Cyberlaw

United States of America v Dotcom

United States of America v Dotcom [2012] NZHC 2076 (16 August 2012) http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2012/2076.html

New Cyber Data Laws

See Cyber Data Law story.

"NEW laws will allow authorities to collect and monitor Australians' internet records, including their web-browsing history, social media activity and emails. But the laws, which will specifically target suspected cyber criminals, do not go as far as separate proposed laws designed to retain every Australian internet user's internet history for two years in the name of national security. Under the laws passed yesterday, Australian state and federal police will have the power to compel telcos and internet service providers to retain the internet records of people suspected of cyber-based crimes, including fraud and child pornography. Only those records made after the request will be retained, but law enforcement agencies will be prevented from seeing the information until they have secured a warrant."

Publicity Monster

An interesting story about a company that promised to improve your Google rankings.
See Publicity Monster Investigated.

Lessons From Apple Case

Lessons from Apple and Samsung's patent war. See BRW.

Apple beats Samsung in Court - First Reactions

Apple won one of the largest patent damages awards against Samsung. First reactions. News Report. Will this impact the Australian court cases?

Copyright and the Digital Economy Issues Paper

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) released the Issues Paper for its current inquiry into Copyright and the Digital Economy.

Headed by Professor Jill McKeough (Dean of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney), the review is focusing on the suitability of current exceptions and statutory licences in the evolving digital marketplace.

See Note here.

Paypal Over Zealous and Uncaring?

From The New York Times:

Some PayPal Users Criticize Antifraud Measures

Some of the payment service’s users say the company needlessly freezes their accounts when large transactions are involved.

http://nyti.ms/QuD0EC

Smirnoff Responsible for Comments of Users on Facebook

“The Board considered that the Facebook site of an advertiser is a marketing communication tool over which the advertiser has a reasonable degree of control and could be considered to draw the attention of a segment of the public to a product in a manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly that product. The Board determined that the provisions of the Code apply to an advertiser’s Facebook page. As a Facebook page can be used to engage with customers, the Board further considered that the Code applies to the content generated by the advertisers as well as material or comments posted by users or friends.”

See Diageo Australia

Computer Patent - Patentable Subject Matter

A system claim which includes as a limitation a computer to perform steps in a method is ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §101 as a claim to an abstract idea because the computer functions solely as an obvious mechanism to solve a problem quickly, the Federal Circuit held July 26, 2012. Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.), Fed. Cir., No. 2011-1467, 7/26/12.

The asserted patents are directed to systems and methods for administering and tracking the value of life insurance policies in separate accounts. The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court summary judgment that the patents are ineligible for patent protection because the claimed computer components are no more than objects that facilitate the operation of claimed methods directed to an abstract idea. It held that a machine, system, medium, or the like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for purposes of patent ineligibility.

To read the Court's opinion in this case, click here.

Online Auctions - Terms Unfair

See Malam v Graysonline, Rumbles Removals and Storage (General) [2012] NSWCTTT 197

The CCAAC then went on to recommend that “online transactions (including online auctions such as eBay) should be covered by the national statutory consumer guarantees in the same way as in-store transactions” (Recommendation 10.1, page 111).
In the light of this recommendation, and the clear intention of the Australian Consumer Law to provide wide ranging protection for consumers, I consider that the purpose of provision will best be met by limiting auctions to physical auctions where the consumer does have the opportunity to inspect the goods before purchasing, analogous to in-store transactions.
In the circumstances, I am not satisfied this arrangement was a sale by auction and therefore s. 54 and 55 of the Australian Consumer Law apply.

Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards

Apple CEO Tim Cook has said that he wants other companies to "invent their own stuff", and that Apple shouldn't be "inventor for the world".

Google General Counsel Kent Walker disagrees, and this month wrote a letter to the US Senate Judiciary Committee arguing that commercial inventions that impact "consumer welfare" should be just as important as technical patents.
See Here

e-book pricing

On Friday, the Department of Justice responded to the over 800 comments filed in its settlement with a group of publishers over e-book pricing. The Department responded as part of the Tunney Act proceeding for the settlement, while it is in the midst of litigating the same Complaint against Apple and publishers that did not settle.

The response can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f285300/285315.pdf.
The comments are posted online and can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/apple/index.html