David Madden, Esq. is an electrical & computer engineer and patent attorney in solo practice in Portland, Oregon as Mersenne Law. He worked as a professional engineer for over 20 years (and continues to design, build, code and patent electronic and Internet systems), but in his day job, advises inventors and early-stage start-ups on IP and business legal matters. He has been representing individuals affected by copyright-troll suits since 2010.
Copyright Trolling: How to Recognize It, How It Works, and How to Respond
Live Broadcast on January 25, 2018
US Copyright law contains several quirks that allow an attorney to dragoon a district-court judge into providing the muscle for a lucrative shakedown scam. The development of a troll case is unexpected and astonishing to ordinary attorneys, so even targets who seek representation quickly can find themselves in a precarious position. Fortunately, the copyright quirks are double-edged, so a swift and careful response can protect the target and help pay for his defense.
This presentation explains how copyright trolling works, how to recognize it and how to respond.
Key topics to be discussed:
• Features of Copyright Law, 17 USC §§101 et seq., that give rise to troll suits
• Technical details of computer & Internet data transfer
• Recognizing a troll suit
• Defending a troll suit
Date / Time: January 25, 2018
• 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm Eastern
• 11:00 am – 1:00 pm Central
• 10:00 am – 12:00 pm Mountain
• 9:00 am – 11:00 am Pacific
Choose a format:
• Live Video Broadcast/Re-Broadcast: Watch Program “live” in real-time, must sign-in and watch program on date and time set above. May ask questions during presentation via chat box. Qualifies for “live” CLE credit.
• On-Demand Video: Access CLE 24/7 via on-demand library and watch program anytime. Qualifies for self-study CLE credit. On-demand versions are made available 7 business days after the original recording date and are view-able for up to one year.
mylawCLE seeks approval in all states.
CLE 2.00 – AK
CLE 2.00 – IA
CLE 2.00 – MP
CLE 2.40 – NY
CLE 2.00 – UT
myLawCLE will seek credit where attending attorneys are primarily licensed for all of its live webinars and live teleconferences, except in states which allow for reciprocity (see reciprocity section below). Credit for CLE in a self-study format is sought for in most states; however, some states do not allow for CLE credit to be earned in a self-study format (see the self-study section below). Many states typically decide whether a program qualifies for MCLE credit in their jurisdiction 4-8 weeks after the program application is submitted. For many live events, credit approval is not received prior to the program. Credit hours granted are subject to approval from each state.
Additionally, some states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, CO, FL, ME, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, PR, and SD. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.
myLawCLE will seek on-demand approval in all states except Virginia and Arkansas (outside reciprocal provisions stated above).
myLawCLE Credit Guarantee
myLawCLE offers a program and credit approval guarantee. If a registered attendee is unhappy with a CLE program they have attended, myLawCLE will offer that attended access to another complimentary CLE or a full refund in order to insure the attendee’s satisfaction.
Additionally, on all online CLE programs application for approval will be made in all states where attending attorneys are primarily licensed in. If a registered attorney does not receive credit from their state for any reason, a full refund will be granted.
Section I. Quick overview of copyright law – 17 U.S.C. §§ 504(c)(2) & 505 Statutory damages, attorney fees
Section II. BitTorrent computer interactions
Section III. Troll suit definition
Section IV. Case timeline
Section V. Weaknesses in π case
Section VI. Risks for ∆
Section VII. Fake Troll Cases