IPwars - Latest Comments

Re: The price of digital downloads in Australia

Ian McCauley — Thu, 03 May 2012 03:32:53 -0000

One particularly egregious example of the behaviour that Brian highlights in his article, that I have come across, is the supply of audiobooks from Audible.com. They quote fantastical numbers of items available in audio format - last I heard something like 25,000. But sign up with an Aussie credit card (the only means possible) and a lot of the content is not available. They wouldn't tell me how much, but a very rough survey of 100 books they had on special showed that only aroung 25% of them were available here.

Re: The price of digital downloads in Australia

iWarwick — Thu, 03 May 2012 01:49:48 -0000

That is an interesting point, Robbie.

Anecdotally, I have noticed that books available through both the Kindle Store and the iBook store are often (but not always) cheaper in the iBook store than at Amazon. Sometimes, of course, a particular title is not available on one or other (or both, for that matter).

Re: The price of digital downloads in Australia

RobbieClarken — Thu, 03 May 2012 01:44:08 -0000

It is interesting that the price of apps in the iTunes store is roughly equal for Australians and Americans whereas songs, movies and TV shows are typically much more expensive for Australians. Apple has world-wide distribution rights for apps whereas has to negotiate with regional copyright holders for the other media. The same pattern can be seen for ebooks published by Amazon vs ebooks from traditional publishers.

This suggests it is the publishers, not the retailers, that are responsible for the high prices in Australia.

Re: Roadshow v iiNet

FreddyB — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 07:18:44 -0000

Can't wait to hear what you have to say on this but is there anything hugely different in this judgement from the 2010 appeal?

Re: De-linking intellectual property from exclusive rights

Ggreen Molly — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:00:36 -0000

generic labs

Thanks for shearing..

Re: Registering a trade mark in bad faith

iWarwick — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:20:57 -0000

After posting this, I received some feedback questioning, if this was not bad faith, what ever will be?

Now, there is certainly a lot of force in that question.

On the other hand, the expression "tennis warehouse" is pretty descriptive. Would it be "bad faith" to adopt "tennis supermarket" after spotting someone else using that on the web?

Re: ISP gets DMCA win in USA

dmca process — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:17:39 -0000

DMCA is one of the most reliable tool.

http://www.dmcanow.com/about-d...

Re: Extraditing (alleged) copyright criminals

Dona yanni — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:13:01 -0000

If it happen to UK citizen then any country citizen may face same legal issue.. i am not clear how aussie law handle with this copy right issue for the foreigners .
Dona
probate lawyers

Re: Smartphone patent landscape

Patentology (Mark Summerfield) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:26:19 -0000

Thanks for your interest in the article.

Just to clarify, however, I am not for one moment suggesting that Samsung should be allowed to evade its FRAND obligations, or that any patentee which willingly contributes technology to a standard should be permitted to hold any implementer of the standard to ransom.

But there are complex legal and commercial issues involved. In my view, the FRAND licensing regime ought to be allowed to operate such that it becomes commercially attractive for a company like Apple to cross-license its patents as a way to reduce license fees payable (which end up impacting the price of its products and/or its profit margins).

If, for example, Apple is able to obtain the full benefit of Samsung's FRAND patents for the cost of the royalty built into the price of a $20 Qualcomm part, and use this to compete against Samsung in the market for tablets and smartphones costing $600-$1000, then what exactly (in a commercial sense) is fair and reasonable about this situation?

What would you suggest that Samsung should have done? Had it not been willing to contribute its patented technologies to the standard on FRAND terms then it would have no mechanism to obtain a reasonable return on its investment in developing those technologies, from which an entire industry (incluidng Apple) benefits. Instead, it would have had to pay someone else.

If Apple wants to make the commercial choice to pay FRAND royalties, keep its 'user experience' technologies for itself, and charge a price premium for devices incorporating those technologies, then I have absolutely no problem with that. On one view, what Samsung is asking the Federal Court to decide is whether Apple should be allowed to have its cake, and eat it too.

Re: Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011

Brisbane Indoor Sports — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:06:40 -0000

I think government should take a strict action againstthose companies which are making tobacco products.

