate information service provider offering a suite of products and services for the commercial investment industry. The Defendant is a South Carolina corporation that operates as a full service business brokerage. The Defendant is alleged to have repeatedly and intentionally accessed Loopnet’s “BizBuySell.com” website without authorization and obtained business listings and reproduced that information on its own website as its own independently developed information.<br /><br />The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and common law unfair competition. The Prayer for Relief includes requests for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and cost of litigation. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1408.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-10422912236705171162010-03-16T08:43:00.000-07:002012-09-21T12:56:28.487-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2010 Hacking Lawsuits<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br /><div>INTERACTIVE INFLATABLES, CORP. AND PARTY PALS v. KENNETH RICHARD KOVIN, ET AL.<br />SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)<br />3:10-CV-00197<br />FILED: 1/26/2010<br /><br /><b>Disputes about the ownership of domain names are nothing new. If you are an employee of a company or a partner with someone, make sure you have a clear understanding as to who actually owns a domain name. All because your name is on the account as a registrant contact, or even as the individual registrant, means very little if you acquired it while employed by, and for the benefit of, your employer or other business enterprise.</b><br /><br />The Plaintiff is one of the largest special events, party and game rental sources in the country. The Defendants are former employees who allegedly acquired access to the Plaintiff’s domain name registrant account at Go Daddy before they left to start a competing business and transferred control of the Plaintiff’s website to themselves hidden behind the “domains-by-proxy” service.<br /><br />The lawsuit alleges intentional and bad faith misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, common law unfair competition, violation of California Business and Professional Code 17200 and 17500, conversion, fraud, intentional interference with economic relationships, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, federal unfair competition, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, copyright infringement, breach of duty of loyalty, and civil conspiracy. The claim for relief includes a request for declaratory relief and extensive injunctive relief as well as restitution, disgorgement of profits related to Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, actual damages, compensatory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, statutory double damages, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1391.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br />ASSOCIATED CONTENT, INC. v. BRIAN ADAMS<br />DISTRICT OF COLORADO (DENVER)<br />1:10-CV-00039<br />FILED: 1/08/2010<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">“Hacking” is the unauthorized access of computers. In order to be prosecuted criminally you generally have to damage the computer or business in a very serious way. In order to be sued civilly federal law requires at least $5,000 in economic damages. Some state laws permit prosecution or a civil action with no damages. Unknown to most people is the fact that signing up for a website contrary to the specific provisions of the user agreement can be considered “hacking” and get you in a lot of trouble. Can you legally use an alias or a pseudonym to sign-up for a website when the user agreement requires you to use your real name? It is an unsettled area of law, but as we see in this case, you can certainly be sued for doing so.</span><br /><br />The Plaintiff owns and operates a highly successful website where independent writers and publishers can submit original articles on a wide variety of topics in a range of formats. The Defendant is alleged to have obtained unauthorized and fraudulent accounts that gave him access to the Associated Content website. Plaintiff then alleges that Defendant authored a “How To” guide that provides detailed instructions on how to defraud Associated Content.<br /><br />The lawsuit alleges violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, federal copyright infringement, federal trademark infringement, federal trademark dilution, and unjust enrichment. Prayer for Relief requests injunctive relief against the Defendant as well as actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1392.<br /><br /><br /><br /></div></div>Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-46924353299738184362010-01-26T09:41:00.000-08:002012-09-21T08:27:23.477-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2009 Hacking Lawsuits<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<div><br /><br />ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC. v. JOHN DOES 1-5<br />SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)<br />1:09-CV-10257<br />FILED: 12/18/2009<br /><br /><b>The extent of successful hacking in the US and abroad is underappreciated and unrecognized. For instance, successful cyber attacks have been going on for years and major systems have been penetrated and infiltrated. Every small business should consider obtaining insurance for data loss to cover the profound consequences if hackers get into a system.</b><br /><br />Condé Nast Publications publishes almost 20 magazines with international circulation including GQ, Vogue, Wired, and others. The Plaintiff alleges that unknown Defendants have been hacking into their computers and stealing advanced covers, pages, and alternative artwork intended to be used for an upcoming magazine edition. The Defendants are alleged to have then published the property on various online sites.<br /><br />The lawsuit Plaintiff has filed against Defendant includes claims for copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and expenses, investigation expenses, damages, any profits or gain by Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, statutory damages, and such further and additional relief the Court may deem to be just and proper. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1393.