Make sure that your case or controversy is current —
within the last 6 months
— because older cases or controversies are often misleading or not relevant because of subsequent legal developments. Cases can be overturned; statutes or regulations can be amended or repealed.
Legal Abstracts - Instructions A sample legal abstract is posted in Blackboard. Use the sample as your template. Make sure that your case or controversy is current — within the last 6 months — because older cases or controversies are often misleading or not relevant because of subsequent legal developments. Cases can be overturned; statutes or regulations can be amended or repealed. The abstract is a summary of the author’s article in the words of the student. Abstracts submitted containing the original article's text in full or part will not receive full credit. Your abstract should reflect a summary in your own words of the material in the article you are discussing. Abstract topics should address current legal issues, controversies, cases or developments affecting cybersecurity law as we examine it in this course. For further guidance on topics, consider the subjects covered in each of the class modules. Articles may be chosen from technical journals or websites, legal journals or websites, or general news or information sites. To restate, the timeliness of your selected case, controversy or issue is crucial, because an article about a case that has subsequently been overturned or a law that has been amended or repealed not only does not keep you properly informed on current legal issues, it may actually provide incorrect information that can negatively impact your decision making when analyzing potential legal issues. Each abstract must contain the following headings: Article title Author Publication Publication date URL Facts of the dispute The background of the case or controversy. Plaintiff’s claim In a criminal case, the Plaintiff is the State or the appropriate governmental entity. What legal wrong does the plaintiff claim that the defendant committed? Defendant’s claim How has the defendant answered? In the early stages of litigation, the defendant may not have answered the complaint. Applicable law (i.e. statute, regulation, treaty) Usually, the applicable law is mentioned in the article. If not, try to determine which law or laws apply. Issue of law This is the legal question that is the foundation of the case. Courts rule on an issue of law by interpreting the law as applied to the facts of the case. Holding (if an adjudicatory body has rendered a decision) This is the ruling that a court issues after it applies the law to the facts of the case. If a case is still ongoing, the court may not have issued a holding. Impact on IT Finally, include your evaluation of the possible impact on cybersecurity in the enterprise of the particular legal issues in the article under the following heading. Here is where you get to apply your knowledge and skills as an IT professional. If you can find additional commentary on the case or controversy discussed, include it here. Sample Legal Abstract Publication:Ars Technica Author:John Brodkin Date:August 16, 2019 Title:Apple Sues Company That Sells “Perfect Replicas” of iOS Without a License” URL:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/apple-sues-virtual-iphone-vendor-that-helps-hackers-find-ios-bugs/ Copy of Apple’s original lawsuit (PDF) available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.555634/gov.uscourts.flsd.555634.1.0.pdf Amended filing: https://www.scribd.com/document/441298959/Apple-Versus-Corellium-Amended-Filing Facts Corellium is a company that sells access to virtual machines that run copies of iOS. .Corellium offers access to these copies of iOS via a cloud service and through private installations on a customer's premises. The private installations cost $1 million per year. According to Apple, Corellium does so without license or permission from Apple. Plaintiff’s Claim Direct and contributory copyright infringement. Defendant’s Claim No answer as of date of article publication. Issue of Law Can Corellium qualify for Apple’s assertion that it does not pursue good faith security research for violations of its copyrights? Does Corellium have any defense to Apple’s claims of direct and contributory copyright infringement? Apple notes that, copyright notwithstanding, it is committed to security research, and that it has never pursued legal action against a security researcher. Apple offers up to $1 million per security report to researchers through its bug bounty programs. Apple has also announced that it will provide custom versions of the iPhone to legitimate security researchers to allow them to conduct research on Apple devices and software. According to Apple, Corellium makes no effort to confine use of its product to good-faith research and testing of iOS. Apple claims that Corellium “ is indiscriminately marketing the Corellium Apple Product to any customer …[and] Corellium is not selectively limiting its customers to only those with some socially beneficial purpose and/or those who promise to use Apple's copyrighted works, through the Corellium Apple Product, only in lawful ways …”. Additionally, Apple notes that the current case is not a question of whether only certain portions of the copyrighted works have been infringed upon, because Corellium explicitly markets its product as one that allows the creation of "virtual" Apple devices. Applicable Law Direct copyright infringement – computer programs and graphical user interface elements - 17 U.S.C. § 501 Contributory copyright infringement- 17 U.S.C. § 501 Amended complaint – Circumvention of copyright protection systems - 17 U.S.C. § 1201 Holding None yet Impact on IT Although this is a copyright infringement case, it has serious implications for cybersecurity because the product in question is marketed to anyone — including including foreign governments and commercial enterprises — for any purpose whatsoever. Apple’s amended complaint asserts that Corellium’s product is primarily designed to circumvent copyright as described in Section 1201 of the DMCA. Critics of the lawsuit claim that this invocation of Section 1201 is an abusive attempt to stifle competition and security research.