LawFont.com

(Update (8 November): the paper is available at no charge via Fiona’s website.)

Writing in a recent issue of the journal Science (Vol. 310, 14 October 2005, pages 239-240), Fiona Murray and Kyle Jensen have reported the results of their research into ownership of patents in the human genome. Their findings are very interesting, providing needed empirical data on the extent to which the human genome has been patented, and by whom. (more…)

This week has had some mixed results for Google Print. The good news: Google Print has rolled out additional efforts to serve European users. The bad news: the Google Print Library Project has attracted another lawsuit in the United States, this time from the Association of American Publishers, objecting to the company’s “opt out” approach for scanning copyright works. (more…)

RIM ruling risks US Blackberry shutdown; 419 scams; and How ATM fraud nearly brought down British banking – see full post for details (more…)

As the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hunkers down to think about DRM, they might like to take note of a column just published in the Wall Street Journal, on DRM: (more…)

LawGeek has a post about Fox’s Lawyers sending cease & desist letters to shut down a Buffy Fan Musical.

A San Fran non-profit theatre group called CounterPULSE was sponsoring a fan re-enactment of that most excellent Buffy episode, “Once More With Feeling”. (more…)

The First Amendment Center has a nice analysis piece on international libel laws and publishing on the internet.

There are a couple of quibbles: the piece notes a number of cases brought against US publishers in a number of jurisdictions, including Australia, and says “In all of these cases, the foreign courts ignored the protections of U.S. libel law and instead applied local law to determine the publishers’ liability.” (more…)

When I commented on Stevens v Sony (here, and then here), I focused on the issue of the meaning of the anti-circumvention provisions. As others have pointed out (here, and Warwick Rothnie here), other matters were raised in the case – in particular, the meaning of reproduction in material form, or ‘copy’. William Patry has some interesting views on the issue today.
(more…)

The New York Times has reported on the rising cost of licensing intellectual property, noting that the asking price for licensing six seconds of a popular telephone ringtone for use in a documentary film was US$10,000 (eventually negotiated down to US$2,500). Overall, the documentary cost approximately US$500,000 to make, of which about US$170,000 were music licensing costs.

I’m all for compensating artists for using their works. But it’s clear that making low-budget films (particularly documentaries) is not necessarily so low-budget after all, particularly if the creators would like to make use, however fleeting, of clips of music, photographs, or other works protected by copyright.

This makes me think, should there be a sliding scale for licensing fees? Perhaps one based on the intended use of the licensed material, or on the profits received? Such a system might not be such a good deal for the rights holder. However, assuming that the high cost of IP has lead to people creating copyright works that infringe other works, it would be interesting to find out if cheaper licensing fees in certain situations might increase compliance with IP laws.

United States wireless telco Sprint Nextel has filed a suit in Kansas federal court against Vonage , Voiceglo Holdings, and theglobe.com (Voiceglo’s parent), claiming infringement of seven Sprint patents relating to voice over data packet technology, including VoIP. Injuctions against Vonage and Voiceglo, as well as unspecified damages, are being sought.

Vonage and Voiceglo are big business. Vonage is the largest United States independent VoIP service, with over 1 million subscribers, and is thought to be preparing for an IPO. Its service is designed to replace traditional telephones. Voiceglo offers a computer-based system that allows voice calls between computers or from computers to traditional phones, adopting a similar business model to Skype. (more…)

One issue that is knocking around in Australia at the moment is the scope of the concept of ‘patentable subject matter’. In particular, there has been a debate – and differences between the Patent Office and at least parts of the profession over whether, to be patentable, a claimed invention has to relate to a ‘field of technology’.

The issue is whether ‘pure’ business methods – business methods which are not ‘implemented’ in the form of some kind of technology (like computer software/hardware) can be patented – or whether they aren’t really inventions in a ‘field of technology’. The issue has been raised in a new US decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (more…)

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently decided a rather fascinating case, HGI Associates v. Wetmore Printing Co.. It begins:

In this case, the Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), through its subsidiary, Microsoft Licensing, Inc. (“MSLI”), and business partner, Wetmore, attempted to set an ill-conceived trap to ensnare a suspected software pirate, HGI. The trap, however, only managed to ensnare Wetmore.

(more…)

Patently-O has an interesting post on eBay’s cert petition in its litigation against MercExchange.

The case raises an interesting issue of just how far traditional principles of equity are modified by statute. Leaving aside the question of the availability of interlocutory relief while the litigation is still pending, the key as regards permanent injunctions looks to be 35 USC 283. (more…)

The US Copyright Office has announced the start of the next rule-making on exceptions to the ban on circumventing access control measures under the US DMCA. Submissions from the public are now being sought, with hearings scheduled for April 2006.

This is relevant to us here in Australia, as the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently holding an inquiry on the appropriate exceptions under the currently-being-drafted Australian version of the DMCA, which we must enact as a result of the US-Australia FTA (for my previous comments on this, see Weatherall’s Law, on the sidebar, or click here and here).

Might I point out the process adopted by the US to prepare submissions on this issue? 2 months for initial comments, with a period set aside for reply comments. Overall, the US process looks decidedly less rushed than what the Australian government appears to be doing.

The Delaware State Supreme Court has held that where a defamation suit is brought against an anonymous blogger, the identification of that blogger cannot be compelled.

In John Doe No. 1 v Patrick Cahill and Julia Cahill, the court also considered the nature of blogs in dismissing the defamation claim. In particular, the court noted that:

Blogs and chat rooms tend to be vehicles for the expression of opinions; by their very nature, they are not a source of facts or data upon which a reasonable person would rely.

The court considered the nature and reliability of Internet communications when evaluating the claim. (more…)

Tim O’Reilly, commentator and head of the excellent O’Reilly technical publishing series, has a fascinating take on the Authors’ Guilde suit against the Google Library Project. See Sarah’s earlier post for additional comment.