|
''Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3'', A-2774-00T3 (2001), is a New Jersey Superior Court case in which Dendrite International, Inc., a purveyor of computer software used in the pharmaceutical industry, brought a John Doe lawsuit against individuals who had anonymously posted criticisms of the company on a Yahoo message board. When Presiding Chancery Judge Kenneth MacKenzie rejected one of Dendrite's requests to compel Yahoo to reveal the identity of an anonymous defendant, Dendrite appealed. The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, and in doing so, created a set of guidelines for determining the circumstances under which an anonymous online speaker may be unmasked.〔(775 A.2d 756 ) (N.J. App. Div. 2001). Retrieved on 2009-03-15.〕 This standard has since been applied to other cases, such as ''Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe'',〔(170 P.3d 712 (pdf) ) (Ariz. 2007). Retrieved on 2011-03-01.〕 ''Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC'',〔Gallagher, Mary Pat. ("N.J. Suit Could Be Test Case for Anonymous Web Posts" ), ''New Jersey Law Journal'', February 26, 2007.〕 ''Independent Newspapers v. Brodie'',〔(Court of Appeals of Maryland, Feb. 27, 2009, No. 63 (pdf) ). Retrieved on 2011-03-01.〕 and ''The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.'' == Background == No uniform standard exists in the United States for determining the circumstances under which an anonymous online speaker may be unmasked.〔Miller, Jason. (Who's Exposing John Doe ) Journal of Technology Law & Policy, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2008〕 The original Superior Court case, ''Dendrite International, Inc. v. Does'', was a lawsuit brought by Dendrite International, Inc. (since acquired by Cegedim),〔(Business Wire ). Dendrite's Shareholders Approve Acquisition by Cegedim. Retrieved on 2011-03-01.〕 a company that provided pharmaceutical-industry-specific customer relationship management software, against fourteen anonymous defendants. These individuals had posted messages on a Yahoo message board which Dendrite claimed were breaches of contract, were defamatory and contained trade secrets. The plaintiffs requested that the court reveal the identity of four of the Does.〔Bartlett, Michael, (Court Upholds Anonymous Net Posting Decision ), USA Today. Retrieved on 2009-03-15.〕 However, unlike judges in previous similar cases, the trial judge ordered that a notice be posted on the message board alerting the Does that Dendrite was subpoenaing Yahoo, enabling some of the Does to contest the action.〔Saitz, Greg. "(Walking a Fine Line on Cyber Rights )." New Jersey Star-Ledger. Retrieved on 2011-03-01.〕 In November 2000, the trial judge granted the company's motion to conduct limited discovery to ascertain the identities of Does No. 1 and 2, but denied access to Does 3 and 4.〔 Doe No. 3's comments were related to alleged changes in the company's accounting practices and discussed the CEO's unsuccessful attempts to sell the company. The trial judge felt that Dendrite had failed to prove that it was harmed by the allegations, and found that the conduct of Does No. 3 and 4 did not warrant the revocation of their constitutional protections.〔 Dendrite appealed the decision with respect to Doe No. 3. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|