Apple and Samsung have been embroiled in continuous patent litigation in courts around the world. Two weeks ago, a federal judge denied a Samsung request [JURIST report] to keep sales data for some of its products sealed. Last month, Apple revealed an agreement [JURIST report] to withdraw patent claims against Samsung in California over a new Samsung phone that the South Korea-based company said it was not offering for sale in the US market. In October, a different Dutch court ruled that Samsung did not infringe [JURIST report] an Apple software patent. Also in October, Apple appealed a ruling in Tokyo [JURIST report] that dismissed the company's claim that Samsung had infringed its patents. At the beginning of October the Federal Circuit reversed an injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung that prevented it from selling its Galaxy Nexus. In August, Apple won a $1.05 billion judgment [JURIST report] in California against Samsung involving other patent infringements.

The court also heard oral arguments in Gunn v. Minton [transcript, PDF], which addressed who should adjudicate a dispute arising out of patent law, which would require interpretation of patents but does not rule on the merit of the patent. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that federal courts had exclusive jurisdiction over any issue arising from a patent dispute. The particular case is a state law malpractice claim involving interpretation of federal patent law. Gunn argued that "arising under" jurisdiction requires that there be a significant federal issue embedded in the state law claim for a federal court to take jurisdiction. Gunn argued that although the experimental use exception of patent law was at issue in the state claim, the case did not require a court to interpret how the doctrine worked, how it is applied or what its parameters are. Therefore, there would be no actual federal law at issue since all that was required was for the court to make a hypothetical determination. Minton argued in response that the malpractice claim rested solely on an issue of patent law that is heard only in federal courts and that allowing a state court to adjudicate the case would "upset the balance between State and Federal judicial responsibility." Minton further argued that would be improper for a state court to rule on a patent issue which potentially could have issue preclusion effects in federal courts on an issue of federal law.

In October, Alekhina and band member Nadezhda Tolokonnikova were transferred to separate regional prisons [JURIST report] generally reserved for dangerous criminals to serve their two-year sentences. Earlier in October, the band's third member, Yekaterina Samutsevich, was freed on appeal [JURIST report] because she did not actually participate in the protest song, and vowed to take the band's case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] on charges that the Russian government had illegally detained them and also violated the rock group's right to free speech. Samutsevich had previously asked for a delay in the proceedings after firing the lawyer [JURIST report] that had been representing the band as a whole. All three members were given two-year prison sentences after they were convicted [JURIST report] in August of hooliganism in connection with "guerrilla performance" of a protest song in February at the altar of downtown Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral. Since the beginning of the trial, the group's lawyers and human rights groups have said the charges were politically motivated [JURIST report] by Putin to discredit his opposition.

Violence in Mali has drawn much international attention for potential human rights abuses. Last week the interim president declared a state of emergency [JURIST report]. The prime minister of Mali, Cheick Modibo Diarra, was forced to resign [JURIST report] in December on state television after junta soldiers arrested him for attempting to leave the country in light of the ongoing humanitarian crisis threatening the nation. In September Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] reported that three armed Islamist groups in northern Mali are abusing the local population and recruiting child soldiers [JURIST report]. Earlier that month UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] condemned [JURIST report] human rights violations in Mali and called for international action to address the problems. In August officials from the ICC were in Mali investigating [JURIST report] whether the same two Islamic groups had committed war crimes in Mali.

[N]ational and international scrutiny of Blue Coat implementations in the countries we have identified, and a closer look at the global proliferation of "dual-use" information and communication technologies. Internet service providers responsible for these deployments should consider publicly clarifying their function, and we hope Blue Coat will take this report as an opportunity to explain their due diligence process to ensure that their devices are not used in ways that violate human rights.

Internet freedom remains a controversial issue around the world. The UN Human Rights Council in July passed its first-ever resolution to protect the free speech [JURIST report] of individuals online. The resolution was approved by all 47 members of the council, including China and Cuba, which have been criticized for limiting Internet freedom. Last month China adopted stricter rules [JURIST report] on both internet providers and users. Last November Russia passed a law [JURIST report] giving the nation the authority to completely block access to certain websites. Last July the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution [JURIST report] intended to protect Internet speech.

New York will be the first state in the nation to ban any magazine that can hold more than seven rounds and run instant background checks on all ammunition purchases at the time of sale. The legislation will allow authorities to track ammunition purchases in real time to alert law enforcement to high volume buys, and will include a statewide standard requiring recertification of pistol permits every five years. The legislation also closes a private sale loophole to ensure all gun purchases are subject to a background check, and toughens criminal penalties on those who use illegal guns.

