News and Activities [RSS]


On June 8th, 2016, the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed a brief amici curiae in Samsung Electronics v. Apple Inc. before the United States Supreme Court. In its brief, SFLC argues that design patents are unconstitutional and that the total profits damages rule is therefore constitutionally infirm.

The brief is available to download as a pdf.


On May 2, 2016 Eben Moglen and Mishi Choudhary presented the opening keynote address at the 10th annual Re:publica conference in Berlin, Germany. You can watch a video of the address here

Abstract: During the period from 2016 – 2025, the "other half" of the human race will be connected to the Net. Providing connection to the world's poor is the greatest act of social justice, educational opportunity and economic equalization within our power.

See also the original program description.



If you missed the SFLC Fall Conference, wanted to share parts with a friend or colleague, or re-watch part of it yourself, you now can here.


On Friday, October 9th, 2015 the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) submitted a comment with the United States Federal Communications Commission, which has proposed a number of revisions to its rules and regulations concerning approval of wireless devices. Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 15-170. SFLC takes the position that the Commission does not possess the legal authority to adopt a rule that regulates the software running in devices that does not affect the operation of RF transmitters or create interference. SFLC further argues that, even within the scope of the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction, the Commission must tread carefully to avoid over-regulating radio frequency device software to the detriment of user innovation and after-market software modification. SFLC also urges the Commission to issue a policy statement (1) supporting the use of community developed or free software in networking devices; (2) recognizing the overwhelming social benefits generated from the high-quality software produced by non-profit communities; and (3) stating that preferring proprietary software over software whose source code is publicly available does not meaningfully enhance the security of software.

The comment is available on our site.

Next (older) »