Featured Audio

February 23, 2012 Radio New Zealand
-US abuse of power in taking down Megaupload
-No such thing as criminal secondary copyright infringement
-The Prosecution is politically motivated

September 26, 2012 NewstalkNZ
-Illegal Gov spying on Kim Dotcom
-Case should be dismissed in the interests of justice
-Trail of Gov illegality
-Hollywood's involvement
-Unfair procedures 

Ira Rothken presentation at e-discovery seminar (excerpt)
- discussion of technical-legal factors to consider in determining whether e-discovery related data is "not reasonably accessible"
- More information can be found here 
 

Featured Videos



Photos

Search
Twitter Alerts
Investigation Tips
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    News Index
    Notice

    The information supplied on this web site is general in nature and should not be relied upon to make legal decisions. Interacting with e-mail, forms, or online forums on this web site does not constitute the creation of an attorney/client relationship. This web site is an advertisement for legal services. The examples of client cases and results discussed on this web site are not a guarantee of your outcome if we represent you in a particular case. 

    Login

    High Technology
    Class Actions & Complex Litigation


     

    Featured Current Events

    60 Minutes Interview of Ira Rothken by Bob Simon regarding government abuse of Kim Dotcom

    New Megaupload/Kim Dotcom Whitepaper

    Megaupload General Legal Points



    For updates on the Megaupload/Kim Dotcom case please visit our special case update section

    Kim Dotcom, Steve Wozniak, Ira Rothken

    Read what Steve Wozniak thinks about Kim Dotcom and the Megaupload case in this CNET News.com article 

     

     

     

     

    Ira P. Rothken on Bloomberg 

    Bloomberg Interview with Ira P. Rothken on the Megaupload/Kim Dotcom case discussing Court Order finding illegal government conduct

     

     

     

    ABOUT US

    Our firm emphasizes intellectual property litigation (including trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights, and patents), internet law, complex business litigation, class actions, videogame law, business law, employment litigation, consumer protection litigation, and personal injury/tort litigation. We are actively involved in cutting edge electronic discovery ("e-discovery") matters and Ira P. Rothken is an active member of the Sedona Conference and maintains a blog at Moredata.com on electronic discovery and evidence issues for legal professionals. Here is a CNET News Story Profiling Ira P. Rothken's Career Protecting Internet Technology Companies.

    We Have Assisted in the Startup of Some of the Most Successful E-Commerce and Electronic Entertainment Companies in the World

    Ira P. RothkenIn addition to our robust litigation practice as evidenced in our "News" section below we assist electronic entertainment, high technology, and e-commerce companies in their business and legal transactions. For example, since the inception of the "commercialized" internet in the mid 1990s, we have represented some of the largest and most successful web sites in the world on a huge range of matters from startup issues to risk reduction strategies to e-commerce policies and agreements. In many instances we were called upon to handle issues where there was no clear precedent and thus we had to innovate a solution.

    We have also helped start numerous successful electronic entertainment and videogame companies including Nihilistic Software, Pandemic Games, Telltale, and Arenanet. Ira P. Rothken, a member of IGDA, has spoken multiple times on how to start a videogame development company at the Computer Game Developers Conference (CGDC). Here is a sample of videogame development transactions in which we assisted our clients:


    News

    Wednesday
    Jan072015

    Megaupload and Kim Dotcom File Supplemental Brief Seeking to Dismiss Government's Forfeiture Action

    Megaupload and Kim Dotcom filed a supplemental brief in the United States District Court in Virginia today.

    Here is an excerpt from the brief:

     The Government’s reply (Dkt. 48-2) in support of its Motion to Strike (“Government’s MTS”) evidences an obvious misconception about the role and scope of fugitive disentitlement. By the Government’s account, the doctrine amounts to a magic button that, whenever pressed, results in immediate, incontestable forfeiture of any and all foreign assets the Government may seek from a foreign national who is contesting extradition while asserting ownership interests at home—no matter the facts, law, equities, or procedures, rights, and courts engaged abroad.

