JURIST - Paper Chase: Sunday, May 29, 2011

[JURIST] An Egyptian judge on Saturday fined former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile] and two ministers $90 million for shutting down Internet and mobile phone service during the protests culminating in his ouster. The massive fine, the first court ruling against Mubarak since leaving office [Telegraph report], is to compensate for damage to the economy [VOA report] resulting from the shutdown of services and must be paid from private assets [Egyptian Gazette report]. Mubarak, already under house arrest at a hospital, is responsible for $33.6 million [LA Times report] of the fine issued by the administrative court. The ousted leader has been ordered to stand trial on charges of corruption and conspiring to kill protesters [JURIST report], which may carry the death penalty.

Egypt has been heavily criticized by rights groups and international organizations for its handling of protesters. In April, tens of thousands of Egyptians gathered in Tahrir Square to demand the prosecution of Mubarak [JURIST report], his family and members of his regime. In March, an Egyptian prosecutor indicted three police officials [JURIST report] from the Beni Suef governorate on charges of murdering protesters during the Egyptian revolution. According to judicial sources, Major General Ahmed Abu Zeid, Colonel Mohamed Abdel Maqsoud, Colonel Mohamed Othman as well as low-ranking officials were charged with attempted murder and murder in connection with a January 28 incident where police firing in Beni Suef resulted in 19 deaths and 300 injuries. In February, rights groups reported that the Egyptian military had improperly detained protesters, allowed prisoner abuse and tortured protester-detainees "to obtain information" [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] Google [corporate website] on Friday responded to allegations of misappropriating trade secrets made in a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] filed by PayPal [corporate website], arguing that it had done nothing illegal. The lawsuit was filed Thursday in the Superior Court of California [official website] following the unveiling of Google Wallet [service website] a mobile payment system to be utilized by Google's Android phone line. The suit centers on two former PayPal employees, Osama Bedier and Stephanie Tilenius, who PayPal claims were poached by Google following the breakdown of three-year negotiations to make PayPal the payment system of the Android phones. The lawsuit further alleges that Bedier had given Google confidential documents relating to PayPal's mobile payment strategies and willfully and maliciously shared his knowledge of the company's trade secrets after leaving PayPal, violating California state law [Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.]. The lawsuit also alleges that Tilenius assisted in recruiting Bedier from PayPal, violating contractual obligations requiring her to refrain from doing so for a year after her departure from the company. The lawsuit also alleges that Google violated state law prohibiting unfair business practices [Cal. BPC. Code § 17200 et seq.]. In response, Google emphasized that it respects trade secrets [WP report] and that state law and public policy recognize people's ability to seek better employment opportunities.

In recent years, Google has been the subject of litigation worldwide. In March, Microsoft [corporate website] announced that it would file a formal complaint [JURIST report] with the European Commission (EC) detailing alleged anticompetitive practices by Google. Google has been facing an ongoing investigation [JURIST report] by the EC over allegations of manipulation of search results to highlight Google's own products and services. The company has faced separate antitrust inquiries in Italy, Germany and France in addition to the EC probe, in which Microsoft-owned Bing subsidiary Caio was one of the original complainants. Microsoft's announcement came the same day the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement [JURIST report] with the company over charges that it breached consumer privacy rights and was misleading during the launch of its social networking platform, Google Buzz [service website]. These reports came a week after a New York court ruling rejecting a proposed settlement [JURIST report] in the 2005 suit brought by authors and publishers over the Google Book Search project.

[JURIST] Malta [BBC backgrounder] voters on Saturday approved a ballot question [text, PDF] asking whether divorce should be allowed in the country. The measure passed with 53 percent of the vote, and saw a 72 percent turnout [Times of Malta reports] among the predominantly Catholic 412,966 residents, the lowest turnout in its recent history. The archipelago nation is the last EU member state not to allow divorce. Under current Maltese law, a couple could apply for a court ordered legal separation or seek an annulment through the Catholic Church [official website]. Foreign divorces are also recognized. The vote was called after legislation [text, PDF] to allow divorce was introduced in the House of Representatives [official website]. Although non-binding, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, an opponent of legalized divorce, stated that his government would move to pass legislation [BBC report] in line with the referendum question, which read:

Do you agree with the introduction of the option of divorce in the case of a married couple who has been separated or has been living apart for at least four (4) years, and where there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation between the spouses, whilst adequate maintenance is guaranteed and the children are protected?

Proponents of the "yes" vote argued that it was necessary to reduce the influence of the church in Maltese government and to respect civil rights. Opponents argued that it would encourage the breakup of families and increase separation rates. The change will leave Vatican City and the Philippines the last two countries in with the world that do not allow divorce.

Chile was the last country to transition to legalized divorce in 2004 when its new marital code went into effect [JURIST report], replacing the code that had been in force since 1884. The new law permits divorce in the case of breach of marital duties, such as infidelity or domestic violence, or after a period of separation whose length depends on whether one party or both wish to end the marriage. Malta's vote comes a year after the European Commission (EC) [official website] proposed reforms to simplify and clarify international divorce laws [JURIST report]. Under the proposal, married couples from different EU countries could choose the country of the divorce, and the various courts would use a common formula to decide which country's law applies when a couple disagrees.