August 14, 2006
Compulsive Impulses Convulse
A Senate committee reviewing proposed changes to Australia’s intellectual property laws has urged the federal government to reconsider the section that adds a competition test as another ground on which a compulsory patent licence can be obtained.Posted by Jaani at 9:22 PM | Comments (0)
May 13, 2006
Free IP Australia seminars
IP Australia in conjunction with the Australian Innovation Festival are running free intellectual property commercialisation seminars in Brisbane (on 30 May 2006), Melbourne (on 31 May 2006) and Sydney (on 1 June 2006).Posted by Jaani at 2:23 PM | Comments (0)
May 10, 2006
Apple Computer v Apple Music: Two Bad Apples or Apples of Our Eyes?
Apple Computer (maker of the Macintosh computer systems) and Apple Corp (the music publisher founded by The Beatles) have been fighting over the right to use the Apple name and logo since about the mid 1980s. At the time, the companies reached a settlement that permitted Apple Computer to maintain its name and logo, providing it did not enter the music business or conduct any record sales or distribution.
Fast forward to 2002. Apple Computer launches the iTunes Music Store and proceeds to sell music electronically, direct to the public. Litigation ensues.
The latest spat of litigation took place in the English High Court, and considered whether Apple Computer was in breach of the terms of the companies’ earlier settlement. Judgment has just been handed down by Mann J:
‘I conclude that the use of the apple logo … does not suggest a relevant connection with the creative work. … I think that the use of the apple logo is a fair and reasonable use of the mark in connection with the service, which does not go further and unfairly or unreasonably suggest an additional association with the creative works themselves. … I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated. The action therefore fails.”
One of the key factors relevant to this decision was that, when shown an early prototype of the system by Apple Computer, Apple Corp voiced no objections. This suggested that Apple Corp was pursuing the claim simply to prevent a competitor that has since become more successful than it had previously anticipated.
Interestingly enough, The Beatles’ complete discography will soon be available on iTunes — strange given that Apple Corp has vowed to appeal the decision. I suppose that plays testament to the unrivalled market dominance (if not the quality) of Apple Computer’s online music platform. More importantly, this proves that — whatever the magical fruit’s medicinal benefits — no amount of daily apple consumption can stave off inevitable litigation.
Posted by Jaani at 12:10 AM | Comments (0)
May 9, 2006
Windows XP End User Licence Agreement: Decyphered
The Microsoft Windows XP End User Licence Agreement (‘EULA’) is a classic example of abstruse drafting. In being so generalised, and endeavouring to cover all possible uses and jurisdictions — from Australian high school students to Chinese nuclear power plants — it isn’t the most accessible document to the general public. Indeed, non-lawyers have frequently complained that it is difficult to decypher the obligations and restrictions that users of the software purport to accept and by which they unavoidably become bound.
Thankfully, the EULA has now been translated into a user friendly format. Unsurprisingly, the document reads a lot better for this treatment. Just take the Digital Rights Management clause, for example. Here it is before translation:
2.1 Digital Rights Management. Content providers are using the digital rights management technology contained in this Software (“DRM”) to protect the integrity of their content ( “Secure Content”) so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. Portions of this Software and third party applications such as media players use DRM to play Secure Content (“DRM Software”). If the DRM Software’s security has been compromised, owners of Secure Content (“Secure Content Owners”) may request that Microsoft revoke the DRM Software’s right to copy, display and/or play Secure Content. Revocation does not alter the DRM Software’s ability to play unprotected content. A list of revoked DRM Software is sent to your computer whenever you download a license for Secure Content from the Internet. You therefore agree that Microsoft may, in conjunction with such license, also download revocation lists onto your computer on behalf of Secure Content Owners. Microsoft will not retrieve any personally identifiable information, or any other information, from your computer by downloading such revocation lists. Secure Content Owners may also require you to upgrade some of the DRM components in this Software (“DRM Upgrades”) before accessing their content. When you attempt to play such content, Microsoft DRM Software will notify you that a DRM Upgrade is required and then ask for your consent before the DRM Upgrade is downloaded. Third party DRM Software may do the same. If you decline the upgrade, you will not be able to access content that requires the DRM Upgrade; however, you will still be able to access unprotected content and Secure Content that does not require the upgrade.
Not very enlightening, is it? Now for the plain English version:
You agree that at any time, and at the request of ‘content providers’ Microsoft may disable certain features on your computer, such as the ability to play your music or movie files.
