Sam Alito: Good news on technology, bad news on police searchs?

Alito's strict view on the kinds of inventions that merit copyright protection should also be a comfort to high-tech businesses, said William Patry, a partner at Thelen Reid & Priest and author of The Patry Copyright Blog. Alito demonstrated this strict approach in 2004 when he denied Southco, a manufacturer of screws and industrial fasteners, copyright protection for its part numbers. Alito said the part numbers, which Southco alleged that its rival Kanebridge copied, lacked the originality and creativity required for copyright protection.

On behalf of a 2-1 majority, Alito carefully avoided sweeping pronouncements of the potential omnipotence of futuristic spy gadgets. Instead, his logic was simple: because the informant consented to the recording, it could be used as evidence. His decision turned on the so-called one-party consent rule, "the well-established principle that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in conversations with a person who consents to the recording of the conversations," Alito said.

• The surveillance device was only turned on when the informant was in the room.
• The device was installed presumably with the permission of the property owner....
• ... and the property owner was a hotel, not a home.