Google Liable for Misleading Advertisements

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia today decided that Google was liable for misleading advertisements placed by advertisers.  See Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Google Inc. [2012] FCAFC 49.

The 3-0 judgment against Google included the following text:

"An ordinary and reasonable user would conclude from these circumstances that it was Google who was displaying the sponsored link in collocation with the sponsor's URL in response to the user's search.  Even if all these circumstances would not be apparent to ordinary and reasonable users, so that Google could not be "seen" by them to be more than a mere conduit, these circumstances show that Google is, in fact, much more than a mere conduit.  ...  Critical to this conclusion is the fact that the sponsored link is displayed on the screen in response to a user's query which is made by the entry of selected key words.  Thus, the user asks a question of Google and obtains Google's response.  Several features of the overall process indicate that Google engages in misleading conduct. ...

Google supplies its advertising customers with the ability to select keywords which are expected to be used by persons making enquiries through Google's search engine.  The ability of advertisers to select "broad match" keywords enables them to trigger sponsored links through Google's search engine based on known associations which are determined by Google's proprietary algorithm.  Although the keywords are selected by the advertiser, perhaps with input from Google, what is critical to the process is the triggering of the link by Google using its algorithms.  That is a further reason to conclude that it is Google's conduct as a principal, not merely as a conduit, which is involved in each of the four instances that form the subject matter of this appeal."

Copyright & Theft

"THE Justice Department is building its case against Megaupload, the hugely popular file-sharing site that was indicted earlier this year on multiple counts of copyright infringement and related crimes. The company’s servers have been shut down, its assets seized and top employees arrested. And, as is usual in such cases, prosecutors and their allies in the music and movie industries have sought to invoke the language of “theft” and “stealing” to frame the prosecutions and, presumably, obtain the moral high ground. ...


The problem is that most people simply don’t buy the claim that illegally downloading a song or video from the Internet really is like stealing a car. According to a range of empirical studies, including one conducted by me and my social psychologist collaborator, Matthew Kugler, lay observers draw a sharp moral distinction between file sharing and genuine theft, even when the value of the property is the same."


See NY Times opinion article from U.S. law school professor.

Copyright Exceptions To Be Reviewed

Draft terms of reference for an Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) inquiry into the operation of copyright exceptions in the digital environment were released today for public comment.

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said the ALRC will consider whether the exceptions in the Federal Copyright Act are adequate and appropriate in the digital environment.  The draft terms of reference reflect the fact that technology is constantly evolving and testing the boundaries of copyright law Ms Roxon said.

"In our fast changing, technologically driven world, it important to ensure our copyright laws are keeping pace with change and able to respond to future challenges.  We want to ensure this review has enough scope to look at the key areas of copyright so were calling on stakeholders to provide us with their feedback before the ALRC begins its work."

The draft terms of reference ask the ALRC to examine the adequacy and appropriateness of a broad range of exceptions in the Copyright Act, including time shifting.

The draft terms of reference also direct the ALRC to consider whether exceptions should allow the legitimate non-commercial use of copyright works for uses on the internet such as social networking.

The Government has appointed Professor Jill McKeough, University of Technology Sydney Dean of Law, to the ALRC as a Commissioner to lead the copyright inquiry.

Class 6 - Content Regulation

Reading for next Monday's class on Content Regulation.

This class will focus on laws and current issues relating to the regulation of content on the Internet.

Should freedom of speech on the Internet prevail over protection of the public interest? Does the public need to be protected? What is the difference between censorship and regulation?

What are the relevant public interests? Who decides?

Should there by government regulation, or reliance on technology (such as NetNanny), or parental responsibility (e.g., see Google's Family Safety Centre)?

Reading:

• Class Text:  Chapter 3, Internet and E-commerce Law by Fitzgerald et al
• Content Regulation in the Internet Age
• New classification review
• Online content regulation
• Australian ISPs forced to clean Internet and "mandatory web filter under fire"; and scheme ends
• Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom
• Anti-piracy v. internet freedom
• China and "China Web Censorship Stirs Scorn", see also Wiki

• Canadian hate speech decision
• Racial Discrimination Act section 18C
• Westboro Baptist Church: article and protest and decision
• Is Cyberspace Burning?
• Lawsuit against Hate Blogger.

Extra Reading if you are interested:

• Regulation of Hate Speech, by Kagan (now on the U.S. Supreme Court)

Privacy Issues re Apps

Congressmen Send Inquiries to 34 App Developers Over Privacy Practices:

See MacRumours

Privacy

Please review the following privacy materials for the next lecture.

Australia
General information - OAIC, Australian Privacy Foundation, Electronic Frontiers
How prevalent (and relevant) are privacy concerns in Australia? How would you pursue a privacy complaint?

Legislation - look at the Privacy Act and the National Privacy Principles. Are further reforms on the way?

Case reports - review (and be ready to discuss) some privacy decisions, whether made by the Federal Privacy Commissioner or the Australian Information Commissioner.
You should also be aware of relevant case law in this area - is there a right to privacy at common law? Will there be in the future?

International
Art 17 of ICCPR.

Contractual rights
Look at the privacy policy of at least 2 websites you frequently use. Do you agree to all the terms and conditions?
For example - Google, News

Cookies
Are cookies a privacy concern, or a part of everyday life?

Recent news
Google and more Google
Then Google maps - what have been the different responses around the world?
Facebook and also here

International Online Shopping

U.S. stores are shipping to customers in Australia.

"International visitors are coming to American sites because of lower prices and the availability of products they cannot get in their own countries, according to Forrester. Macy’s has found that Australian shoppers are particularly interested in its trendy clothes, while Canadians want basics like coats, shoes and underwear."  See NYT

What legal issues could arise for the U.S. sellers and the Australian buyers?

Wrong Takedown Demand

What happens if a person issues a copyright take down demand to a file sharing website such as Vimeo or YouTube, and it is wrong.  Potential liability for unjustified threats.
See Bell v. Steele
See also:  SMH Article and Note.

Privacy Lawsuit Against Twitter, Apple, Facebook

Privacy suit filed against Path, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, others
http://cnet.co/FOc5zl or PCMag

Telephone Numbers, Domain Names and Trade Marks

Have a look at this recent decision concerning a trade mark application for a telephone number:
1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks [2012] FCA 209
This case involves a dispute between 1300Flowers and 1800Flowers.
It reminds me of the domain name decisions concerning "Phonewords".  See for example:
the 1300fitness.com.au decision.

For Creators of Games, a Faint Line on Cloning

"Cloning the soul of a game — its gameplay mechanics, design, characters and storyline — is now commonplace in digital marketplaces like Apple’s iOS App Store and Google’s Android. And while the app stores have offered an unparalleled opportunity for independent software makers to reach customers and make money with an innovative game, they are learning it is just as easy for another game studio to compete with a very similar game."
See Full Article

YAHOO Sues Facebook For Infringing 10 patents

Reuters reports Yahoo has sued Facebook for infringing 10 patents.

Article at:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/12/us-yahoo-facebook-lawsuit-idUSBRE82B18M20120312

A copy of the lawsuit, with a list of the ten patents, is available at:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/85094882/Yahoo-s-Patent-Lawsuit-Against-Facebook

Class 4 - Spam, crime and phishing

Next week we will be looking at spam, crime and phishing.

Please look at the relevant chapters of the textbook (chapter 11 and part of chapter 3) as well as the following materials.


Spam

Australian law - Spam Act 2003 (Cth)
US law - CAN-SPAM Act
EU directive - Directive on privacy and electronic communications (Article 13)
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
Internet industry Spam Code of Practice

How effective are these laws?

Crime
Australian law - Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
Scale of cybercrime - Symantec report
Australian Federal Police
Lulzsec
Cost - here and here

Is cybercrime underreported? Australian Institute of Criminology

Phishing
Australian government - Scamwatch
Anti Phishing Working Group
Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance

What is the best way to respond to phishing - raising awareness, enacting legislation or cutting off scam emails before they arrive?