This story is the latest development in the Second Amendment and gun control debate [JURIST comment] in the US. Last month the NRA restated its objection [JURIST report] to reinvigorated calls for an assault weapons ban following the Newtown shooting. In July Florida Governor Rick Scott announced that his state would appeal [JURIST report] the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida [official website] ruling that struck down a Florida law that barred doctors from discussing the dangers of gun ownership with patients. In July 2010 the Chicago City Council unanimously approved a new gun control law that bans gun shops in the city and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, including porches and garages, with a handgun. Shortly thereafter a group of Chicago citizens, supported by both the NRA and the National Association of Firearm Retailers, filed suit against the city [JURIST report] claiming the new ordinance infringes on their constitutional rights. In June 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago [opinion; JURIST report] that the Second Amendment applies to states and municipalities as well as the federal government, thereby overturning Chicago's ban on handguns and raising considerable uncertainty about what amount of regulations of firearms was permissible.

To govern is to choose. And particularly in an era of limited budget resources, every dollar that we choose to spend on a policy that is wasteful and does not work—when instead we could be doing more of the things that do work to protect life—seems to me to run counter to the pragmatic "do the things that work" governance that is the hallmark of our State, and what our people desire. The death penalty does not work in terms of preventing violent crime and the taking of human life. If you look over 30 or 40 years, the death penalty was on the books, and yet Baltimore still became the most violent and addicted city in America. Having the death penalty on the books did nothing to keep the homicides from rising.

In April Connecticut became the seventeenth state to abolish the death penalty and the fifth to do so in the previous five years. New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Illinois [JURIST reports] have all recently eliminated the death penalty, while 34 states retain its use. However, California voters declined to repeal the death penalty on the most recent ballot, with 47 percent of voters supporting the repeal.

Myanmar has taken steps to reform its human rights records in recent months, but has also faced criticism for not doing enough. Earlier this week Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called on authorities in Myanmar to drop criminal charges against nine peaceful protesters [JURIST report] who were demonstrating without a permit in Rangoon in September on International Peace Day. Myanmar began releasing political prisoners [JURIST report] including political dissidents and former military intelligence personnel in November in conjunction with US President Barack Obama's visit to the nation. Myanmar officials in September announced amnesty for 514 prisoners [JURIST report], identified by activists to be several political detainees and foreigners. That same day, HRW publicly demanded the immediate release of all remaining political prisoners in Myanmar and called for a lifting of travel and other restrictions on those who are freed.

Not every floating structure is a "vessel." To state the obvious, a wooden washtub, a plastic dishpan, a swimming platform on pontoons, a large fishing net, a door taken off its hinges, or Pinocchio (when inside the whale) are not "vessels," even if they are "artificial contrivance[s]"capable of floating, moving under tow, and incidentally carrying even a fair-sized item or two when they do so. Rather, the statute applies to an "artificial contrivance ... capable of being used ... as a means of transportation on water." ... "[T]ransportation" involves the "conveyance (of things or persons) from one place to another." ... And we must apply this definition in a "practical," not a "theoretical," way. Consequently, in our view a structure does not fall within the scope of this statutory phrase unless a reasonable observer, looking to the home's physical characteristics and activities, would consider it designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, dissented from the opinion, although the dissent agrees with much of the decision. "The Court, however, creates a novel and unnecessary 'reasonable observer' reformulation of these principles and errs in its determination, under this new standard, that the craft before us is not a vessel. Given the underdeveloped record below, we should remand."

[W]hat the intentional tort exception provides is—actually what it says is: "The provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act shall not apply to any case arising out of assault, battery," and so on. And by eliminating that, the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act are otherwise totally applicable to cases of medical battery, like this, or other claims of intentional tort. And so for cases covered by the Gonzalez Act; that is, cases of medical malpractice committed within the scope of employment by the doctors of the certain specified agencies that Congress has named for those cases, there is no intentional tort exception, and therefore, you can bring an action against the government.

The court also heard arguments in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] where it considered if the government taking of land after an owner refuses to act in compliance with a permit is a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment [backgrounder]. Carl Koontz refused to contribute money to protect the wetlands in order to get a permit to redevelop some acres of land. The St. Johns River Water Management District then denied his permit, but did not take his land. Koontz's attorney argued that although not an official taking, forcing Koontz to make a conservation easement on his property violated Nolan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. Tigard [opinions]. The water management district suggested Koontz failed to take sufficient actions to get his permit. "The parties agree that Florida may require a landowner to perform mitigation as a condition for a permit that would allow the destruction of a wetlands. The parties disagreed as to how much mitigation was appropriate in this case. The district thought that Mr. Koontz's proposal was insufficient to mitigate the damage to wetlands. Mr. Koontz rejected the district's counterproposals and he refused to do anything more. And the district denied his permit application because he refused to do anything more."