Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

Summary Judgments Logo

Summary Judgments for December 4

12/4/2012 COMMENTS (0)

The baby who might be queen

By Caitlin Tremblay

When the news of Kate Middleton and Prince William's baby came out, so did the usual questions that accompany the announcement of a pregnancy. Girl or boy? What will the name be?

One of the more interesting queries concerned royal succession, points out the Telegraph. Under current rules, sons are favored over daughters and those in line to the throne are barred from marrying Roman Catholics, Reuters has reported. But in 2011, leaders of the Commonwealth nations meeting in Australia decided those rules should be abolished.

As a next step, the leaders of the 16 nations had to give their consent allowing Prime Minister David Cameron to propose legislation to rewrite the succession rules. Those consents arrived, coincidentally, just as the royal baby news was being announced, and the machinery to publish the Succession to the Crown Bill was set in motion.

There are theories that Kate and William's baby, even if she's a girl, will be in line before William's brother, Prince Harry. But that should all be cleared up once the bill comes out, which is expected in early 2013.

The other Hathaway

12/3/12

By Erin Geiger Smith

Because of her starring role in the soon-to-be-released movie version of "Les Miserables," profiles of Anne Hathaway are a given this holiday season. But you know what we aren't seeing enough of? Sit-downs with her lawyer dad!

To the rescue comes The National Law Journal's Leigh Jones, who spoke with Gerald Hathaway, currently of 140-attorney Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp. Until March he was a partner at 850-attorney employment firm Littler Mendelson.

Like a movie trailer, we'll give you a few highlights from the Q&A. In December 2008, Hathaway père had an epiphany of sorts when he realized he'd become a legal version of the human resources executive George Clooney plays in "Up in the Air," the guy who fires people for a living. As a labor lawyer, Hathaway had run the layoff procedures for a lot of companiesand, he calculated,had been part of the dismissal of 65,000 people. "I felt a real jolt," he told Jones. At the time, his practice was gravitating toward the entertainment industry anyway, and he became convinced that a permanent move was necessary.

So now that Hathaway is handling clients like ABC Studios and Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc, does he ever trade on his daughter's name? What's his favorite Anne Hathaway film? Preview's over. You'll have to check out the article for yourself. Hint: It involves the term "street cred."

Fair price for a follower?

12/4/12

By Erin Geiger Smith

What's a Twitter follower worth? If you've been waiting for the answer to that question to emerge from a lawsuit filed by mobile-phone news site Phonedog.com against a former employee, you're out of luck. Mashable reports that that lawsuit has settled.

The case involved tech writer Noah Kravitz, who built up a follower base of about 17,000 while working for Phonedog and tweeting under the name @Phonedog_Noah. Kravitz changed his Twitter handle and, several months after he left the company, demanded a percentage of Phonedog's ad revenue. The company responded with a lawsuit, arguing that the Twitter followers Kravitz amassed during his time at Phonedog were akin to a corporate customer list that he had no right to take with him. Phonedog valued the followers at $2.50 each.

The terms of the settlement were not made public, but Kravitz said in a statement that he hoped both employers and employees would recognize the importance of social media, as well as that "good contracts with specific work agreements are important, and the responsibility for constructing them lies with both parties."

Digital rights

12/4/12

By Suhrith Parthasarathy

Travelers are beginning to challenge border searches by customs agents who search and seize electronic devices, reports The New York Times. Traditionally, the government has been able to search citizens crossing the border without being restricted by the Fourth Amendment. But as more and more people travel with items like laptops and cameras containing business and personal information, some who have been stopped are questioning the government's right to hold on to items for days on end for analysis.

There may be some clarity soon when a federal district court in New York rules on the case of Pascal Abidor, a student of Islamic studies who was detained at the Canadian border on a trip from Montreal to New York. Abidor, who holds both American and French passports, was questioned for several hours and his laptop was kept for 11 days. Catherine Crump, an ACLU lawyer who is representing Abidor and another plaintiff in a similar case, told the Times that her goal is to ensure the government acts on a reasonable belief of wrongdoing before going through electronic devices. She also expressed concern that such border detentions might be an affront to political speech.

In July 2012, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in U.S. v. Cotterman, heard en banc the question of whether a border search allows a forensic examination of a computer. The video of the oral arguments can be found here, and Orin Kerr's report in the Volokh Conspiracy on the case, here. The court has not yet ruled.

Breaking the waves

12/4/12 

By Suhrith Parthasarathy

An international powwow in Dubai over revisions to a wide-ranging United Nations communications treaty could pit authoritarian governments that want more control of the Internet against more free-wheeling countries, reports the BBC. The two-week conference, which began on Monday, is considering changes to the International Telecommunications Regulations for the first time since 1988.

Regulators from 193 countries are participating in the confab, Al Jazeera points out, with Russia, China and a few other non-democratic countries calling for an overhaul of the current system and greater authority to be vested in the International Telecommunication Union, the UN agency responsible for information and communication technologies. Russia, for example, wants governments to be allowed to shut down Internet access whenever someone uses the it to interfere in the "internal affairs" of that country, writes Eli Sugarman in the Atlantic. Such proposals are "alarming," says U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Terry Kramer, who wants the treaty to be restricted to telephone calls and communication networks. If the changes are implemented, they would "fundamentally violate everything that we believe in in terms of democracy and opportunities for individuals, and we're going to vigorously oppose any proposals of that nature," Kramer said.

Google is also opposing some of the proposed treaty language, The Hill reports, and has launched a campaign arguing that changes "could increase censorship and threaten innovation" online.

Summary Judgments for December 3 

Summary Judgments for November 30 

Summary Judgments for November 29 

Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters