Legal Watch blog recently reported that Apple has applied for a patent on technology that, among other things, would allow Apple to identify and punish users who “jailbreak” or unlock their iPhones or who otherwise tamper with their devices against Apple policy.

Scotland proposes to join England and Wales in abolishing the rule against double jeopardy in some criminal matters. According to the story on the BBC site, the move appears to have been prompted by the acquittal, three years earlier, of a person suspected of being guilty of some terrible murders.

The Scottish Law Commission released a report on double jeopardy [PDF] at the end of last year, recommending that the law be changed to permit an acquittal to be set aside where the trial was “tainted.” The Commission was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether an acquittal might . . . [more]

U.S. President Obama today signed into law the “Speech Act,” which is aimed at protecting U.S. writers from foreign libel judgments from jurisdictions that, in the opinion of a U.S. court, do not adequately protect freedom of speech. Such foreign judgments will not be enforceable in the United States — where, presumably, the writer’s and publisher’s assets are located. The legislation was prompted, as the BBC report says, by a libel suit against American writer Rachel Ehrenfeld who was sued in England, a notorious destination for libel tourism, because of a book on the funding of terrorism.

I believe that . . . [more]

The Federal Register, the daily journal of the United States Government including changes to rules and regulations, is celebrating its 75th anniversary, has relaunched its website and re-envisioned their services. Federal Register 2.0 is organized like a daily newspaper and is part of the open government initiatives under the Obama administration.

This video (which also appears on the new website under “About Federal Register 2.0”) provides additional detail about the history of the Federal Register and the changes:

Also note the website is using images from photo sharing site Flickr made available for use under Creative Commons licensing. . . . [more]

There has been a lot of press over the latest countries that don’t want Blackberries in their country unless they can get access to monitor user communications. See, for example, the Washington Post, Techdirt, Engadget.

RIM designed Blackberry communications so they would be secure, in a way that RIM itself can’t even access them. That’s a great feature that makes privacy advocates, corporate users, and individual users very happy. 

But it also makes some governments very unhappy – particularly those who believe they need to spy on communications. Some to the extent that they threaten to ban . . . [more]

My colleague Laurel Murdoch showed me the latest issue of the Harvard Law School Bulletin, the lead article focusing on the changes happening at the Harvard Law Library, led by John G. Palfrey, the Law School’s vice dean for library and information resources (formerly of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society). Palfrey is the author of a very interesting piece that Louis alerted us to, entitled Cornerstones of Law Libraries for an Era of Digital-Plus

Palfrey’s piece ends with a collaborative challenge:

Our next step should be a process akin to a design charrette.60 We ought to

. . . [more]

Earlier this week the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) called for a tightening of the Takeover Code because too many British companies were being taken over by foreign interests,

It agrees with business secretary Vince Cable that many mergers fail to create value for shareholders, and that our liberal takeover regime means British firms attract more bids than European and US competitors.

The CBI’s views were contained in its submission to the Takeover Panel, which is reviewing the rules after last year’s uproar over the £11.7bn takeover of Cadbury by Kraft of the US. The public consultation on possible reforms

. . . [more]

On July 28, 2010, US District Judge Susan Bolton said the US administration “is likely to succeed” in its argument and issued a preliminary injunction suspending the implementation of several key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law that were to come into force July 29, 2010.

Norwegian lawyer Fredrik Heffermehl, who holds an LLM from NYU, argued in his book, Nobels vilje published in 2008, that half the awards of the Peace Prize have not conformed to Alfred Nobel’s 1895 testamentary intentions. Now his book is about to be published in translation as The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted and the issue is being mooted in the English-speaking press.

Heffermehl’s interpretation is that “Nobel did not establish a prize for ‘peace’ in whatever guise, but a prize for work for peace in certain ways and certain fields” [emphasis in the original]; . . . [more]

The legal press around the world this weekend featured a variety of stories that caught my attention. Let’s visit India, Sierra Leone, Namibia and England. . . . [more]

The US Senate has passed a bill against ‘libel tourism’, essentially barring the enforcement of defamation judgments from places that the US deems to protect free speech insufficiently. In what has become a widespread but still unfortunate practice, the bill’s name is an acronym: the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (viz the SPEECH Act).*

Out-law.com has this story and more official information is available on the Govtrack.us site. (It does not show the bill as passed as of July 14.)

Is such a bill necessary? Would not a rule like the Canadian . . . [more]

What Slaw talks about, the world talks about tomorrow. Well not quite. No illusions about our reach.

So we’ll just put it down to coincidence or the zeitgeist that John Gregory’s mention of Henry VIII Clauses (he initially undervalued the monarch at a mere VII) here triggered global interest. But a few days later, the English legal press revealed that the Lord Chief Justice spoke on just this subject.

Lord Judge, who as Lord Chief Justice is head of the English judiciary, was speaking at the annual Lord Mayor’s dinner for the judiciary, the day before John Gregory’s comment; . . . [more]