Hotel Executive In Trouble over TripAdvisor reviews
A hotel PR person posted TripAdvisor reviews (mostly about restaurants) and got it serious trouble for it. See stories here and here.
ASX rules on Social Media
The Australian Stock Exchange has continuous disclosure rules. See Guidance Note 8, which has guidance about social media. See also BRW article.
Are Online Reviews Reliable?
A recent newspaper article discusses whether online review websites, such as TripAdvisor, are reliable.
See Bad Reputation.
See Bad Reputation.
U.S. Patent Decision - The Alice Case
CLS Services v. Alice Corporation was decided yesterday by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, en banc. See Judgment. Alice Corporation is an Australian company. Its U.S. patent was held to be invalid as it did not claim patentable subject matter.
"Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101."
There were a number of judgments. The footnote to one judgment states:
"No portion of any opinion issued today other than our Per Curiam Judgment garners a majority. The court is evenly split on the patent eligibility of the system claims. Although a majority of the judges on the court agree that the method claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter, no majority of those judges agrees as to the legal rationale for that conclusion. Accordingly, though much is published today discussing the proper approach to the patent eligibility inquiry, nothing said today beyond our judgment has the weight of precedent."
"Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101."
There were a number of judgments. The footnote to one judgment states:
"No portion of any opinion issued today other than our Per Curiam Judgment garners a majority. The court is evenly split on the patent eligibility of the system claims. Although a majority of the judges on the court agree that the method claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter, no majority of those judges agrees as to the legal rationale for that conclusion. Accordingly, though much is published today discussing the proper approach to the patent eligibility inquiry, nothing said today beyond our judgment has the weight of precedent."
Copyright in the Digital Era
A recent note on copyright:
Seven Copyright Principles for the Digital Era
By John Villasenor. Brookings Institution, February 5, 2013
YouTube redesign
YouTube has had a revamped look for channels in limited beta testing since early February, but it's now ready to spread the new-layout love to interested folks. Dubbed "One Channel," the design refresh places an emphasis on making a user's page look slick across different screen sizes and devices, adapting its style for the occasion -- yes, even on TVs. Along with a look that provides more visual breathing room, a wide image called Channel Art adorns the top of a page, giving the whole affair a stronger Google+ vibe. Now, channel owners can even snag a visitor's attention with a trailer that'll greet them if they aren't a subscriber. The refresh also introduces the ability to organize video playlists with custom sections. Raring to take Mountain View up on the fresh looks? Jab the second source link to get started. If you change your mind after taking the plunge, however, Google's letting users switch back to the old format for a limited time.
Why do you think that Google is doing this?
Australian Federal Court Limits Patentability
A recent Australian Federal Court decision limits the scope of patent protection for business methods implemented by computer. The invention in question related to securities investing and, more specifically, to construction and use of passive portfolios and indexes.
The court denied patentability, stating:
"The implementation of the method of the claimed invention by means of a computer, at the level articulated in claim 1, is no more than the modern equivalent of writing down the index on pieces of paper. On the face of the Specification, there is no patentable invention in the fact that the claimed method is implemented by means of a computer. The Specification asserts a patentable invention, not in the use of the computer, but in the particular series of steps that give rise to the generation of the index. Those steps could readily have been carried out manually. The aspect of computer implementation is nothing more than the use of a computer for a purpose for which it is suitable. That does not confer patentability.
The enquiry into what constitutes a patentable invention is still evolving. It is not to be tied to particular notions of what was understood to be a manufacture at any particular point in time. However, while new developments in technology might be seen to widen the notion of what is patentable, the modern availability of computers as a standard means of implementing arithmetic or computational processes, which could have been implemented manually in the past, does not carry with it any broadening of the concept of a patentable invention."
See Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2013] FCA 71
The court denied patentability, stating:
"The implementation of the method of the claimed invention by means of a computer, at the level articulated in claim 1, is no more than the modern equivalent of writing down the index on pieces of paper. On the face of the Specification, there is no patentable invention in the fact that the claimed method is implemented by means of a computer. The Specification asserts a patentable invention, not in the use of the computer, but in the particular series of steps that give rise to the generation of the index. Those steps could readily have been carried out manually. The aspect of computer implementation is nothing more than the use of a computer for a purpose for which it is suitable. That does not confer patentability.
