LawFont.com

Breaking news is that Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the BlackBerry, has settled its dispute with NTP for $612.5m. This is higher than the $450m settlement reached a year ago, which was later invalidated by a judge. (more…)

I blogged briefly yesterday about the release of the TPM Inquiry Report; it’s been attracting some international interest, and you can see my previous post for links to that commentary.

I’m still trying to digest the effect of the report. But the AFR has a story today (sorry, subscription only) noting that the report may well lead to conflict with the US. And here’s the kicker: our Trade Minister is apparently meeting US trade officials in Washington DC next week to review the first 15 months of the FTA.

What’s the bet he gets a bit of a pounding on the Report? But what to do? The dictates of Australian politics, and international realpolitik may be in conflict here. (more…)

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) will review Schedule 7 of the Anti­Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 and the provisions of Part IIA of the Crimes Act 1914. The Terms of Reference are not yet on the website, but I’ve copied them over the fold. Interesting that the terms ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of artistic expression’ don’t make their way onto the terms of reference at all, since that was part of the public debate that led to the reference. But certainly ‘any related matter’ is broad enough to cover those issues.

It’s a really tight timetable though – the press release says that the ALRC has to report by May 2006. Doesn’t the government want a real review? (more…)

The LA Times is carrying a remarkable story about a man charged with criminal offences in relation to the leaking of documents of Diebold Corporation, makers of electronic ballot systems used in US elections. (more…)

It looks like the SCO litigation is hotting up a little. IBM has reportedly issued subpoenas to Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Sun and BayStar Capital in relation to their dealings with SCO. (more…)

Let me say that again, counterfeiting is a serious problem. The OECD think so, the Australian government think so – plenty of people think so. I think so. Counterfeiting, at least as it occurs within Australia, has no social value that I’m aware of, and has costs including (a) losses to the trade mark owner (lost sales), (b) the costs entailed by the deception of consumers, (c) indirect losses to the trade mark owner (for example, loss of reputation for quality, loss of ‘prestige’ value), (d) the costs of enforcement incurred by trade mark owners and governments alike, and (e) the ‘social losses’ – lost jobs, lost tax revenue, and lost investment in research and development that may arise as a result of the lost revenue.

I have a great deal of sympathy for trade mark owners who reach levels of desperation, and use hardball tactics, against counterfeiters, particularly ‘repeat offenders’. It must be incredibly frustrating dealing with parties that have little or no respect for the law or the orders of the court. It is clear, from various judgments by the Federal Court judges, that they too have little sympathy, in general, with counterfeiters and importers/sellers of counterfeit goods.

In this context, however, this judgment is a timely reminder to lawyers that they cannot play too hardball in dealing with counterfeiters, particularly counterfeiters who are unrepresented by lawyers themselves – even where the counterfeiter has displayed contempt for the orders of the court. (more…)

So on Friday, I’m at the ACIPA Annual Copyright Extravaganza in BrizVegas, and Matt Rimmer is talking about Google and all the court cases against it. And one of the cases is that brought by Perfect 10, suing over the existence of its (nudie wimmin) images in Google’s thumbnail images as displayed in Google’s Image Search function. And I have a bit of a laugh to myself, muttering phrases to myself like ‘total try-on’, and ‘haven’t you read Kelly v Arriba-Soft?‘ Then this morning, I get an email from a reader, with the title ‘Girlie Photos Land Google in Legal Trouble’, with a link to this SMH story. So I’m figuring, try on. Indeed, I shoot back a response – without reading said story – saying ‘looks like a try-on to me’. Finally, this arvo I read the story. And, it transpires, there is an injunction. My reaction: what? Or, as Marty Schwimmer – says, ‘wow’.

Now I’ve read the case. In essence, a preliminary injunction will be ordered against Google (terms yet to be determined) against its copying, and displaying , of thumbnail images of Perfect 10’s nudie wimmin pictures.

