LawFont.com

No, copying your CDs isn’t legal (yet). But Sony has come to the party, announcing that it will make its catalogue available through Apple’s Australian iTunes music store. Good news indeed.

And in other iPod news: (more…)

The Trade Marks Office (IP Australia) has apparently ruled that ‘Ugg Boot’ is a generic term. As such, it can be removed from the Register, putting an end to the exclusive rights of the trade mark owner. Given that no decision appears in AustLII, I’m guessing that this is an initial decision, which could be the subject of review or later, appeal to the courts. The story may not be entirely over. >[Update: The decision is in fact available here; it is a decision by the delegate under s 101 relating to an application for removal under s 92. As such, it could be appealed to the Federal Court (s 104). The decision is worth reading, if only for the comedy value in seeing how ‘UGG’, ‘UGH’, etc have been used. After the decision, the trade mark owner’s lawyers issued a statement, (more…)

See the full list here!

It’s been a long time coming, of course (I started publishing links to the submissions back in August, 2005, and the Copyright Council also did so). But all credit to the Department for putting them up. It is undoubtedly a good thing that they have done so – there are many I haven’t seen before. Having the submissions online contributes to the transparency of the lawmaking process. In this case, transparency is a good thing. Given that opacity of the law-making process was one factor in the High Court’s reasoning in the Stevens v Sony decision, putting the submissions online will also assist in the future. Thanks, AGs! (Thanks also to Matt Black (EFA) for alerting me to this).

2005 was one of those years where the IP developments just kept coming. Kazaa, Fair Dealing/Fair Use, a TPM law inquiry, Stevens v Sony, the occasional patent judgment, another government inquiry. And that’s just the Australian stuff. We also of course had stuff like the Grokster judgment, developments in the Blackberry litigation … more treaty-making. It was hard keeping up. Matt Rimmer has done a run down over here.

Instead of doing my own round up, I thought it might be fun to list up the things that are still to come in Australian IP. Just so I can feel exhausted before we even really start the year. So, over the fold, my round up of developments to expect, and issues to come, in Australian IP law. (more…)

I’m more an IP person than a contract person, but in teaching IT law, you do often come up against that question – just how far can warranties go in excluding corporate liability?

The SMH reports that the ACCC has taken legal action in the Federal Court against LG Electronics for telling customers who bought its mobile phones that it offered only a limited and voluntary one-year warranty. (more…)

You know it’s time to start blogging again when you realise you are talking back at the television (although at least I refrained from yelling at the tv…). Sometimes I wonder whether I’m doomed to keep blogging for so long as US-Australia FTA IP issues keep periodically hitting the headlines.

Why was I displaying this mild form of insanity? Last night, the FTA, and pharmaceutical prices issues hit the 7:30 Report (transcript not yet available), building on a story that hit the newspaper sites yesterday. (more…)

Earlier this month I posted Part 1 of “What is region coding?”, which described the technology, commercial rationale, and economic effects of this system. This posting is Part 2, and considers the legal implications of region coding, with a focus on developments in the United States and Australia. (more…)

Matt Rimmer has a nice round-up of the year’s IT and IP stories at CCH (registration may be required). It has the usual suspects (Grokster, Sony v Stevens, the Sony rootkit) and also a nice summary of a French decision (Stéphane P and Association UFC v Universal Pictures Video France — Court d’Appeal de Paris) about DRM that prevents DVDs being copied to VHS tapes for private use.

This edition of “What is…?” describes the regional coding systems used by the entertainment industry, with a particular emphasis on DVDs. This article will explain the technology behind region coding, describe how the system is enforced, and speculate on the commercial reasons for the system. It will then consider the economic effects of region coding and its possible legal implications, including a discussion of recent litigation in which region coding has been at issue.

This posting contains Part 1, which provides an introduction to how region coding works from both technological and legal perspectives, as well as the commercial justifications for region coding and its possible economic effects. Part 2 considers the legal issues raised by region coding, in the context of both competition/antitrust law as well as the anti-circumvention provisions that have been adopted as part of copyright law in both Australia and the United States. (more…)

The Australian is reporting that lawyers for MIPI will seek an order from the Federal Court to shut down the Kazaa network, because Sharman has failed to implement keyword filtering that it was required to introduce. (more…)

(via Troppo Armadillo)

I blogged the other day about the patent research exception, and specifically, the new ACIP report recommending (like the ALRC before it) a new exception for research use of patented inventions. Timely, then, to note this study by the American Association for the Advancement of Science on the effect of patents on research. (more…)

And in some copyright news (my regular copyright-oriented readers must have been frustrated lately, it’s all been patent, hasn’t it!), the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who are inquiring into the need for exceptions to the soon-to-be-drafted new anti-circumvention laws (the Oz-DMCA) have posted a whole lot more submissions onto their website, and put up the dates for the hearings – Sydney on 14 November, Melbourne on 15 November, and Canberra on 21 November. I’ll be appearing in Melbourne, as will a number of people I know. More fun! (Ta Anne for the heads up!)

Yesterday I gave a talk on IP enforcement here in Melbourne (same one will be given in Sydney on 21 November), based on research done by me and my colleagues (especially, Paul Jensen and Jason Bosland). The slides from the presentation are now online, and the working paper is also on the IPRIA site. There’s also an article in the August Federal Law Review with more on patent enforcement in Australia. Lots of graphs, especially on the slides. Lots of fun.

The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, ACIP, today released its final report in its Review on Patents and Experimental Use. In short, like the ALRC, they have recommended the creation of a specific experimental use exception. (more…)

There’s been a fair bit of discussion in the last little while over ‘breaking’ the Tamiflu patents. Actually, of course, what we are talking about is not ‘breaking’ patents, as such, but rather, applying exceptions to patent protection, which are well-established both in Australian law, and in international law (via Article 30 of TRIPS, affirmed by the Doha Declaration). This would involve compulsory licensing of the patents – the patentee gets paid, but has no ‘right of veto’ and in effect loses some of the benefits of the monopoly. The debate heightened when Taiwan announced it would be using its rights under international law to have Tamiflu manufactured. (more…)