LawFont.com

Gosh, too much IP/Tech news is just never enough, right? There’s heaps going on right now. I’ve commented on the whole patent injunction issue (Blackberry, and eBay v MercExchange) below. But there’s so much more going on, I’ll just post a couple of pointers to more info. Over the fold, more on the many Google stories hitting the news, as well as Ed Felten on DRM. In addition, I note that the Kazaa contempt case (over Kazaa’s decision to block Australian access, rather than alter its software) was listed, as I understood, for hearing in Sydney yesterday. Does anyone know what happened? (more…)

Guess what Professor Sam Ricketson just put on my desk? The two volumes of Ricketson and Ginsburg’s new tome, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond. This book updates Ricketson’s seminal earlier work on The Berne Convention 1886 – 1986. The new edition not only adds Professor Jane Ginsburg’s expertise, but is quite comprehensively updated, including commentary on such treaties as the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and even developments in relation to Bilateral Free Trade Agreements, and Private International Law aspects of international copyright. It even has a companion website. While I’ve not yet dipped into these pages of wisdom and scholarship, I have a feeling this is bound to end up as important, frequently cited and influential as Professor Ricketson’s earlier work. Can’t wait to read it!

Today, Patently-O has a summary of the briefs received in the US Supreme Court thus far in the case of eBay v MercExchange . Parties briefing include Yahoo!, the EFF, AIPLA, 52 Law Professors (written by Mark Lemley, who has written prolifically and informatively on matters of patent litigation generally), a bunch of technology companies (including a joint brief from Intel, Microsoft, Oracle and Micron), Nokia and others. The summaries make an interesting read, because they reveal two things: that this dispute has a very broad background in some of the most contentious reform issues in patent law in the US today, and second, that this could well end up being, as Patently-O has described it , ‘the most important patent case in the past five years’. (more…)

The EFF has a press release on Field v. Google, in which the United States District Court for the District of Nevada rejected Field’s claims for copyright infringement arising from Google’s storing of his copyright works in its cache. (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…)

The Age has reprinted a copy of a letter written by Groucho Marx in response to a letter of demand from Warner Brothers studio. Old, but good.

Speaking of Groucho, Andrew Denton last year had a great interview with Alice Cooper, who knew Groucho well and had some amusing anecdotes.

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…)

The Register has a short story based on a survey conducted by XTN data, which found that while 25% of people admit to downloading music from file-sharing services, only 7% of iPod owners admit doing so.

If true, this, again, seems to prove Steve Jobs correct: give people a reasonably-priced legal means of downloading music, and they will not violate copyright.

I’ve not been reporting on the debate in Canada over the conduct of Sam Bulte, and her copyright industry-funded fundraiser. The place to go for background and comments is Michael Geist’s website. It’s a truly fascinating (and disturbing) story, but for the moment, it doesn’t impact on, or have implications for, the Australian situation. So I direct you elsewhere for that story.

But Geist has linked to what I think is a fascinating post, by Matthew Good, Canadian musician. It’s a comment on whether the interests of the ‘Canadian Music Industry’ and the interests of Canadian Musicians coincide. (more…)

A World Health Organisation Commission on Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation has delayed its report, due to disagreements amongst its members. The Commission is analysing how incentives and funding mechanisms may be created for research into, and the development of, medicines for diseases that “disproportionately affect developing countries”. Full story at IP Watch. Short quote over the fold. (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).

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…)

A few of the patent blogs over the last week or so have been reporting a decline in patent litigation in the US, sourced from analysis done by LegalMetrics. But is it so? I’m not so sure… (more…)

The other day I blogged about what was coming up in Australian IP. Not really predictions – these were more statements about the stuff I knew should be coming.

For a bunch of predictions – focused on the US but of course with more general relevance – see Freedom to Tinker’s list of 23.