<br /><br /></div>Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-60172531377864607802009-12-30T06:15:00.000-08:002012-09-21T08:23:09.519-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2009 Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />WARNER BROS, ENTERTAINMENT INC. v. JOHN DOES 1-10<br />CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)<br />2:09-CV-08622<br />FILED: 11/23/2009<br /><br /><strong>It would perhaps be appropriate to point out that the abilities of hackers from all around the world have typically evolved far beyond what most of the public believes. Cyber attacks have proliferated and many in the security industry believe that World War III will be a cyber war. Keep this in mind: Most businesses are not “hacker proof”.</strong><br /><br />Unknown Defendants accessed the Warner Bros’ servers and copied images and other information that apparently related to motion pictures and television series that are entitled to copyright protection. There aren’t many details in the lawsuit as to the exact programs or motion pictures that were misappropriated or the manner in which they might have been published on the web.<br /><br />The lawsuit alleges violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the California Penal Code 502, and trespass to chattels. The claim for relief includes a request for the entry of permanent injunctions prohibiting access to Warner Bros’ properties or use of infringing materials, an order requiring the return of all data obtained from Warner Bros’ servers and monetary awards of compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys fees. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1382.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-12880347110534742582009-11-25T12:15:00.000-08:002012-09-21T08:24:30.916-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2009 Hacking Lawsuits<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><div><br />CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. TROOPAL STRATEGIES, INC., ET AL.<br />NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)<br />3:09-CV-04741<br />FILED: 10/05/2009<br /><br />CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. J.P.LAMERE, ET AL.<br />NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)<br />3:09-CV-04740<br />FILED: 10/05/2009<br /><br />CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. JOHN DOE AND CRAIGSLISTBOTPRO.COM<br />NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)<br />3:09-CV-04739<br />FILED: 10/05/2009<br /><br />CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. JOHN DOE d/b/a CLADGENIUS.COM, ET AL.<br />NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)<br />3:09-CV-04737<br />FILED: 10/05/2009<br /><br />CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. RED TRUMPET LLC AND JEFFREY H. YIP<br />NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)<br />3:09-CV-04743<br />FILED: 10/05/2009<br /><br />CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. EDDIE TEMPLE<br />NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE)<br />5:09-CV-04738<br />FILED: 10/05/2009<br /><br /><b>We are often asked about the legality of using automated programs to interact with websites or “scrape” content. There are a long line of cases going back to the mid 1990’s that prohibit this type of access to computers if there is a prohibition communicated through a user agreement. These claims are the cyber equivalent of a trespass on someone’s land. Remember the signs that say “No Trespassing” nailed to trees? A user agreement with a prohibition against accessing a website is the virtual equivalent of a “No Trespassing” sign. And if you think you can avoid this type of liability by claiming that you did not read the user agreement, I’ve tried my fair share of criminal trespass cases earlier in my career and every defendant said: “I didn’t see the No Trespassing sign”. It never worked.</b><br /><br />The Plaintiff, Craigslist, has sued a broad range of Defendants for using auto-posting software, programs, devices and services on the Craigslist website contrary to the user agreement. This access is the basis for a hacking claim, or better known as a “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act” claim alleging unauthorized access to Craigslist’s computer systems and services.<br /><br />The lawsuits include claims for copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of California penal code 502, trademark infringement, breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and fraud. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue extensive preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants. Additional relief requested includes the disgorgement of profits, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any further relief the Court deems appropriate. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1373.<br /></div>Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-78466799382704281842009-10-15T07:47:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:28:02.130-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2009 Hacking LawsuitsThere are no <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> comments for September, 2009 lawsuits on Hacking.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-73373290985580102292009-09-30T06:58:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:30:47.292-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2009 Hacking Lawsuits<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<div><br /><br />SELLING SOURCE, LLC v. RED RIVER VENTURES, LLC, ET AL.<br />DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)<br />2:09-CV-01491<br />FILED: 8/11/2009<br /><br /><b>This case provides us a glimpse into cyber-security and some of the techniques being used to identify, track, and ultimately pursue those accessing computers without authorization. Selling Source claims to have identified unauthorized accesses, brought in forensic computer investigators, commenced a technical investigation, and allowed the Defendants to continue alleged unauthorized access as the Plaintiff’s security personnel followed, tracked, and analyzed their activities over an extended period of time. The Plaintiff claims that “Red River Ventures” discovered the investigation by chance and at that point the cover was blown and the Plaintiff disconnected all computer access to the Defendants. Unauthorized access is a very serious matter and while the allegations in this lawsuit are merely claims that are being asserted, it is clear that the frequency and scope of computer accesses in the business world is a big problem. As a business, maintain vigilance and be prepared to react appropriately in this extremely complex environment. </b><br /><br />The Plaintiff, Selling Source, LLC, develops technology and marketing solutions for the specialty finance and micro-loan industry. It is a “lead” marketing data source. The Defendants are alleged to have made an unsanctioned alteration to Selling Source’s proprietary software and accessed the Plaintiff’s databases without authorization for the purpose of obtaining valuable information.