Re: Apple v Samsung

patent litigation — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:05:33 -0000

Though of course it's completely legal for companies to pursue injunctive measures against their competition, I am ambivalent; is it ethical for corporations to use patent infringement litigation merely as an anti-competitive tactic, or should these disputes be settled in the marketplace, where they belong?
http://www.generalpatent.com/b...

Re: The onus on appeal from a trade mark opposition

Christian James — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:12:42 -0000

Trademark attorney is very useful for your business to be patent. That's my advice

Re: Copyright safe harbour scheme review Mk 2

Mary Wyburn — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:19:31 -0000

See the Attorney-General's speech as the Copyright Symposium, referring to the consultation paper and the proposed ALRC reference
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov...

Re: Australia signed up to ACTA

iWarwick — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:18:43 -0000

Contrary to the USTR's view, TechDirt argues that US law will require change;
Canada's government has announced it will amend its laws to bring them into line with its ACTA obligations; and
apparently, New Zealand will also need to change its laws (again).

http://preview.tinyurl.com/66y...

Re: Optus TV Now … 2

War — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:12:15 -0000

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3sj...

Re: Optus TV Now and the threat to sports’ millions

How does the product offering from Optus differ from something like TiVo though? Surely these recording 'devices' are closely analogous and would fall within s 111

Re: IPSANZ annual conference

iWarwick — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:35:14 -0000

Glad you enjoyed it. There were some excellent sessions. Unfortunately, there often seemed like only enough time for 'fleeting' hellos here and there.

Re: IPSANZ annual conference

Sonal Moore — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:14:09 -0000

Sorry I missed you but it was a great conference!

Re: Apple v Samsung DownUnder

iWarwick — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 21:47:55 -0000

Well, it will definitely be interesting to see what happens. One can't expect that Apple has gone to war against one of its major suppliers only to back down meekly especially as Samsung seems to be attacking the core of Apple's tech darling status: the iPhone and iPad.

Re: Apple v Samsung DownUnder

Patentology (Mark Summerfield) — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 21:25:08 -0000

I think you'll find that Florian Mueller (FOSSPatents) is German, and not a lawyer (self-described 'IP activist-turned-analyst').

And of course Samsung has not announced a specific launch date or time frame -- they just undertook not to do this kind of thing until at least seven days after providing the three product samples to Apple. They are pretty much constrained by their agreement not to do anything that might be construed as promoting the product. Although, it has to be said that Apple is doing a pretty good job of that for them!

Re: Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011

iWarwick — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:47:36 -0000

I don't think it is about standing.

Apparently private parties can bring complaints under these bilateral investment agreements.

If there be an issue (apart from the substantive questions), the speculation appears to be one of timing as the legislation has not been passed and is not law yet. Whether that type of objection is compelling or not is another matter.

Re: Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011

Charles Davies — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:44:26 -0000

So the issue is simply one of standing? I thought once ratified, a treaty typically becomes enforceable against the government by individuals (though it's been a few years since I did International Law, so I could easily be wrong). I wasn't aware that treaties create obligations only between different nations.

Presumably, though, Phillip Morris and the other tobacco companies could appeal to the US Government and have them act on TRIPS instead? Whether or not the US government deigns to do it is another matter, of course.

Re: Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011

iWarwick — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:19:08 -0000

You may want to review the discussion and links at:

http://ipwars.com/2011/06/28/p...

Re: Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011

Charles Davies — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:06:47 -0000

I thought there was a provision under one of the treaties Australia is signatory to (the TRIPS agreement, perhaps?) that banned signatories from withholding or removing intellectual property rights on the basis of moral opposition to the nature of the product. I have to assume I'm mistaken, since otherwise the tobacco companies would have a cut-and-dry case on their hands and it clearly seems to be a problem for them.

Do you know anything about the treaty provision I might be thinking of, and why it doesn't apply?

Re: How much to pay for an infringement

Mathew — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:12:32 -0000

I actually think the economists are onto something - why should we as a society compensate someone for use when they have suffered no loss? The basic purpose of IP rights is to encourage development and maximise the public benefit that we get from inventions, literature (and even trade marks through their ability to indicate the origin of products, though this itself is open to some debate). If the use of someone's IP can not be shown to cause them any damage, then how can this act as a disincentive for them to create it in the first place.

I think the only rebuttal to this is where use may be seen as diluting their brand image, something that would still need to be assessed in the circumstances to see if there is any actual 'damage', or if its just a claim from the owner.