LawFont.com

I see that matters have developed quickly in the Sony DRM story that I blogged about earlier. We’ve had a lawsuit filed, viruses developed that take advantage of the Sony rootkit system, instructions proliferating on how to remove the RootKit, and some warnings from US Government officials directed at Sony and others who do this kind of thing. Moreinfo, plus links, plus some thoughts on the legal issues, over the fold. (more…)

Interesting news indeed this morning, with a consortium of IBM, Sony, Philips, Novell and Red Hat announcing the formation of a company the Open Invention Network, a company for sharing Linux-related patents, for free. (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…)

Two trade-related IP stories for this morning, c/o the Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest. (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…)

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…)

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.

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.