False Names When Using the Internet

Attorney: Social networks must require real names
http://cnet.co/zvJ6Pf

Google Play

Email from Google:


Today we introduced Google Play, a new digital content destination available on mobile devices and on the web. With Google Play, users can buy and experience books, music, movies and Android apps, available across their devices. Google Play gives our partners and the ecosystem an integrated entertainment hub for Android and Google users. As part of this launch, Google eBooks and Android Market will become part of Google Play, and users will now get their ebooks from Google Play.

In addition, customers who go to the web ebookstore will be redirected to the Google Play store. While this doesn't change the way consumers read Google eBooks, it does provide a more compelling mobile purchase experience.

We are excited about the opportunities ahead to "play" together.

Google Play team

Helpful Resources:
Google Play overview - http://play.google.com/about
Google Play brand assets - http://www.android.com/branding.html
FAQs - http://support.google.com/books/partner/bin/answer.py?answer=2494942

Week 3 - Internet Jurisdiction

The next class is Internet jurisdiction. 
Presentation from class is here.
Please read the following:
The relevant chapter in the assigned class text.

Wikipedia introduction and personal jurisdiction

Sliding Scale Test:

Zippo case

Effects Test:

Calder v. Jones (US Supreme Court)

Application of Effects Test:

Ubid v. GoDaddy

Weather Underground case (and complete court file for this case if interested)

Penguin Group v. American Buddha

Trademark and Calder Test

Australian approach:

Dow Jones v. Gutnick (High Court of Australia)

[Defamation - including Internet cases - background information if interested]

Comment: Determining Internet Jurisdiction

What happens if the Defendant does not show up?

Bell v Steele (No 2) [2012] FCA 62 (7 February 2012) - a case that involves a film made in NY and Australia by Richard Bell from Brisbane, that was uploaded to Vimeo from Australia, and where a person in NY had the film removed from Vimeo.

Could two courts come to an inconsistent result in the same case?
See The Secret litigation:

Background: The Australian

Australian Trial Judge Decision

Full Court of Federal Court Decision

Note regarding US decision on jurisdiction

Yahoo Facebook Patent War

 Yahoo has demanded licensing fees from Facebook for use of its technology, the companies said on Monday, potentially engulfing social media in the patent battles and lawsuits raging across much of the tech sector.

Yahoo has asserted claims on patents that include the technical mechanisms in the Facebook's ads, privacy controls, news feed and messaging service, according to a source briefed on the matter.

Representatives from the two companies met on Monday and the talks involved 10 to 20 of Yahoo's patents, said the source, who was not aware of what specific dollar demands Yahoo may have made for licenses.

See Yahoo and Managing IP

Week 2: The Law of Google

This class will look at Google's business models, and the legal issued raised.

Have a high level look at the following parts of the Google empire:

• Ten Things We Know To Be True
• Google Products
• Google Books
• AdWords and AdWords Help
• AdSense
• New Privacy Policy (and review material linked from this page)

Reading:

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Trading Post Australia [2011] FCA 1086 (22 September 2011), currently on appeal
• Financial Times:  Google Privacy Policy Gets Public Airing (2 March 2012)
• Click Fraud
• Advanced Click Fraud

Additional Reading if you have time:

• Official Google Blog
• Google's Inside Search
• 40 Changes for February 2012
• Google Watch Blog
• Prior Blog Posts Concerning Google
• Google's Guide to having your website indexed properly in Google search results

Hosted Domains

• Example
• Google Closing Down Hosted Domains
• Note

IP Addresses

[Student Post]

For those that didn’t know, the world is running out of IP Addresses:

http://technology.inquirer.net/infotech/infotech/view/20110121-315808/World-running-out-of-Internet-addresses

It has been known for some time that the current structure of IP addresses is not sufficient for the number of computers/devices accessing the internet in future. The current structure of IP addresses, known as IPv4, is structured as xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (e.g. 192.168.0.1) which limits this number of unique addresses to 4,294,967,296.

With the limit of Ipv4 addresses expected to be exhausted soon and the number of internet connected devices estimated to reach 22 billion by 2020 (IMS Research) it is clear a new IP standard is required.

