Google stops censoring searches in China

CNN.com reports that Google has stopped censoring search results in China. David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, had this to say regarding the decision; “We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services”. Concurrent with the announcement Google has launched a dashboard page, to be updated daily, that shows what services are available in mainland China.

CNET looks at Apple patent and trademark disputes through the years

A recent article on CNET.com takes a brief look back at some of the more interesting patent and trademark skirmishes Apple has been involved in through the years. Steve Jobs recently said “We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours”. As the article notes, the sentiment cuts both ways. Apple has been on the receiving end of its share of patent suits in the past.

Brazil threatens suspension of U.S. patents over trade dispute

For several years Brazil has been angered by massive subsidies that American cotton farmers have been receiving. A recent editorial in the Globe and Mail reports that Brazil, in addition to implementing punitive tariffs targeted at certain U.S. industries, is considering suspending U.S. pharmaceutical and software patents within Brazil. The article indicates that while this would be an unprecedented measure WTO rules would allow it.

Yet another Avatar copyright claim

According to a recent article in the Montreal Gazette Emil Malak, a restaurant owner from Vancouver, is planning on suing the makers of Avatar for copyright infringement. Malak claims that Avatar contains many similarities to a script he wrote and sent  to many studios, including director James Cameron’s Lightstorm Entertainment, in 2002. This news comes just a day after a Beijing court threw out a similar claim by a Chinese author.

Government pledges to strengthen intellectual property law

In Wednesday’s Speech from the Throne the Canadian government pledged to strengthen intellectual property laws in Canada. The pledge was presented as part of the strategy to “combine the best of our intellectual and natural resources to create jobs, growth and opportunity”. The speech is, as is expected, short on specifics and so we will have to wait and see if any serious changes do actually materialize.

IIPA places Canada on priority watch list

A recent report by International Intellectual Property Alliance placed Canada, along with 9 other nations, on its priority watch list for 2010. The report focused on “copyright piracy, the legal and enforcement reforms needed to fight it and other market barriers in 39 countries/territories”. The IIAP claims that Canada has not taken adequate steps to modernize its copyright laws to meet the minimum standards of the WIPO Internet Treaties. You can read more about the report here.

Shaw launching trial of gigabit Internet technology

The Edmonton Journal reports that the city of Edmonton, along with Vancouver and Calgary, will serve as test site for an Internet service “133 times faster than standard high-speed”. The company notes that at this point they’re testing the technology, not a product, and have yet to determine product and pricing definitions. Currently there is no timetable for when the service will become widely available to consumers.

A critical look at ACTA

In April the 8th official round of negotiation concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is scheduled to take place in Wellington, New Zealand. ACTA is a plurilateral trade agreement that aims to establish international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement throughout the participating countries. The proposed agreement has the potential to drastically alter the landscape of intellectual property in our country and others. Given its potential impact it’s important that  ACTA is carefully considered. This post will draw attention to a few of the criticisms that ACTA has received.

One of the major criticisms concerning ACTA has been the secrecy regarding the negotiations. The agreement has been undergoing official negotiations since June of 2008 but the meetings have taken place under a shroud of secrecy. Much of what we know regarding the agreement has been gleaned from leaked documents. ACTA partners defended the secrecy as being standard practice for the formation of an international agreement, especially given the early stages of its development. But critics have pointed to many examples of other conventions that have been far more open than ACTA.

The bottom line is that many people are understandably uncomfortable with international negotiations  for an agreement that stands to have an immediate and real impact upon their lives taking place in secret. Shouldn’t such an important undertaking be open to public participation? When there is no transparency people begin to wonder what is being hidden. Given the widespread criticism that the leaked portions of the negotiation have been subjected to makes me wonder if the secrecy was a deliberate attempt to conceal what was sure to be a publicly unpopular agreement.

Another part of ACTA that has been heavily criticised is the proposed adoption of a three strikes system. Under the system individuals would lose access to the internet for a period of time based on three allegations of copyright infringement. Many people see the loss of internet access for a house hold based on three unproven, non-commercial copyright infringement is excessive.

An additional problem with a three strikes proposal is that it is potentially very costly for ISP’s to administer. Earlier this year Michael Geist noted a recent UK study which pegged the cost of a single notification at $11.73 for a large internet provider and $32.73 for a smaller provider. This is a major cause for concern. The disparate impact on small and large providers would have an obvious negative impact on completion. Either way, the cost of implementing a three strikes system will fall on the consumer and need to be considered.

Also, some have argued that ACTA provides for the criminalization of copyright infringement and does so in a dangerous way. Essentially criminal investigations and searches will be performed against individuals in the absence of probable cause.

There is no doubt that the protection of intellectual property rights is an important task. ACTA is attempting to address what is a real and serious problem. Nevertheless, when the methods being chosen to combat the problem impact the rights of so many and are being selected under a veil of secrecy, being critical of what is being decided is crucial.

China’s IP protection is not as bad as some think

Benjamin Bai, a Shanghai based IP lawyer, recently wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal addressing the misconception that patents are useless in China. He says that many companies forgo the patent process in China at least partly because of a perception that local companies are favoured over foreign competitors when it comes to litigation. While this may have once been the case, Mr. Bai believes that a new trend is emerging. He suggests that the recent win rate for multinational companies in IP suits in China has been greater than 50% and that foreign companies need to recognize this trend and take advantage of it.

USOC claims that Subway ads imply olympic association

The Seattle Times reports that the United States Olympic Committee has a problem with Subway advertisements featuring Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps. Board member Lisa Baird says that the ads “imply there is an association with our Olympic marks and our athletes…” In essence the USOC is concerned that Subway, through its ads, is attempting to reap the benefits of Olympic sponsorship without paying for it. You can click here to view one of the offending ads and judge for yourself.