For those who have not yet experienced Google Street View it is a feature of Google maps that allows users to actually “visit” the street via the internet through photographs providing a 360 degree view.

Not all cities have this Google feature available yet, but the Boring’s property was included last year. The images are captured by a car similar to the one seen above with an array of cameras mounted to its roof.

Google spokesperson Larry Yu said that the company has a policy of only taking photos from public streets. He also said that concerned citizens can contact the company if they want a photo taken down. Yu added “"We absolutely respect that people may not be comfortable with some of the imagery on the site. We actually make it pretty easy for people to submit a request to us to remove the imagery."

In this case, damages may be difficult to prove since Google is not the only place on the web showing an image of the Boring’s home. The Allegheny County real estate Web site has a photo, a description of the home and the couple's name. The site contains similar information, including pictures, of nearly every property in the county.

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the photos (which are no longer on Google Streetview), a copy of the lawsuit (including the Boring’s home address) and a photo from the Allegheny County website.

The lawsuit includes 4 “Causes of Action” as follows:

• Trespass

• Trespass to personal property

• Assault

• Injunctive relief

The following sentence is heresay: AMA members have been told that the AMA wants to stay in the building known as the “Magic Castle”. NOTE: If the AMA governing board would like to make a formal statement to the contrary, I will post a retraction here.

Here is the question. If you were a tenant (AMA) in a 100 year old building (known as the Magic Castle) which was a small part of a parcel of land (10 plus acres) currently for sale and positioned for total redevelopment, would it be smart to sue those affiliated with your landlord if you wanted to stay?

This lawsuit appears to indicate the contrary. Personally, it would be unlikely that I would sue anyone affiliated with my landlord if I wanted to stay.

Following the filing of this lawsuit, the plaintiff (AMA) filed an ExParte application for temporary restraining order and an order to show cause RE: preliminary Injunction.

From the Court Document: “The Court has read and considered the above stated Ex Parte Application.

After argument of Counsel, the Application is denied.”

During the above proceedings MercExchange tried to block eBay’s use of “Buy It Now”. In 2006 the Supreme Court made a landmark decision to allow eBay to continue use of “Buy It Now”. Before this ruling patent owners were virtually always granted court orders to block infringements. These actions to block use typically lead to faster more lucrative settlements for the patent owners.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in eBay’s favor, judges throughout the US have denied requests for court orders to block use where the infringer was not a competitor of the patent owner.

Financial terms of the settlement were not disclosed by either party. EBay said it would buy three patents from MercExchange related to “Buy It Now”/fixed priced sales as well as related technology. EBay General Counsel Mike Jacobson stated “The agreement gives us access to additional intellectual property that will help improve and further secure our marketplaces.''

This Supreme Court decision adds a new aspect to the trend written about previously on this blog whereby infringers are strategically using the court system to buy intellectual properties and/or licenses to use intellectual properties.

Plaintiffs in Los Angeles, Alameda and Monterey counties consolidated lawsuits in 2004 claiming that the named stores sold fish with chemical additives canthaxanthin and astaxanthin. The additives allegedly changed the grayish color of farm raised salmon to resemble the color of wild salmon. The lawsuit claims that the stores’ failure to disclose the use of chemical additives to consumers was misleading. The lawsuit also claims possible concerns exist over farm raised salmon and consuming artificial coloring agents.

Specifically the lawsuit contains causes of action for unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; false and misleading advertising; negligent misrepresentation and unfair and unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, which includes the Sherman Law.

In the unanimous opinion the justices held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not preempt deceptive marketing claims under California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law because Congress explicitly intended to allow states to establish their own disclosure requirements and remedies for violations, and because the plaintiffs’ claims were based on state, rather than federal, law.

What is the true color of your salmon? Only your grocery store knows for sure, and until this lawsuit is resolved, they aren’t telling!

The problem was that she had to identify the people she was suing. Krinsky attempted to discover the defendants’ identities by serving a subpoena on Yahoo. Yahoo notified Doe 6 that it would comply with the subpoena in 15 days unless a motion to quash or other legal objection was filed.

Doe 6 then moved in superior court to quash the subpoena on the grounds that (1) plaintiff had failed to state a claim sufficient to overcome his First Amendment rights for either defamation or interference with a contractual or business relationship, and (2) plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was an invalid prior restraint.

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Socrates P. Manoukian concluded that the totality of circumstances justified the relief Krinsky was seeking, and denied Doe 6’s motion to quash.

Doe 6 appealed.

On appeal, Justice Franklin D. Elia wrote for the court that posters to Internet message boards had a First Amendment right to shield their identity, and that this right could only be overcome if Krinsky could make a prima facie showing that a case for defamation existed.

Directly from the opinion, which can be found HERE “We thus conclude that Doe 6's online messages, while unquestionably offensive and demeaning to plaintiff, did not constitute assertions of actual fact and therefore were not actionable under Florida's defamation law. Because plaintiff stated no viable cause of action that overcame Doe 6's First Amendment right to speak anonymously, the subpoena to discover his identity should have been quashed.”

While we in no way condone the vulgarity and crudeness used by Doe 6 (as quoted in the opinion), we commend the California Court of Appeals for protecting our free speech rights related to the Internet.

The Boldens say they paid $70,000 more for their home than neighbors who used different appraisers. The lawsuit alleges that Countrywide and KB "conspired with affiliated appraisers to generate fraudulent" appraisal reports.

The Boldens' attorney, tells of a neighbor who had used their own appraiser and got KB to reduce the price of their home by $61,000. He also said that to keep houses at their contracted price, KB exaggerated appraisals during a falling market in 2005 and 2006.

The lawsuit seeks restitution, compensatory and punitive damages and class-action status for all California KB Home customers who bought homes from August 2005 to July 2006 and used Countrywide financing.

KB Home issued a statement saying "we believe that our full and complete investigation will show these allegations to be without merit."

This comes on the heels of a Whistleblower lawsuit filed against Countrywide KB Home Loans (joint venture) by former Regional VP Mark Zachary. In the lawsuit Zachary claims to have been fired after reporting that employees were using false income amounts and inflated appraisals to facilitate the closing of home loans.