Thankfully a group known as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has been developing IPv6 since the early 90’s which provides for 340 undecillon (that’s 340 with 36 zeros) unique addresses. (e.g. 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334).  However, proliferation of IPv6 has been slow with Google estimating in 2008 that IPv6 uptake among users was less than 1%. The need for replacement and/or updating of some hardware and software is partly to blame for this slow rate of uptake.

So it seems a significant burden has been placed on the IETF to ensure the smooth running of the internet through the adoption of IPv6. That’s a lot of technical control for how the internet of the future is run. Interestingly the IETF is a volunteer organisation with no formal membership. Their work is funded by employers of its volunteers and sponsors including the US National Security Agency (NSA).

                Questions this raises for me:

-          If IPv6 is developed through volunteers Is the internet controlled and owned by everyone?

-          Although ICANN is no longer US Government controlled it seems the IETF may be to some extent. If all roads lead to the US is the US government in control of the internet?

Another way of thinking about this issue might be “Who has the deepest level of technical control over how the internet is run?” Maybe that’s the IETF.

Kim Dotcom Interview

The first interview with Mr Dotcom after his arrest is here:

Campbell Live

Google Search Results Misleading

"In the Statement of Claim, the applicant alleges that, in the period from at least early April 2011 to 21 June 2011, the first respondent established a process by which searches for the applicant’s website by reference to the words “Pacific Boating” on the internet using the Google search engine were diverted to websites controlled by or associated with the first respondent."

See Pacific Boating Group Pty Ltd v Freedom Boating Club Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 72 (8 February 2012)

Domain Name - Use as a Trademark?

"Since 1995, Sports Warehouse had used the name “Tennis Warehouse” in Australia and did not change its domain name for its online store. Sports Warehouse, for the first time in closing submissions, (while conceding that reputation in the context of s 60 was that of the mark rather than reputation on some other basis), contended that as a significant number of Australian residents visited the Tennis Warehouse website at the domain names “www.tennis-warehouse.com” or “www.tenniswarehouse.com”, by inference they came to know Sports Warehouse by that word, which did not include a TW device. While acknowledging that, once at the website, the customer would encounter the TW device with the TENNIS WAREHOUSE trade mark, counsel for Sports Warehouse submitted that the court could infer, in such circumstances, a “capacity for confusion” at which s 60 was essentially directed.

While it has been held that a domain name can in some circumstances constitute use of a trade mark (see Sports Warehouse v Fry at [146]-[156]), there was no evidence before the court to establish that, as at December 2006, the TENNIS WAREHOUSE mark had acquired a reputation through use of the domain names amongst any consumers or any significant section of the public."

See Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2) [2012] FCA 81 (13 February 2012)

Is Streaming on the Internet a Broadcast?

A recent Australian Federal Court case determined whether whether the scope of the non-exclusive licence of the right to broadcast certain sound recordings granted by a copyright collection agency to radio stations included the right to play those recordings in radio programs transmitted by FM broadcast as a simulcast with transmission of the same program via the Internet.

"The service which transmits the very same radio programs at essentially the same time both to the FM transmitters and beyond and to the web stream servers and beyond is the one service. On the facts before me, the members of CRA who stream their radio programs on the Internet do so only as part of a program package which also simultaneously transmits those programs via frequency modulated radio waves to the consumer’s FM receiver. In truth, the service is but one service being a service which combines various delivery methods or platforms and which delivers the same radio program using the broadcasting services band. It falls within the exception to the exclusion set out in the Ministerial Determination.

Therefore, in my view, the service provided by the members of CRA is a broadcasting service.

That being so, the simulcast transmission of the same radio program via the FM waves and the Internet is also a “broadcast” within the current definition of that term in s 10(1) of the Copyright Act and, for that reason, is within the scope of the licence which PPCA agreed to grant to the members of CRA and which it did grant from time to time to members of CRA upon the terms and conditions set out in the Member Agreement."

See Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Ltd v Commercial Radio Australia Limited [2012] FCA 93 (15 February 2012)

Class Timetable

The first class is this Thursday, 1 March, in room Z308.  Then, we are changing to Monday nights, so the next class will be Monday 5 March.

Please see the Blackboard announcement, and note:

1) If you are unable to complete the unit on a Monday night, you can with choose an alternative Semester 1 unit up until Friday 9 March.

