Justice Charlesworth is a newly appointed Federal Court Judge in South Australia. She young and is very highly regarded in the legal industry. I'm not surprised that she gave such a well-reasoned and correct decision.
I'm assuming the 'preservation of rights' has more to do with the time within which to file an opposition.
If it had not filed an opposition in time, it would lose any right to oppose the trade mark (except in a Courtroom).
It is possible that it may not even actually press the opposition, but it was legally necessary to preserve its position in the event that discussions ultimately failed, and it made then considered the matter and decided at that point to oppose it.
Preserving time limits in this manner is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual.
The biggest problem with this law, is that it is basically giving game developers the power to create law unilaterally. It can change the law simply by changing its terms of service. That is nuts.
He says that he would have been asked to recuse himself had he not informed the lawyers for British Airways of the dispute he had with them. That may be correct.
However, that would only require him to give them notice. Not require them to resolve the dispute for him!
If they are referring to legal professional privilege, and there is a valid claim for that, then the documents cannot be used.
LPP can only be waived by the party who enjoys the benefit of that privilege (ie the client). It cannot be waived simply because it has been leaked. That is sound law.
It also seems strange to me to add the cost of broadband itself into the amount you will be paying.
Most, if not all, people who will use streaming services already have broadband. There would be very few who now specifically get the internet because streaming services are available.
The cost of internet on the infographic makes up a majority of the cost in each case.
I think it is worth noting that, in Australia, ALL ISPs have data caps.
The fact that iiNet was willing to do a deal to allow unmetered data with Netflix actually shows a diversion from what we are used to down here (that being, ridiculously slow internet speeds, and data caps).
A significant factor in the decrease may just be that once a person receives a notice, they take steps (proxy etc.) to ensure that they are not detected.
It could be that a large proportion of the people who receive a first notice are still infringing; they are just now hiding it better to avoid receiving a second notice.
I am in no way in favour of a ?3 strikes? rule, nor do I have any reservations that the Australian Liberal government is setting our country back decades in their short time in office. However, this article:
from the Australian Financial Review seems to suggest that the result of the warnings will not be a ban from internet, and that there is a lot to do before anything is implemented (such as getting through a tough Parliament). Anyone have any thoughts or comments?
Tell that to the obese majority in the US and Australia who are a massive burden on our health systems. I don't see those on a cutting diet end up in hospital with heart disease.
There is clearly a connection between the name and the product purpose, as opposed to a brand name or a model (such as your example of Magic and car names).
Not saying this is the be all and end all, but is a relevant consideration (misleading and deceptive conduct?)
My point is, prima facie, it appears that Apple sold a product on the basis that it would last...and it didn't.
1. They will last for a long time (hence the name, Time Capsule); and
2. That they are a secure backup for when you encounter problems on your Mac.
You cannot then deny any responsibility with an argument that "all technology fails". That may be true, but when you sell an item based on a promise, you cannot resort to that defence.
This is in contrast to, say, an iPhone, which may fail at some point, but is not sold on the premise that it will have longevity.
Although I completely agree with the idea behind this (infringement is not theft), this is not a very transferable comparison.
Money obtains its value by the way in which it is accepted by society i.e. it can be exchanged for goods and services, and has value. There is no value in a copy (especially a digital copy), as it cannot enjoy the same use as the original.
There is, however, some value in a digital copy of a song or movie. I'm not specifically talking about dollar value, but in the use of the original vs the use of the copy. People are able to enjoy the same content and use as the original.
Not a very good comparison in my opinion, and I think this weakens the argument against the ridiculous claims which are made by the MPAA & RIAA.
Charlesworth
Rare to see a matter so close to home.
Justice Charlesworth is a newly appointed Federal Court Judge in South Australia. She young and is very highly regarded in the legal industry. I'm not surprised that she gave such a well-reasoned and correct decision.
Not unusual
I'm assuming the 'preservation of rights' has more to do with the time within which to file an opposition.
If it had not filed an opposition in time, it would lose any right to oppose the trade mark (except in a Courtroom).
It is possible that it may not even actually press the opposition, but it was legally necessary to preserve its position in the event that discussions ultimately failed, and it made then considered the matter and decided at that point to oppose it.
Preserving time limits in this manner is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual.
