Peter Brown

May 11, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Last month, in Part 1 of this article, we mentioned the first CAN-SPAM cases that were filed and discussed the Act in general, including its scope and applicability, as well as preemption, enforcement and penalties under the new law.

By Richard Raysman And Peter Brown

12 minute read

January 11, 2011 | New York Law Journal

Richard Raysman, a partner at Holland & Knight, and Peter Brown, a partner at Baker & Hostetler, write the the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski clarified certain aspects of patent litigation, but it also created uncertainties for inventors who seek to patent software methodologies and financial processes; generated strategic concerns for certain patent licensors and licensees; and ultimately left the task of fashioning patentability standards to the USPTO and the Federal Circuit.

By Richard Raysman and Peter Brown

13 minute read

September 16, 2011 | Legaltech News

Service providers and content owners have colorable arguments concerning the boundaries and practical effect of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor. Ultimately, policing the internet for infringing material is time-consuming and costly. Holland & Knight's Richard Raysman and Baker Hostetler's Peter Brown explore the discussion about who will carry the DMCA burden.

By Richard Raysman and Peter Brown

13 minute read

July 13, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Richard Raysman and Peter Brown, partners at Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner, write that it is extraordinarily difficult to derive personally identifiable information without the assistance of an Internet Service Provider.

By Richard Raysman and Peter Brown

13 minute read

October 14, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Richard Raysman, a partner at Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen, and Peter Brown, a partner at Baker & Hostetler, discuss the Digitla Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor generally, a recent decision holding that a video-sharing site that actively enforces its user policy, acts expeditiously to remove infringing material, and seeks to prevent the same infringing content from being re-posted qualifies for the safe harbor, and how that decision might impact the Viacom v. YouTube litigation currently taking place in the Southern District of New York.

By Richard Raysman and Peter Brown

13 minute read

September 12, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Richard Raysman and Peter Brown, partners at Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner, write that with the increased e-commerce traffic generated by both Web-based and traditional brick-and-mortar businesses that operate a Web presence, businesses are constantly trying new methods to attract consumers to their sites. Some marketing techniques, however, have involved trade names and the goodwill of competing businesses.

By Richard Raysman and Peter Brown

13 minute read

November 19, 2008 | Law.com

Despite the obituary written for digital rights management by some, it remains a continuing part of new media distribution. Richard Raysman and Peter Brown discuss DRM, its new technologies, such as content identification, and how DRM is being considered by courts and litigants.

By Richard Raysman and Peter Brown

14 minute read

January 17, 2006 | Law.com

For nearly 70 years, the doctrine of patent prosecution laches remained mostly unchanged as an affirmative defense in litigation. But that all changed this fall when the Federal Circuit issued its decision in a case involving computer bar-code-scanning technology. Richard Raysman and Peter Brown discuss the decision as it relates to the doctrine of prosecution laches and other issues likely to impact computer and technology-related patent litigation.

By Richard Raysman and Peter Brown

12 minute read