The defendants argued that, unlike Napster, they designed their technology in such a way that they had no way of monitoring the content of swapped files. The court held that this was willful blindness on the defendant's part, and would not constitute a defense to a claim of contributory infringement.
The court further held that the Sony v. Universal defense of "substantial noninfringing uses" was unavailable because Aimster had shown no evidence that its service was actually used for any noninfringing purposes. Lastly, the court held that the DMCA § 512 "safe harbors" were unavailable because Aimster had done nothing to reasonably comply with Section 512(k)'s requirement that it establish a policy to terminate repeat infringers, and instead encouraged repeat infringement.
Vioxx Class Action Defense Cases-In re Vioxx: California Appellate Court Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment In Putative UCL/ CLRA Class Action Involving Vioxx Because Individual Issues Predominate.(California state court against Merck & Company Inc manufacture and marketing of Vioxx under California. Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California. Unfair Competition Act)(Case overview)
Jan 16, 2012; Class Action under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) Arising out of Merck's...