The enquiry into what constitutes a patentable invention is still evolving. It is not to be tied to particular notions of what was understood to be a manufacture at any particular point in time. However, while new developments in technology might be seen to widen the notion of what is patentable, the modern availability of computers as a standard means of implementing arithmetic or computational processes, which could have been implemented manually in the past, does not carry with it any broadening of the concept of a patentable invention."
See Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2013] FCA 71
Google Australia does not control the Google search engine
Google Australia Pty Ltd does not like being sued in Australia. In a recent Australian lawsuit, Google said:
The Australian court found: "There is no reasonable prospect of Mr Rana proving that Google Australia owns the domains in question, or that it has the ability to control or direct the conduct of Google Inc." Thus, the claims against Google Australia were dismissed.
The Court also stated:
"In short, whether or not a search engine could be considered a publisher of defamatory material is not settled in Australia, and accordingly, it would not be appropriate to refuse to give leave to serve the proceedings and on that basis effectively dismiss Mr Rana’s claim against Google Inc: A v Google New Zealand Ltd"
See Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 60
- Google Australia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google International LLC and Google Inc is the ultimate holding company
- Google Australia is not authorised to, and has no ability to, control or direct the conduct of Google Inc and is not responsible for the day-to-day operations of Google Inc
- Google Inc owns and operates the domains google.com.au and google.com. The search engines at the domains mentioned are exclusively provided by, operated by, and controlled by Google Inc
- Google Australia does not have any ability to control or direct action in respect of blocking URLs from google.com.au
The Australian court found: "There is no reasonable prospect of Mr Rana proving that Google Australia owns the domains in question, or that it has the ability to control or direct the conduct of Google Inc." Thus, the claims against Google Australia were dismissed.
The Court also stated:
"In short, whether or not a search engine could be considered a publisher of defamatory material is not settled in Australia, and accordingly, it would not be appropriate to refuse to give leave to serve the proceedings and on that basis effectively dismiss Mr Rana’s claim against Google Inc: A v Google New Zealand Ltd"
See Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 60
IP Theft
"Our message is quite clear: the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets is critical to all intellectual property rights holders, whether they be from the United States or whether they be from Chinese companies or other companies around the world,'' Robert Hormats, the under secretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment, said.
Though China is regarded as the most aggressive actor, Mr Hormats said other countries are guilty as well. He cited Russia and India as two countries active in the theft of intellectual property.
See SMH
Though China is regarded as the most aggressive actor, Mr Hormats said other countries are guilty as well. He cited Russia and India as two countries active in the theft of intellectual property.
See SMH
Social Networks and Right of Publicity
From a Kenyon & Kenyon newsletter looking at legal trends for 2013:
An important “Right of Publicity” issue for 2013 is the use by social networks of their members' names and/or likenesses in advertising. Many social networks have broad Terms of Service which purport to allow them to exploit any content that a member posts on the networks' websites. Social networks take the position that these service terms permit them to use aspects of their members’ identities in advertisements appearing within the social networks. As social networks grow and compete for advertiser dollars, they will naturally want to allow advertisers to create the most effective ads possible. Studies have shown the persuasive potential of an online connection's recommendations (due to the apparent lack of bias), and therefore many advertisers are likely to request advertising that uses the identities of a social network's users.
An important “Right of Publicity” issue for 2013 is the use by social networks of their members' names and/or likenesses in advertising. Many social networks have broad Terms of Service which purport to allow them to exploit any content that a member posts on the networks' websites. Social networks take the position that these service terms permit them to use aspects of their members’ identities in advertisements appearing within the social networks. As social networks grow and compete for advertiser dollars, they will naturally want to allow advertisers to create the most effective ads possible. Studies have shown the persuasive potential of an online connection's recommendations (due to the apparent lack of bias), and therefore many advertisers are likely to request advertising that uses the identities of a social network's users.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)