2) You can withdraw from Semester 1 units until March 23.

First Class

The first class for LWN117 for semester 1, 2012, is Thursday, 1 March 2012, at 6pm.    It appears that the first class is in Z308.  (The class was originally scheduled for Mondays.  The first class is on Thursday.  Later classes may be moved back to Mondays.)

Google Goggles

Later this year, Google is expected to start selling eyeglasses that will project information, entertainment and, this being a Google product, advertisements onto the lenses. The glasses are not being designed to be worn constantly — although Google engineers expect some users will wear them a lot — but will be more like smartphones, used when needed, with the lenses serving as a kind of see-through computer monitor. ...


Several people who have seen the glasses, but who are not allowed to speak publicly about them, said that the location information was a major feature of the glasses. Through the built-in camera on the glasses, Google will be able to stream images to its rack computers and return augmented reality information to the person wearing them. For instance, a person looking at a landmark could see detailed historical information and comments about it left by friends. ...


“In addition to privacy, it’s also going to change real-world advertising, where companies can virtually place ads over other people’s ads,” he said. “I’m really interested in seeing how the government can successfully regulate augmented reality in this sense. They are not really going to know what people are seeing behind those glasses.”


See NY Times

Interview with Kim Dotcom Lawyer

Here is an interview from NZ TV with Mr Kim Dotcom's U.S. lawyer.  Can the operator of a file storage system be criminally liable for copyright infringement of its users?  Or is there more to this case than this?

JotForm Shut Down by US Secret Service

The strange case of the US Secret Service having a website taken down, by having the domain name registrar (GoDaddy) block the use of the domain name.
See here and Wired and eWeek.
Maybe a good reason to use a non-U.S. domain name registrar?

China Blogging

A spokesperson for the Beijing Internet Propaganda Management Office announced in a recent press conference that Beijing aims to complete mandatory real name registration for microblog platforms by March 16.  The Office has also established a microblog development expert advisory group composed of experts from Tsinghua University, China University of Political Science and Law, the People's Daily Online's Public Opinion Testing Center, China Labs, and the Data Center of the China Internet (DCCI).

Chinese internet company Sina launched a real name verification function to its user registration form as of January 1, 2012. The new function compares user-submitted data, such as name and national ID card number, and if a user's information does not match comparison records the user can only browse existing posts. In order to be able to post content, users must resubmit correct information. To date, 3 mlllion new users have submitted real name information, and single day registration volume continues to grow. For existing users, Sina will offer additional functionality and privileges to users that submit real name credentials, implement a user trust ratings system, and this week will launch a verified real name ID badge. Sohu previously launched a promotional campaign, offering 20 mln Sohu Video monthly subscription cards and RMB 1 mln worth of mobile phone recharge cards to users who submit real name data early. Online real estate site Soufun offered prizes, including free vacation housing in 13 popular tourist destination cities. Users who do not register by March 16 will lose their posting and reposting privileges.

Regarding user data security, a Sina spokesperson said that users will be notified by mobile phone or other channels if someone logs into their account from a different location. If any anomalies occur, users can lock their account from their mobile phone even if someone else is logged in. A spokesperson for Sohu said that Sohu does not store any user data after authenticating the user's identity.

Source:  Marbridge

Twitter Being Sued For Defamation

Twitter is being sued for defamation by a Melbourne man, Joshua Meggitt, who was wrongly identified as the author of a “hate blog”.
See story here and SMH.

Misleading Online Reviews

A blog entry from the NY Times: Discounting Bad Reviews

"Are reviews of products and services on the Internet believable? Probably not. In the latest case, a merchant offered a rebate in exchange for getting a customer to revise a rating, but it says that is not the way it usually does things."

Advertising Financial Products on the Internet

ASIC has today released RG 234, Advertising financial products and advice services: Good practice guidance, to assist promoters in complying with their legal obligations when advertising financial products and services. See the media release - 14 February 2012, for further information and related material.

It applies to advertising on the Internet, via Twitter and the like.  See section RG 234.115
and following.
What is interesting is that the Guidelines also apply to publishers (such as newspapers), Internet sites, and aggregators and comparison websites.  See Section E and RG234.164 and following.