There, much better — well, from the user’s perspective. Most of the legal content remains intact, the clause is unlikely to be void for uncertainty, and the meaning is infinitely clearer. Of course, it also makes abundantly clear to users (too clear, in fact) just how much of a nuisance this covenant could be. Lawyers using legalese to obfuscate the negative consequences of a clause? Heaven forbid!
Posted by Jaani at 11:04 PM | Comments (0)
December 11, 2005
Intellectual Property Rights to be Reviewed in UK
'Chancellor Gordon Brown announced on Friday that he has commissioned an independent review into intellectual property rights in the UK. Andrew Gowers, former editor of the Financial Times, will lead the review.'
Posted by Jaani at 2:33 PM | Comments (0)
October 27, 2005
Gamer Pays $100 000 for Virtual Property
A gamer has paid $100 000 for a virtual space resort in the massive multiplayer online role-playing game Project Entropia. The "real estate" was sold in a three-day auction.Posted by Jaani at 9:56 PM | Comments (0)
A Survey of the State of IP
An anonymous reader writes "This week's Economist has a number of stories in its survey of the state of IP (link to lead article), written from a balanced, business-oriented perspective. If you do not have a web subscription it is worth picking up a newsstand edition, if only to read a defense of open source from being seen as a 'flaky, radical, pinko strategy not related to the competitive marketplace'." From the article: "In recent years intellectual property has received a lot more attention because ideas and innovations have become the most important resource, replacing land, energy and raw materials. As much as three-quarters of the value of publicly traded companies in America comes from intangible assets, up from around 40% in the early 1980s."
Posted by Jaani at 9:51 PM | Comments (0)
October 15, 2005
Nanomedicine Raises Intellectual Property Concerns
The term "nano" has come to signify quick, tiny and cutting-edge. Similarly, nanotechnology represents science at the cutting edge, as it converges with biology, medicine and information technology. One area of research expected to generate revolutionary contributions is cancer nanotechnology. The application of convergent technologies to cancer is creating more effective methods of detection, treatment and prevention, as well as raising a host of intellectual property issues.
Posted by Jaani at 6:42 PM | Comments (0)
October 6, 2005
Small Firms Considering IP Convergence
Small and midsize businesses are rapidly waking up to the potential of IP convergence to deliver cost savings and boost business efficiency, newly published research claims.Posted by Jaani at 10:01 PM | Comments (0)
Yahoo! follows Google into print minefield
No explosions, yet
Unlike Google, Yahoo! has set off into the book scanning minefield without detonating any explosions. But that might be because it hasn't, as yet, gone near a mine. Yahoo!'s own book scanning plans went public today with the announcement of the Open Content Alliance, of which it is a founding member.…
Posted by Jaani at 9:52 PM | Comments (0)
Consumer body bemoans harsher Euro IP laws
Copyrights and responsibilities
UK quango the National Consumer Council (NCC) has called on European Commission legislators to take a fairer stance on consumer intellectual property rights.…
Posted by Jaani at 9:52 PM | Comments (0)
EU to follow Google's lead with online library
Our heritage, but whose net?
Google's internet library project will face competition from Yahoo!, but also from a less predictable rival: the European Commission announced its own plan on Friday. And it has an advantage: if copyright laws interfere with its plans it can change the laws.…
Posted by Jaani at 9:52 PM | Comments (0)
FIPR warns of danger of criminalising IP breaches
Let's keep things civil
The British government is trying to use its presidency of the EU to push through a European directive would give police more powers to act against copyright infringers than they currently have to deal with suspected terrorists, according to the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR).…
Posted by Jaani at 9:52 PM | Comments (0)
Morality lessons from today's youth: 'p2p is leagal its already bought its in the air'
The following letter was sent from a K12 school account in a southern US state. It illustrates the problems facing both paid legal download services, such as Apple's iTunes Music Store and Napster, and the RIAA's attempt to combat the illegal download services.…
Posted by Jaani at 9:52 PM | Comments (0)
September 3, 2005
Public Domain Dead in 35 Years, Says Lessig
tcd004 writes 'Lawrence Lessig, in an article on the Foreign Policy site, predicts that the public domain will die a slow death at the hands of anti-piracy efforts.'The danger remains invisible to most, hidden by the zeal of a war on piracy. And that is how the public domain may die a quiet death, extinguished by self-righteous extremism, long before many even recognise it is gone.