The judgment has some amusing footnotes: footnote 4 in particular, where the court notes that Perfect 10 complained ‘thumbnail’ is a misnomer when the image may be 8 x the size of an actual human thumbnail. Oh, puh-lease. Amusement aside, however, the case is interesting – even for us Australians. I reckon most of the discussion in the blogosphere is likely to go to the ‘fair use’ issue: ie, is Google’s creation, and display, of thumbnail pictures ‘fair use’. The court said no – something I thought was pretty interesting. But actually, from an Australian perspective, perhaps even more interesting are some of the parallels with Cooper, on liability for linking to stuff. (more…)

Last week, a Joint hearing of the Subcommittees on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations and Asia and the Pacific (part of the House International Relations Committee) of the U.S. Congress was held on the involvement of U.S. firms (including Yahoo! and Google, as has been discussed in earlier posts) in upholding China’s oppressive regulation of the Internet in that country. The hearings are interesting not only for the particular points raised, but for the question it raises on who is responsible for putting pressure on oppressive regimes: private sector firms or the governments that represent them? (more…)

Following on my post the other day about courts ordering the release of “private” data about net usage, an interesting case in point is a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court in late November, which ordered Lycos to reveal the identity of a user of one of its websites who had anonymously posted slanderous (or potentially slanderous) allegations against a postage stamp dealer. (more…)

The New York Times has a story on the use of data held by internet companies in court. I don’t think it’s actually all that new a story; it’s more of a ‘lawyers are finally starting to catch up with the net’ story, in the same way you would have had a story about lawyers coming to terms with fax technology 20 years ago. (more…)

The question in Conor Medsystems Inc v The University of British Columbia (No.2) [2006] FCA 32 (Finkelstein J) was this:

1. if you have two joint patentees
2. one of those joint patentees is a University which claims title through two people claiming to be inventors,
3. but it turns out that those people were not in fact inventors,
4. is the patent liable to revocation, on the grounds that it was not granted to the actual inventors or those claiming under them – even though the other patentee is not affected by the problem?

(more…)

The Attorney-General announced yesterday that the Australian Law Reform Commission will review the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The ALRC press release is here. The reference to the ALRC follows the recommendations of two other, briefer reviews which reported in mid-2005. While you might ask why we need another review after those two, the advantages I think are twofold: (1) it is the ALRC, which does ‘active’ review (it doesn’t just wait for submissions), and (2) the terms of reference are pretty broad. (more…)

This edition of “What is..?” considers VoIP, otherwise known as Internet telephony or IP telephony. VoIP, which stands for “Voice over Internet Protocol”, refers to the transmission of voice telephone calls over the Internet or any other IP-based network. VoIP systems use packet-switched networks to route and transmit voice calls, rather than the circuit-switching systems used by “traditional” voice telecommunications services.

This article provides an introduction to VoIP, including how it differs from traditional telephony services, and considers some of the regulatory issues raised by providing voice telephony over the Internet. While today VoIP might appear to be a niche product, it is in fact threatening to change the structure of the telephony industry, and is evidence of convergence between the Internet and telecommunications. (more…)

It is far too hot and sticky this morning in Melbourne to spend vast amounts of time blogging. (hmmm, theory, how does weather affect blogging? More blogging if colder and stuck inside..?).

Four interesting stories today though, on the continuing Copyright and Politics saga in Canada, on the take-down of Wikipedia Germany, on Google Subpoenas and on the question of who owns the news in the US? More over the fold. (more…)

If you want to know what they’re talking about in trade mark law in the US, you might want to head over to 43(b)log: in particular the posts summarising proceedings from the AALS Section on IP – Parts one, two, three, and four.

In other trade mark news, IPKat reports an ECJ decision (scroll down to C-361/04 P (2006-01-12) Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM) on whether the mark PICARO for vehicles would be likely to be confused with an earlier mark, PICASSO (registered, inter alia, for vehicles). (more…)