"While the primary responsibility for advertising material rests with the organisation placing the advertisement, the publisher may also have some responsibility for the content of an advertisement."

Online Privacy

A good comment:  "The piracy of online privacy".

"Online privacy doesn’t exist. It was lost years ago. And not only was it taken, we’ve all already gotten used to it. Loss of privacy is a fundamental tradeoff at the very core of social networking. Our privacy has been taken in service of the social tools we so crave and suddenly cannot live without. If not for the piracy of privacy, Facebook wouldn’t exist. Nor would Twitter. Nor even would Gmail, Foursquare, Groupon, Zynga, etc.  And yet people keep fretting about losing what’s already gone...."

Law firm sues over bad online review about it

A Dallas law firm has filed a lawsuit seeking to learn the identity of a commenter calling himself “Ben” who posted a bad online review.

The Lenahan Law Firm claims defamation and seeks $50,000 in damages, Texas Lawyer reports. Partner Wes Black says the suit will allow the law firm to subpoena Google to learn the commenter’s identity.

Ben wrote in his comments on Google Review: "Bad experience with this firm. Don't trust the fake reviews here.” Ben also gave a bad review to an Oregon cleaning company and may have intended to post the negative review about a different law firm closer to home, the suit(PDF) says.

Black tells Texas Lawyer the Lenahan Law Firm gets most of its clients from searches, and the bad review won’t help. "The issue isn't trying to recover tons of money,” Black tells Texas Lawyer. “We just want the review down.”

See: ABA

New Google Privacy Policy

"We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.

We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012."

See story in Washington Post and CNN

Mr Kim Dotcom Arrested - No Need for SOPA?

With the recent arrest of Mr Kim Dotcom in NZ for online piracy, one wonders why new legislation such as the SOPA in the U.S. is needed.
See SMH and NZ Herald.

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which defends free speech and digital rights online, said in a statement that the arrests set "a terrifying precedent. If the United States can seize a Dutch citizen in New Zealand over a copyright claim, what is next?""

Is it true that the president of Activation visiting Mr Dotcom this month, before his arrest?  Why has it not been reported that members of the Black Eyed Peas were in Mr Dotcom's home when he was arrested, and have attended some of the NZ court proceedings?

New gTLDs

An article on the new top level domain names.

See B&T Magazine.

Faceless Net Giants

A story in the Sydney Morning Herald:  "Faceless Net Giants Writing Own Rule Books."  If you upset Google (or Google Ireland -- the company that Google hides behind), they can just make you disappear.

"Australians use them more than any other websites and to many they have become essential services, oiling the wheels of life and commerce at the click of a mouse. 

But when Google or Facebook no longer wants you, it can be all but impossible to find out why, as internet entrepreneur Mark Bowyer and others have found to their cost.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Earlier this year Google banned ads from his travel website, Rusty Compass, because it said the site "poses a risk of generating invalid activity".

Apple Apps

On Christmas morning, millions of people will unwrap new iPads, iPhones and iPod Touches — and immediately start downloading games and other applications for them. It is the biggest day of the year for app sales, which can mean big money for developers.


Flurry, a mobile analytics firm, estimated that in the period from Dec. 23 to Dec. 26 last year, 240 million applications were downloaded to Apple mobile devices, or about 20 percent of the total downloads for the month.


Source:  NYTimes

Brand xxx marks dot danger

The arrival of a generic top-level domain specifically for the porn industry has worrying implications and likely costs for many well known labels.

There is more trouble for brand owners brewing in cyberspace, with ­fundamental changes to the domain name system being implemented. In March 2011, following successful lobbying from the adult entertainment industry, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) agreed to allow the ­creation of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) specifically for the adult entertainment industry. A gTLD is represented by the letters that come after the dot in a domain name, such as .com or .net.

The new adult entertainment top-level domain is .xxx and will come online next year.

This has implications for every business because brand names could be used in domain names for adult websites. For example, someone could register the new domain name sportsgirl.xxx or boostjuice.xxx for a porn website.