Posted by Jaani at 8:38 PM | Comments (0)
September 2, 2005
Employee Intellectual Property Agreements May Effectively Amount to Non-Competes
Alan Wexelblat writes, 'Most of us, particularly in the high tech biz, sign agreements regarding intellectual property with our employers. Simple versions of these agreements state that whatever the employee develops that is related to the company's business is assumed to be company IP. More restrictive agreements may lay claim to anything developed on company time or equipment. Since this includes email discussions, such a clause can be far-reaching.
Now, according to Ed Frauenheim on CNET, Microsoft is advancing a theory in its fight with Google over Kai-Fu Lee that could give these IP agreements - even lenient ones - the force of non-compete agreements. The argument, which MSFT didn't invent but is using, is called "inevitable disclosure." The basic idea is that you can't avoid spilling some of what you know in your job, and that's going to mean that IP you agreed was the property of a former employer gets illegally transferred to the new employer. If you accept the argument that this is inevitable then you may also find yourself accepting the argument that the employee should not be allowed to work for the competitor because doing so would always result in impermissable IP transfer. Thus, the IP agreement becomes a non-compete.
In the high-tech business - which is rife with job-hopping, IP agreements, and a rapidly changing competitive landscape - this doctrine could be dangerous if it became widely accepted. The CNET story reports that California courts have rejected the doctrine but that it has been "upheld" in Federal court.
CA's rejection came in Schlage Lock Company v Whyte and according to that Findlaw article, the relevant Federal case is PepsiCo, Inc v Redmond (7th Cir, 1995). In the PepsicCo case, the allegation was upheld that Mr. Redmond had access to relevant competitive trade secrets; in the Google case, Mr Lee is claiming that he didn't have access to MSFT's search secrets. He and Google may prevail on those grounds; however, prevailing at trial is a far cry from not getting sued in the first place, which is how things ought to be, absent specific evidence of wrongdoing.'
Posted by Jaani at 11:26 AM | Comments (0)
July 23, 2005
Biotech Companies Settle Royalties Lawsuit against Columbia University
Cambridge, Mass.-based biotechnology companies Genzyme Corp. and Biogen Idec Inc. have settled their lawsuit against Columbia University over the school's rights to royalties on drug-making research from the 1970s. Genzyme and Biogen Idec, which claimed that the university tried to illegally extend lucrative patents that had expired, said the agreement will allow them to continue selling drugs to treat multiple sclerosis and Gaucher disease based on Columbia-developed technology.Posted by Jaani at 12:28 PM | Comments (0)
February 27, 2005
Eminent Domain for Intellectual Property?
This interesting article on Prospect explores the possibility of state-sanctioned seizure of private intellectual property rights for the purpose of lowering pharmeceutical costs:
Unless the drug industry starts to negotiate significantly lower prices, it may find itself battling debt-strapped states for control over the manufacture of drugs. States already take land and other property in order to benefit the public by building things such as roads and schools. Now some legislators and officials are saying they should be able to take away a drug company’s intellectual property, its patent. They want to give these patents, which allow a company to manufacture a product, to competitors that agree to sell the drugs to the states at much lower prices.
Source: Barbara Dreyfuss, Prospect Online
Posted by Jaani at 3:44 PM | Comments (0)
January 30, 2005
Paying the Mafia? Intellectual Property Insurance
With the proliferation of open source software, the risks of unknowingly infringing a third party’s intellectual property have become alarmingly large. For example, infringing code produced by Developer A (and released under an open source license for distribution, such as the GNU General Public License (‘GPL’)) may be found and innocently used in a project by Developer B, who then delivers the finished product to Client C. In some situations, the wronged party may have actions against all of A, B, and C.
Where software is developed under contract by a third party, these risks are particularly important and less able to be controlled by the client. Though often unrealised, they are increasingly the subject of forced indemnification by the developer:
it is commonplace to demand that software produced ‘for hire’ by independent contractors be indemnified from patent violation. Since this is impossible, what contractors do is to buy insurance, which is hideously expensive. We are talking about tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of Euros here. Small businesses generally cannot afford it, so they simply cross their fingers and pray they are not sued. Those rare ones that can afford such things are treated to an experience that has the same flavour as paying the Mafia ‘insurance’ to make sure that one’s business does not burn down.
Though it seems unlikely to halt the continued popularity of licenses like the GPL, the prospect of getting sued is becoming an issue for many open source developers. I anticipate that as market demand for low-cost IP insurance increases, the costs of loss distribution will rapidly decline.
Source: Jeffrey Causey, IP Wars
Posted by Jaani at 7:28 PM | Comments (0)
