We recently completed an Internet crime trial. The large majority of the prosecution’s evidence was found in hidden system files of a computer running Windows XP. These files could not be retrieved without the use of software not standard in Windows and which is not available to unsophisticated computer users.
It took dedication and patience to explain to the court the inner workings of hidden files such as thumbs.db. Without the ability to effectively describe the operation of the Windows XP Operating System it would have been impossible to obtain a favorable outcome for our client. Without this specialized technical competence, taking this case to trial, as opposed to pleading to whatever could be gotten from the prosecutor, would have been insane. Without expertise about computer operating systems and the Internet, it is very difficult for an attorney to be effective when trying a computer or cyber crime case.
As far as I know, we are the only Internet Law Firm that has an attorney who is also a Computer Engineer with in depth technology experience, including critical projects with the Department of Defense. We can apply our unique computer and Internet knowledge to any cyber crime matter.
If you are accused of computer hacking or unauthorized access to a computer network, our computer hacking defense attorneys understand the technical aspects of the Internet and can provide you with a top tier computer hacking defense.
During a cyber trial, a computer crime, or a trial involving issues of Internet law, I can’t overstress the importance of having an attorney who is not only a legal subject matter expert, but also an expert in computer technology and the technical concepts related to the Internet.
Case in point, we recently completed a long and complex cyber crime trial. We were fully equipped to expertly handle the criminal defense aspects of the case, we knew the law, how to cross-examine witnesses, and how to establish reasonable doubt. However, during the trial, it was our technical expertise what allowed us to provide a unique perspective to the evidence presented.
For example, the alleged criminal activity was traced to our client’s IP address and MAC addresses. However, the documentation used by the government contained errors that only an attorney with expert Internet technology knowledge would have caught. Error number one was that one of the MAC addresses utilized by the government to justify the search warrant had one character too many, i.e., it was not valid. The other MAC address pointed to a laptop computer, but the government identified it as a router. These critical defects would have probably gone unnoticed to the eyes of the typical lawyer. Does the average attorney even know how many characters there are in a valid MAC address? I can guarantee you that the answer is no.
Another issue that came up was that the government’s evidence was mostly obtained through forensic analysis of hidden system files, such as the thumbs.db file and others. If it takes forensic analysis to even retrieve evidence that a client who is not technically sophisticated and who does not have the necessary computer forensic tools is accused of “intentionally” possessing, how can the government show intent? It took a lot of finesse, patience, and art to explain to the court how the evidence presented could have been retrieved in the first place. The typical non-technical attorney would have had a hard time understanding these concepts and attacking this evidence. I have seen cases forced to a settlement or plea that is not warranted under the circumstances simply because, although the attorney can competently argue the law, he/she can’t competently argue the technology. Our expertise includes technical degrees in Computer Engineering and years of Internet technology experience.
The Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) makes those who register infringing domain names in bad faith liable to civil suits from a trademark owner.
Microsoft has filed a trademark infringement suit against a California dentist, Dr. Saed Said, who has registered more than 40 Internet domains with names similar to Microsoft’s products or brands, including: aMicrosoftShop.com, aMicrosoftStore.com, XboxOutlet.info and XboxMarket.mobi.
Microsoft claims that Dr. Said operates the domains with the intent to divert Internet surfers looking for Microsoft’s products. “The person has been diverted from the Microsoft Web site he or she was seeking to visit, and Microsoft has lost the opportunity to interact with that person,” Microsoft claims in the lawsuit. According to Microsoft, Said profited from the misdirection because his Web sites contain advertising for non-Microsoft products.
We are experts in all issues related to Domain Name law and cybersquatting. If you receive a cease and desist notice or are served with a lawsuit accusing you of cybersquatting, we can provide you with the expert legal representation necessary to fight against large corporations such as Microsoft.