LawFont.com

Another interesting case that the US Supreme Court might be hearing: FTC v. Schering-Plough. It’s all about the competition law aspects of settlement of patent disputes between pharmaceutical ‘innovator’ companies and generic manufacturers. (more…)

Various media are reporting how a British teenager escaped conviction after “mailbombing” his former employer. Mailbombing is a form of denial of service attack – in this case, the teen sent 5 million emails, which overwhelmed the target’s mail server. (more…)

Given the recent attention given to book digitization projects, it is time to step back and consider developments to date. This post will first describe the projects launched by Google and the Open Content Alliance, and the consider some of the legal issues raised by Google Print, which is the subject of two major lawsuits. What follows is somewhat lengthy, but it has taken some space to do this interesting topic justice. (more…)

One of the passages in the recent High Court case on anti-circumvention laws (or the Oz-DMCA), Stevens v Sony which attracted a little bit of attention, even excitement from people I know the following part, from Justice Kirby’s judgment:

[216] The provisions of the Australian Constitution affording the power to make laws with respect to copyright operate in a constitutional and legal setting that normally upholds the rights of the individual to deal with his or her property as that individual thinks fit. In that setting, absent the provision of just terms, the individual is specifically entitled not to have such rights infringed by federal legislation in a way that amounts to an impermissible inhibition upon those rights constituting an acquisition. This is not the case in which to explore the limits that exist in the powers of the Australian Parliament, by legislation purporting to deal with the subject matter of copyright, to encumber the enjoyment of lawfully acquired chattel property in the supposed furtherance of the rights of copyright owners. However, limits there are.
…

[218] To the extent that attempts are made to push the provisions of Australian copyright legislation beyond the legitimate purposes traditional to copyright protection at law, the Parliament risks losing its nexus to the constitutional source of power. That source postulates a balance of interests such as have traditionally been observed by copyright statutes, including the Copyright Act.’

But what do these passages really mean? (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…)

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…)

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, this past year the High Court of Australia has upheld a record number of appeals from the New South Wales Court of Appeals:

Herald research shows that of 52 cases, 40 decisions of lower courts have been reversed – a success rate of almost 80 per cent.

Last year it upheld only 34 of 55, and in 2003 it was 33 of 56. Last year only 12 of 20 appeals against NSW decisions succeeded.

This means, of course, that in many cases the High Court has found that the trial judge decided the case correctly in the first instance — as was the case in Sony v Stephens, where the High Court agreed with Justice Sackville’s original finding that Eddy Stephens was not liable for having circumvented a technological protection measure.

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…)

The Svenska antipiratbyrÃ¥n, the Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau (a lobby group working against and investigating cases of alleged copyright infringement), has sued an individual for sharing movies online using the DirectConnect file-sharing protocol. The court, which heard the case last week, is expected to deliver a verdict on 25 October. (more…)

Are newspaper headlines protected by copyright?

The Japanese Intellectual Property High Court (a branch court of the Tokyo High Court) has ruled that a small Internet company’s unauthorised use of headlines from Japan’s best-selling newspaper, the Yomiuri Shimbun, is illegal.

Strangely, although the company, Digital Alliance Corporation, has been ordered to pay about Â¥237,700 (about US$2,000 or A$2,758) to the Yomiuri, and the court said that the use of the headlines was illegal, Judge Tomokatsu Tsukahara noted that as headlines are not mentioned in Japan’s Copyright Law the law is not completely clear, and he did not order Digital Alliance to take down the headlines from its website. Presumably Digital Alliance’s use of the headlines was illegal for a reason other than copyright infringement. (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 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…)