<br /><br />The lawsuit includes claims for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and federal trademark infringement. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants and require that the Defendants advise potential customers, employers, and other third parties that they provided information unlawfully obtained from the Plaintiffs. Additional relief requested includes the transfer of all documents, data programs, and information relating to Plaintiff’s proprietary, confidential, and trade secret information, restitution, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and any further relief the Court deems appropriate. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1353.</div>Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-72755790132691576402009-08-17T07:22:00.000-07:002012-09-21T12:57:15.899-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2009 Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />METIS PRODUCTS, LLC v. JAMES PANTERA, ET AL.<br />SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)<br />3:09-CV-01662<br />FILED: 7/31/2009<br /><br /><strong>What can you do with employees, officers, and executives who try to interfere with your business and launch a competing enterprise? It’s an age old problem that has become much more prominent when a few clicks of the mouse in a matter of seconds can disable your ability to function. Quick and immediate court relief is essential in these situations.</strong><br /><br />Metis Products, LLC is a San Diego based inventor and manufacturer of innovative ice packs for use with humans and horses. The Defendant Pantera is alleged to have taken all of the source files for the Metis website without authorization and posted a virtually identical website online. Defendant Pantera is alleged to have modified the Metis website so that payments were directed to his personal PayPal account without authorization. In addition, Defendant Pantera is alleged to have activated the online banking function associated with Plaintiff Metis’s bank account so that his personal email address would be used for communications associated with the Plaintiff’s bank account.<br /><br />The lawsuit includes claims for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, cybersquatting, federal trademark infringement, copyright infringement, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, unfair competition, California unfair competition, breach of contract, and conversion. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants and transfer the infringing domain name to Plaintiff. Additional relief requested includes disgorgement of profits, compensatory damages, statutory damages of $100,000 per domain name, statutory damages of $150,000 per copyright infringement, actual damages in the amount of $15,300 for Defendant Pantera’s acts of conversion, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, and any further relief the Court deems appropriate. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1346.<br /><br /><br />OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. JOHN T. EVANS, JR.<br />DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (CAMDEN)<br />1:09-CV-03197<br />FILED: 7/01/2009<br /><br /><strong>If the allegations are true then the website operated by the Defendant is “phishing”. What’s worse than having a replica website with all of the attendant consequences on the web? Having a website that captures and harvests your customer information and uses it for spam and other nefarious purposes. Setting up an early warning system using online alerts for your trademark and business name is essential.</strong><br /><br />Ocwen is a global financial services company and alleges that the Defendant has launched a replica “Ocwen” and is soliciting and harvesting personal information from Ocwen’s customers via this allegedly phony website. The hacking claim apparently relates to unauthorized access to Ocwen’s website computer code and the subsequent copying of it.<br /><br />Plaintiff has sued for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trademark infringement, violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, trafficking in counterfeit marks under New Jersey law, statutory unfair competition, and breach of contract. The prayer for relief includes a request for extensive injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, an order to transfer the infringing domain names to Plaintiff, and any additional relief the Court deems proper. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1347.<br /><br /><br />IGD SYSTEMS, LLC v. GABRIELA ISTURIZ, ET AL.<br />WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (PITTSBURGH)<br />2:09-CV-00843<br />FILED: 6/26/2009<br /><br /><strong>There is a lot to be said for escorting key personnel from a building upon their resignation or termination. It is of course essential that access to all computers be modified immediately to preclude unauthorized access and hacking.</strong><br /><br />The Plaintiff’s primary asset is a software program that provides fully automated ebilling delivery and management systems for law firms. The Defendants were former officers of the Plaintiff’s company. Upon their resignation, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants surreptitiously attempted to sabotage the company’s operations and gain total control of the company. The Defendants are alleged to have logged into the administrative aspects of the software system hosted by Rackspace and modified settings.