    Further still, the Government wants to use its expansive reading of fugitive disentitlement as a global sword for cutting off foreign proceedings that are not to its liking. This comes through loud and clear from its briefing. See, e.g., Dkt. 48-2 at 36-37 (“More than $6 million of the restrained property in New Zealand has already been dissipated . . . and additional imminent requests for release are expected” while “[r]estrained property in Hong Kong remains under constant attack.”); Dkt. 65 at 4 (“As of December 2014, more than NZ$1 million (currently US $770,000) in restrained funds were released to the Dotcoms as ‘living expenses’ by the New Zealand courts.”).
     
    To be clear, the Government’s grievance is not directed just against the Claimants—who are generally detained abroad, whose assets are restrained abroad, and who are using their assets only to the extent that the foreign courts now presiding over them see fit to award limited relief—so much as it is directed against the foreign courts that are continuing to have their fair say, if occasionally inconsistent with what the U.S. Government would prefer them to say. Although courts in New Zealand and Hong Kong are friendly to the United States, they have their own laws and their own views about, for instance, the import of binding treaty provisions, the presumption of innocence attaching to criminal defendants, and the imperative of funding adequate legal defense in a sprawling international case (or, more precisely, ever- expanding series of cases) that the Government years ago called one of “the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States.”1

    The United States is thus trying to abuse the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement, transmogrifying it into an offensive weapon, a cover for precipitous, unjustified forfeiture, and a provocation for international discord. What fugitive disentitlement is actually meant to do, as the statute states, is simply to authorize a U.S. court—at its discretion, in appropriate cases, upon making necessary findings—to prevent someone who is actively out to avoid the reach of the United States “from using the resources of the courts of the United States.” Thus, fugitive disentitlement is properly called upon for the sake of preserving “efficient, dignified operation of the courts,” as the Supreme Court has said. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 824 (1996). That is all it is meant to do. It is not meant to gratify a prosecutor’s sudden perceived need for speed by superseding otherwise applicable timelines, procedures and rights. It is not meant to supply a substantive warrant for forfeiture where there is otherwise none. It is not meant to coerce a criminal defendant into buckling to extradition and surrendering valid defenses otherwise pending abroad. And it is certainly not meant to trump foreign courts and usurp foreign proceedings. In all of these respects, the United States Government appears badly mistaken and in need of correction.
    Monday
    Dec082014

    Megaupload and Kim Dotcom File Opposition to US Attempt to Use the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine

    Megaupload, Kim Dotcom, and other interested parties filed submissions today in Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia opposing the US DOJ's attempt to use the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine as a procedural method of taking all of Kim Dotcom's and the other parties' assets prior to trial and without any hearing on the merits of the underlying criminal claims. The motion was filed in the context of a forfeiture proceeding.
     
    Here is an excerpt from the opposition brief filed today:

    With its Motion to Strike (“Motion”), the United States Government is seeking to ward off inquiry by this Court into essential legal questions, including whether the Court has jurisdiction over the relevant subject matter; whether it has jurisdiction over the relevant foreign assets; whether the foreign assets at issue are traceable to any alleged crimes; and whether the alleged crimes even amount to crimes. Only by invoking “fugitive disentitlement” might the Government skip past glaring, fatal defects in its supposed case for civil forfeiture and obtain an unjust result that should otherwise be beyond reach. If the Government has its way, then it will win from this Court an order calling for forfeiture of tens of millions of dollars in Claimants’ foreign assets without the Court so much as permitting adversarial contest on the obvious, fundamental jurisdictional and merits questions otherwise looming before it. 

    According to the Government’s Motion, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine yields this disquieting result, depriving Claimants of threshold standing to contest forfeiture of their own assets abroad and trumping even threshold inquiry into jurisdiction. But the Government thereby distorts the concept of “fugitive” status beyond recognition. These Claimants never fled the United States to evade prosecution. 


