Aggregator

情報通信審議会　電気通信事業政策部会　ユニバーサルサービス政策委員会 ブロードバンドサービスに関するユニバーサルサービス制度における交付金・負担金の算定等に関するワーキンググループ（第8回）

令和5年度政策評価等の実施状況等に関する報告

「令和5年度公害等調整委員会年次報告」の公表

令和6年度過疎地域持続的発展支援交付金の交付決定

デジタル空間における情報流通の健全性確保の在り方に関する検討会（第22回）開催案内　※ワーキンググループ（第26回）合同開催

令和6年能登半島地震に係る被害状況等について（第105報）

松本総務大臣閣議後記者会見の概要

第8回統計作成プロセス部会

第720回　入札監理小委員会（開催案内）

経験者選考採用試験（事務系/技術系・課長補佐級/係長級・総合職相当）情報を掲載しました

It’s bad enough when a patent holder enforcing their rights in court try to exclude the public from those fights. What’s even worse is when courts endorse these secrecy tactics, just as a federal court hearing an EFF unsealing motion ruled in May. 

EFF continues to push for greater transparency in the case, Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc.,  and is asking a federal court of appeals to reverse the decision. A successful appeal will open this case to the public, and help everyone better understand patent disputes that are filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Secrecy in patent litigation is an enduring problem, and EFF has repeatedly intervened in lawsuits involving patent claims to uphold the public’s right to access court records. And in this case, the secrecy issues are heightened by the parties and the court believing that they can jointly agree to keep entire records under seal, without ever having to justify the secrecy. 

This case is a dispute between a semiconductor products provider, Entropic, and one of the nation's largest media companies, Charter, which offers cable television and internet service to millions of people. Entropic alleged that Charter infringed its patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,223,775; 8,284,690; 8,792,008; 9,210,362; 9,825,826; and 10,135,682) which cover cable modem technology. 

Charter has argued it had a license defense to the patent claims based on the industry-leading cable data transmission standard, Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS). The argument could raise a core legal question in patent law: when is a particular patent “essential” to a technical standard and thus encumbered by licensing commitments?  

But so many of the documents filed in court about this legal argument are heavily redacted, making it difficult to understand. EFF filed to intervene and unseal these documents in March. EFF’s motion in part targeted a practice that is occurring in many patent disputes in the Texas district court, whereby parties enter into agreements, known as protective orders. These agreements govern how parties will protect information they exchange during the fact-gathering portion of a case. 

Under the terms of the model protective order created by the court, the parties can file documents they agree are secret under seal without having to justify that such secrecy overrides the public’s right to access court records. 

Despite federal appellate courts repeatedly ruling that protective orders cannot short-circuit the public’s right of access, the district court ruled that the documents EFF sought to unseal could remain secret precisely because the parties had agreed. Additionally, the district court ruled that EFF had no right to seek to unseal the records because it filed the motion to intervene and make the records public four months after the parties had settled. 

EFF is disappointed by the decision and strongly disagrees. Notably, the opinion does not cite any legal authority that allows parties to stipulate to keep their public court fights secret. As said above, many courts have ruled that such agreements are anathema to court transparency. 

Moreover, the court’s ruling that EFF could not even seek to unseal the documents in the first place sets a dangerous precedent. As a result many court dockets, including those with significant historic and newsworthy materials, can become permanently sealed merely because the public did not try to intervene and unseal records while the case was open. 

That outcome turns the public’s right of access to court records on its head: it requires the public to be extremely vigilant about court secrecy and punishes them for not knowing about sealed records. Yet the entire point of the presumption of public access is that judges and litigants in the cases are supposed to protect the public’s right to open courts, as not every member of the public has the time and resources to closely monitor court proceedings and hire a lawyer to enforce their public rights should they be violated.

EFF looks forward to vindicating the public’s right to access records on appeal. 

Related Cases: Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc.

　４月末、日本の新聞・テレビは、米報道に基づいて、イスラエルが「恒久停戦提案」と大きく報じた。パレスチナ・ガザ地区でのハマスとの「戦闘」についてである。米国などの圧力を受け、これまで一貫して応じてこなかった強硬姿勢を譲歩したというのである。「ハマスはきわめて寛大な提案を受け取った。速やかな受け入れを」とブリンケン米国務長官。　ガザへの激しい攻撃を続け多数の死者・犠牲者をだしながらの提案である。報道をよく読むと「恒久的停戦」とは「ガザの持続的な平穏」と表現されており、「戦闘終結..

イスラエル軍の侵攻が続くパレスチナ自治区ガザでは死者数が３万人を超え、飢餓などの人道危機が深刻度を増している。だが、「人権重視」の政策をとってきたはずのドイツは一貫してイスラエルを支持。国内ではパレスチナへの連帯を示す声 […]

不安定な身分でありながら、正規職員の削減と新規施策の導入などにより、一線で基幹的な仕事を担わされる非正規公務員。いま、どういう困難に直面し、それにどう立ち向かっているのか。最新の動向を踏まえ、労働問題に詳しい筆者が報告す […]

現在、参議院での審議が進められている改定入管法案について、同法案で進められようとしている永住資格の取消拡大に反対する当事者や弁護士らが、６月３日に横浜市内で講演会を開催した。同講演会では、入管難民問題に取り組む駒井知会弁護士が登壇し、同法案について、「必要のない条文を作って、不必要に入管の裁量を広げようとしている」と、その在り方を問題視した。（岩本裕之）

　全国で唯一、県庁所在地にあり、今年12月の再稼働をめざしている中国電力の島根原発２号機（松江市）――。中国電力による地震などへの対応が不十分であることを理由に、地元住民らがその運転差し止めを求めた仮処分の申し立てで、広 […]