Full Story in AFR

Metatag Use is Not Use as a Trade Mark

"I do not accept that the use of any of CTI’s Registered Trade Marks in Green Energy’s metatags would constitute a trade mark infringement for the purposes of s 120(1). Metatags are invisible to the ordinary internet user, although their use will direct the user to (amongst other websites) Green Energy’s website. Once at the Green Energy website, then, in the ordinary course, the internet user will be made aware that the website is concerned with Green Energy’s services. It cannot, therefore, be said that the use in a metatag of CTI’s Registered Trade Marks is a use that indicates the origin of Green Energy’s services. Thus, metatag use is not use as a trade mark"

Complete Technology Integrations Pty Ltd v Green Energy Management Solutions Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1319 (18 November 2011)

Samsung Overturns Apple Injunction in Australia

Samsung was successfully in having an interlocutory injunction overturned today in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.  See decision:  Samsung Electronics v. Apple Inc. [2011] FCAFC 156 (30 November 2011).

The case concerned two Australian patents owned by Apple.  Apple asserted that the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 Tablet infringed claims of those two patents.  An injunction was granted by the trial judge to prevent Samsung launching the Galaxy 10.1 in Australia until trial.  Today, Samsung was successful in having that injunction removed.

As soon as the appeal court decision was announced today, Apple asked for the decision to be suspended so that it could appeal to the High Court of Australia.  Apple asked this without even reading the Court's decision.  The judge today suspended the decision until 4pm Friday, in effect keeping the injunction in place until Friday.  Apple now has until 4pm Friday to convince the High Court of Australia to keep the injunction in place -- a hard task.

Law Schools That Teach Little About Legal Practice

From the NY Times:

Law Schools That Teach Little About Legal Practice
By DAVID SEGAL
Law schools have long emphasized the theoretical over the useful, leaving law firms fairly resigned to training their hires how to actually practice law.

Speedo Shuts Down Blogger and Gets Domain Name

A NSW man has been ordered to shut down several pornographic websites featuring Speedo swimwear and using the company's trademark. Speedo Holdings took Central Coast blogger Dave Evans to court claiming he had used the trademark under aliases and without the company's consent. The company claimed the websites and the use of the company's trademark as part of his domain names could damage the "valuable reputation and goodwill associated with the name and trade mark Speedo". In the Federal Court of Australia on Thursday, Justice Geoffrey Flick ordered Evans to stop operating and registering any domain name containing the name Speedo. He was also restrained from operating websites featuring any sign of the Speedo trademark. Evans, who didn't appear in court, was ordered to transfer the domain names to Speedo within 21 days.

See SMH article


Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227 (3 November 2011)

Amazon Running Sweatshop

Amazon's online store has great prices and service, and is efficient for consumers. But someone has to pick and pack the goods ordered online. Amazon has a number of distribution centres to do this. And according to U.S. newspaper reports, Amazon is running these distribution centres as sweatshops. This is the downside of cheap prices and Internet stores.

See for example: Inside Amazon's Warehouse.

Just Google "Amazon Sweatshop Pennsylvania" and you will find numerous articles about this situation.

Free books from Amazon

"Free books, including New York Times bestsellers, for the Kindle. If you’re an Amazon Prime member.

Free shipping, free movies, free books, for $80 a year. What, exactly, is Amazon up to?

There has to be some master plan, because Amazon is spending itself silly to pull this off. Because the offer is limited to owners of Kindles — it doesn’t work if you use the Kindle service on an iPad, for instance — it is intended to sell more Kindles."

Pogue's Blog

Google Changes Search Algorithm to Make Results More Timely

"Acknowledging that some searches were giving people stale results, Google revised its methods on Thursday to make the answers timelier. It is one of the biggest tweaks to Google’s search algorithm, affecting about 35 percent of all searches.

The new algorithm is a recognition that Google, whose dominance depends on providing the most useful results, is being increasingly challenged by services like Twitter and Facebook, which have trained people to expect constant updates with seconds-old news.

It is also a reflection of how people use the Web as a real-time news feed — that if, for example, you search for a baseball score, you probably want to find the score of a game being played at the moment, not last week, which is what Google often gave you."

Full story in NY Times.