Too much power
The biggest problem with this law, is that it is basically giving game developers the power to create law unilaterally. It can change the law simply by changing its terms of service. That is nuts.
If they change the password
Wouldn't the employer and, or, the FBI have the new password details?
Or is the issue that it needs to be manually entered into the phone once the password has been changed?
Re:
That's like saying a judge in a case against Google can't use Google.
Doesn't work like that.
If the judge had shares in BA, then that is a different story.
Confusion
The judge appears to confuse two issues.
He says that he would have been asked to recuse himself had he not informed the lawyers for British Airways of the dispute he had with them. That may be correct.
However, that would only require him to give them notice. Not require them to resolve the dispute for him!
Wait
Wait, if they are "100% infringers", then how do they spend any money at all? Shouldn't it be $0?
Privilege
If they are referring to legal professional privilege, and there is a valid claim for that, then the documents cannot be used.
LPP can only be waived by the party who enjoys the benefit of that privilege (ie the client). It cannot be waived simply because it has been leaked. That is sound law.
Why add internet cost?
It also seems strange to me to add the cost of broadband itself into the amount you will be paying.
Most, if not all, people who will use streaming services already have broadband. There would be very few who now specifically get the internet because streaming services are available.
The cost of internet on the infographic makes up a majority of the cost in each case.
Not so bad
I think it is worth noting that, in Australia, ALL ISPs have data caps.
The fact that iiNet was willing to do a deal to allow unmetered data with Netflix actually shows a diversion from what we are used to down here (that being, ridiculously slow internet speeds, and data caps).
Oh
I just realised that, all this time, they were called Intellectual Ventures.
For some reason, I always read it as Intellectual Vultures.
Reason for the decrease?
A significant factor in the decrease may just be that once a person receives a notice, they take steps (proxy etc.) to ensure that they are not detected.
It could be that a large proportion of the people who receive a first notice are still infringing; they are just now hiding it better to avoid receiving a second notice.
Not all as it seems?
I am in no way in favour of a ?3 strikes? rule, nor do I have any reservations that the Australian Liberal government is setting our country back decades in their short time in office. However, this article:
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/brandis_mulls_three_strikes_rule_fHbNn5PdCtf5OYW8FeodPO
from the Australian Financial Review seems to suggest that the result of the warnings will not be a ban from internet, and that there is a lot to do before anything is implemented (such as getting through a tough Parliament). Anyone have any thoughts or comments?
Let's see, a high carb low protein diet is better for health
Tell that to the obese majority in the US and Australia who are a massive burden on our health systems. I don't see those on a cutting diet end up in hospital with heart disease.
Fat people justifying their fat ways.
Re: Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
Little bit different.
There is clearly a connection between the name and the product purpose, as opposed to a brand name or a model (such as your example of Magic and car names).
Not saying this is the be all and end all, but is a relevant consideration (misleading and deceptive conduct?)
My point is, prima facie, it appears that Apple sold a product on the basis that it would last...and it didn't.
One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike.
The selling point of these devices is that:
1. They will last for a long time (hence the name, Time Capsule); and
2. That they are a secure backup for when you encounter problems on your Mac.
You cannot then deny any responsibility with an argument that "all technology fails". That may be true, but when you sell an item based on a promise, you cannot resort to that defence.
This is in contrast to, say, an iPhone, which may fail at some point, but is not sold on the premise that it will have longevity.
Although I completely agree with the idea behind this (infringement is not theft), this is not a very transferable comparison.
Money obtains its value by the way in which it is accepted by society i.e. it can be exchanged for goods and services, and has value. There is no value in a copy (especially a digital copy), as it cannot enjoy the same use as the original.
There is, however, some value in a digital copy of a song or movie. I'm not specifically talking about dollar value, but in the use of the original vs the use of the copy. People are able to enjoy the same content and use as the original.
Not a very good comparison in my opinion, and I think this weakens the argument against the ridiculous claims which are made by the MPAA & RIAA.
Misquote
And it was an intentional deletion (note the ellipsis).
Not hatin', just curious.
Misquote
Mike, just curious as to why you would take the effort to remove one word from the quote? And one which completely changes the context.
"Buy it if you like..." and "Buy it if you like it" have very different meanings.
You just had to sneak a mention of Steve Jobs in here somewhere, didn't you Mike? Always going for the page hits. Tsk tsk.