    With its Motion to Strike (“Motion”), the United States Government is seeking to ward off inquiry by this Court into essential legal questions, including whether the Court has jurisdiction over the relevant subject matter; whether it has jurisdiction over the relevant foreign assets; whether the foreign assets at issue are traceable to any alleged crimes; and whether the alleged crimes even amount to crimes. Only by invoking “fugitive disentitlement” might the Government skip past glaring, fatal defects in its supposed case for civil forfeiture and obtain an unjust result that should otherwise be beyond reach. If the Government has its way, then it will win from this Court an order calling for forfeiture of tens of millions of dollars in Claimants’ foreign assets without the Court so much as permitting adversarial contest on the obvious, fundamental jurisdictional and merits questions otherwise looming before it.  According to the Government’s Motion, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine yields this disquieting result, depriving Claimants of threshold standing to contest forfeiture of their own assets abroad and trumping even threshold inquiry into jurisdiction. But the Government thereby distorts the concept of “fugitive” status beyond recognition. These Claimants never fled the United States to evade prosecution... 

    Read the full brief

    Friday
    Oct102014

    Megaupload and Kim Dotcom File a Motion to Dismiss the Copyright Claims Underlying US Criminal Case: "Copyright Crimes When Scrutinized...Are Figments of the Government's Boundless Imagination."

    Megaupload, Kim Dotcom, and other interested parties filed a motion today in Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia asking the court to dismiss the copyright claims that make up the core of the US Government's criminal case against the defendants. The motion was filed in the context of a forfeiture proceeding. The motion, if successful, could have a serious adverse impact on the viability of the Government's novel criminal theories.

    Here is an excerpt from from the motion to dismiss submissions filed today:

    Nearly three years ago, the United States Government effectively wiped out Megaupload Limited, a cloud storage provider, along with related businesses, based on novel theories of criminal copyright infringement that were offered by the Government ex parte and have yet to be subjected to adversarial testing.  Thus, the Government has already seized the criminal defendants’ websites, destroyed their business, and frozen their assets around the world—all without benefit of an evidentiary hearing or any semblance of due process.
    Without even attempting to serve the corporate defendants per the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government has exercised all its might in a concerted, calculated effort to foreclose any opportunity for the defendants to challenge the allegations against them and also to deprive them of the funds and other tools (including exculpatory evidence residing on servers, counsel of choice, and ability to appear) that would equip robust defense in the criminal proceedings.
    But all that, for the Government, was not enough.  Now it seeks to pile on against ostensibly defenseless targets with a parallel civil action, seeking civil forfeiture, based on the same alleged copyright crimes that, when scrutinized, turn out to be figments of the Government’s boundless imagination.  In fact, the crimes for which the Government seeks to punish the Megaupload defendants (now within the civil as well as the criminal realm) do not exist.  Although there is no such crime as secondary criminal copyright infringement, that is the crime on which the Government’s Superseding Indictment and instant Complaint are predicated. That is the nonexistent crime for which Megaupload was destroyed and all of its innocent users were denied their rightful property.  That is the nonexistent crime for which individual defendants were arrested, in their homes and at gunpoint, back in January 2012.  And that is the nonexistent crime for which the Government would now strip the criminal defendants, and their families, of all their assets. 

     

     

    Friday
    Aug292014

    Lyft's Case Against Uber

    Ira Rothken weighed in on the legal analysis of the Lyft - Uber controversy arising out of the alleged “street team” Uber used to pitch drivers - in news stories in BuzzFeed and The Verge.

    Monday
    May132013

    Mega Removes Defense Distributed's 3D Gun Design Files From the Cloud

    Mega.co.nz removed Defense Distributed's 3D gun design files from the cloud while export regulations and other laws are being evaluated by the United States and others. Mega decided under the circumstances, given the potential security risks to society, the prudent thing to do was to err on the side of caution and remove the files. News story from Computerworld here.