<br /><br />The lawsuit includes claims for violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, civil conspiracy, and conversion. The prayer for relief requests a declaratory order from the court that establishes IGD as the sole and exclusive owner of the software, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, remediation costs, punitive damages, and further relief the Court should deem appropriate. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Cross-Reference Number 1348.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-17439046245005575332009-07-06T12:10:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:32:13.480-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2009 Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><div align="left"><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute. </div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><p>MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. ERIC LAM, ET AL.<br />WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)<br />2:09-CV-00815<br />FILED: 6/15/2009<br /><br /><strong>If you are a business using pay-per-click advertising and don’t already understand that there is widespread click fraud occurring on a daily basis, the circumstances of this case again reiterate that there is an ongoing battle between the major search engines and click fraudsters. The bottom line is that most click fraud is not caught by the search engines and your business is likely losing money every day by a competitor clicking on one of your ads solely to run up your costs. This is the reality of pay-per-click advertising and should be factored in from a business perspective in using pay-per-click advertising. If there is a pervasive issue, and you should be reviewing your log files and other analytics to determine if such a problem might exist, then you need to do something about it.</strong><br /><br />The Plaintiff, Microsoft, is the renowned software company headquartered in Washington State. Most of the Defendants are natives of China and presently residing in Canada. The Defendants are alleged to have participated in a “pay-per-click fraud” in which they operated “click farms” and “bot nets” to repeatedly click on ads of competitors to run up the advertising cost. The Defendants are alleged to have been using click fraud to attack one specific automobile insurance advertiser and after extensive investigation, the Plaintiff alleges that all of the Defendants are carrying on an ongoing scheme to commit click fraud against targeted advertisers.<br /><br />The lawsuit sets forth claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith, tortious interference with a business, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, hacking (unauthorized access), violation of the Washington Computer Spyware Act, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. Microsoft requests an award of compensatory damages of at least $750,000.00, the entry of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an award of statutory damages and triple damages, a complete accounting and disgorgement of profits earned by the Defendants, and an award of Microsoft’s attorneys’ fees and costs together with interest as permitted by law. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Cross-Reference Number 1332.</p>Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-53975301857703881332009-06-12T11:02:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:33:26.327-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2009 Hacking LawsuitsThere are no <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> comments for May, 2009 lawsuits on Hacking.<br /><br />Google Bomb, the book about online attacks and defamation, is coming September 1.<br /><br /><object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6n6zCQWJ1zw&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6n6zCQWJ1zw&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381131094150094799.post-87429151791187474952009-05-26T12:18:00.000-07:002012-09-21T08:34:08.706-07:00Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: April 2009 Hacking Lawsuits<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law</a> Disclaimer</div><br />The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.<br /><br /><br />KALEIDOSCOPE IMAGING, INC. v. DESIGNPROJECT, ET AL.<br />NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)<br />1:09-CV-02421<br />FILED: 4/21/2009<br /><br /><strong>This hacking case seems to center upon access to computers while the Defendants were still employed by the Plaintiff. Whether such access is “unauthorized”, and therefore legally actionable, is going to depend upon the facts of each situation. If you have authorization to access a software program it is likely an “unauthorized access” or “hacking” claim is going to fail. However, if you have access to a computer but do not have specific authorization to enter into a particular software program, you may not have authorization and such access could be “hacking”. The courts have not dealt with this issue extensively, but as an employer you are well advised to make the bounds of access to your software programs crystal clear and unambiguous.</strong><br /><br />Kaleidoscope Imaging is a service company that appears to operate as somewhat of an ad agency using state of the art digital technology. The Defendants are former employees of Kaleidoscope and left to begin their own competing business. Both businesses appear to specialize in “product design”. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants accessed Kaleidoscope’s protected computer system and copied confidential and proprietary information, trade secrets, and other valuable property without authorization.<br /><br />The lawsuit alleges violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trademark infringement, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, conversion, trespass to channel, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with expectancy, tortious interference with contract, breach of contract, fraud, and civil conspiracy. The claim for relief includes a request for the entry of temporary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the use of the information and a monetary award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees. <a href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/">Traverse Internet Law </a>Cross-Reference Number 1311.Internet Lawyer: Internet Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16727063998177973350noreply@blogger.com0