LawFont.com

Another noteworthy IP blog: US Academic Raymond Nimmer. While he’s not a frequent poster (maybe once a month), the posts are interesting, if only because he promulgates a very articulate version of the pro-IP stance. (more…)

With all the current terror talk, perhaps it’s time that IP got in on the act. According to the IPKat, and from the New York Sun, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York has filed a trademark application for the phrase ‘If you see, something, say something’, in order to police the phrase and those who use it. This is just wilful misunderstanding of trade mark law. (more…)

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…)

J. Alex Halderman has an interesting post today on Ed Felten’s blog on some new music CD DRM (digital rights management) that actually makes your computer less secure. (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…)

On Monday, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari (equivalent to the Australian High Court granting special leave) in a patent case, LabCorp v. Metabolite. The case is about patentability of medical processes, and has the potential, according to the Patently-O Blog, of addressing some of the ‘patentability of processes’ issues raised in the Ex p Lundgren case that I’ve commented on before (here and here).

See Patently-O for more detail.

I think it is worth noting that Australians didn’t only do well in the Nobel Prizes this year. All praise, of course, to Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren, who received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, “for their discovery of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease”.

Australians also did well in the Ig Nobels this year (more…)

I’ve added two links to the blogroll as part of a general clean up of the Weatherall’s Law blogroll. (more…)

A little while ago I blogged about Ex parte Carl A. Lundgren, a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the US Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO). In that decision, the Board overturned the Examiner’s objection to the patent, holding there is no separate “technological arts” test in determining whether a process is statutory subject matter. The decision potentially broadened the patentability of what you might call ‘pure business methods’ – those not instantiated in ‘technology’ (like software or hardware). (more…)

While I’m on the subject of copyright and the constitution, Simon Evans, a colleague here at Melbourne, the other day pointed me to his submission in the fair use/fair dealing inquiry. It’s an interesting read on some of the constitutional, rule of law and free speech issues raised by copyright exceptions – highly recommended. I’ve also added it to the list of submissions.

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…)

As expected, earlier this week a the Vastmanland district court in Sweden handed down the nation’s first decision on Internet file sharing. (more…)

I don’t have time to say much at this stage on the TPM submissions, made to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the context of its current review. I’m reading through them, in the hope of producing a kind of concentrated summary as I did for the fair dealing review. I suspect there are many more yet to come onto the website. I’ve already commented on the CAL submission, of course.

However, I commend to interested people the ABC submission. In its discussion, the ABC makes it clear just why some exceptions are necessary, if we are to have an effective free media. The submission highlights the practicalities that sometimes intrude and that academics like me sometimes forget. In particular, the submission makes the explicit argument that:

Australian law must comply with the implied right to governmental and political discussion. Any law which protects TPMs but which does not permit an exception to allow free government and political discussion will not be appropriate and adapted to its purpose and will be unconstitutional.

This implied constitutional right plays a critical role in the media and is fundamental to the ABC meeting its charter.’

Interesting reading.

Well, it’s true. iTunes have apparently launched in Australia.