JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, May 19, 2012

[JURIST] The US International Trade Commission (ITC) [official website] on Friday concluded its investigation [notice, PDF] into a complaint that a number of Motorola mobile phones infringed on several Microsoft [corporate websites] patents. The decision affirmed the ruling of an administrative law judge in December that Microsoft had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Motorola had in fact violated one of the several patents allegedly infringed. The ITC order requires Motorola to stop importing and selling certain models of mobile phones and to pay to Microsoft "a reasonable royalty rate in the amount of $0.33 per device" already sold in the US. Microsoft originally filed the patent complaint against Motorola in 2010, alleging violations of the Tariff Act of 1930 "in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile devices, associated software, and components thereof by reason of infringement of" several Microsoft patents. The ITC order was sent to President Obama and the US Trade Representative [official website] for review, and can be appealed in federal court. Motorola may also seek to acquire a license from Microsoft to distribute the products in the US.

Patent infringement cases among mobile phone distributors have been on the rise in recent years. In December the ITC ruled [JURIST report] for Apple on a patent complaint against HTC [corporate websites] for infringing its "data tapping" patents. In July the ITC ruled that HTC infringed two Apple patents [JURIST report] relating to the Android operating system. This ruling came days after Apple filed a complaint against Samsung [JURIST report] in an effort to bar importation of several of Samsung's smartphones and tablets. Apple claimed Samsung's "Galaxy" line copies its iPhone and iPad technology. This complaint came just weeks after Samsung filed a similar complaint [JURIST report] seeking to prevent Apple from importing iPads and iPhones. Samsung had claimed Apple violated five patents also related to smartphones and tablets.

[JURIST] The Israeli Knesset [official website] Wednesday rejected a bill that would have legalized civil marriages in the country. The "Freedom of Choice in Marriage" bill was proposed to allow marriages not approved by Jewish Law [Jerusalem Post report], including same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] and marriages between a Jewish person and a gentile. Currently marriages in Israel are only conducted in religious institutions, and the bill would have allowed the creation of civil marriages not recognized by the Chief Rabbinate. Knesset Member Nitzan Horowitz [official profile] submitted the bill [Shalom Life report] to the Knesset earlier this month. He had submitted the bill twice before but each time it was dismissed during its preliminary reading. While proceeding to a vote this time, the bill was rejected 39-11.

Courts across the globe have struggled to define rights for same-sex couples. Earlier this week Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee signed an executive order [JURIST report] requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. Earlier this month voters in North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage [JURIST report] in that state. In March Israel's Ramat Gan Family Court ruled that a lesbian couple can both be recognized as mothers of a child they had together, finding that it would defy logic and common sense to deny parental rights to both women. Although same-sex couples continue to be unable to marry legally in Israel, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in 2006 that the government must recognize same-sex marriages ordained abroad [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Malawi [BBC backgrounder] President Joyce Banda announced in her first national address [text] on Friday that she will decriminalize homosexual acts. The provisions she intends to repeal are Section 153 and 156 [ILGA backgrounder, PDF] of the Penal Code, which provide 14 years or 5 years imprisonment, respectively, for anyone engaging in male homosexual activity or relationships. Lesbianism is not criminalized in Malawi. The laws have been widely criticized by the international community. The announcement comes as a move to normalize relations with Malawi's development partners in response to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration's [official websites] pledge to promote LGBT rights when granting foreign aid [JURIST report].

Gay rights continue to be a contentious issue [JURIST comment] throughout the world. In February, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] called for Uganda to end its discrimination of the LGBT community [JURIST report]. This comes just two months after the UN released a report [JURIST report] detailing widespread violence against LGBT individuals. That same month, Malawi decided to review [JURIST report] its anti-homosexuality laws. Last November, Russia passed a controversial law banning the "promotion" of homosexuality [JURIST report].

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [official website] decided [text, PDF] to uphold Section 5 [DOJ backgrounder] of the Voting Rights Act [text] Friday, affirming the ruling of the district court below [JURIST report]. Section 5 requires covered jurisdictions to clear changes in voting districts, polling places and other electoral processes with the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] or federal courts. It relies heavily on patterns of past discrimination to determine which state, county and local governments must obtain pre-clearance for election changes. According to the DOJ [list of jurisdictions], nine states and many additional individual counties and municipalities are Section 5 covered jurisdictions. This particular challenge comes from Shelby County, Alabama. In validating the re-authorization of the Section 5, Judge David S. Tatel [official profile] wrote in his opinion:

Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered and acted pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which entrust Congress with ensuring that the right to vote—surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution—is not abridged on account of race. In this context, we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the People's elected representatives.

The Senate voted to extend the act, including the Section 5 provision, in 2006 by a vote of 98-0.

There has been significant controversy [JURIST comment] surrounding voting rights recently, especially in regards to voter ID laws that are spreading around the US. There are now 30 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the poll, including 11 states that require photo ID. The DOJ has rejected the Texas and South Carolina [JURIST reports] voter ID law. Last year Missouri's Governor vetoed a proposed photo ID law, and the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a law [JURIST reports] requiring one of six government-issued photo IDs. In 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down [JURIST report] a portion of Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Florida and Arizona [JURIST reports] are also currently bringing challenges to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.