ipwars.com

Selected microblog posts from the past week:

• RT @VogeleLaw: Found: Mary Beth Peter’s testimony (via @cathygellis – thanks!) http://bit.ly/Cijau #gbs_hearing [US Copyright Register opposes Google Book Settlement]
• Google Book in the EU? http://ff.im/-7OYfA
• RT @MegLG: A Billion Dollar Test of the DMCA Safe Harbors in Viacom v YouTube http://ow.ly/om66 via Cyberlaw Cases

• RT @michaelgeist: Microsoft wins stay of injunction on Word. Case arises from patent claim by Toronto’s i4i.http://bit.ly/oDmLU
• IP Think Tank Blog looks at i4i v Microsofthttp://ff.im/-7zfKp
• AAR on UWA v Gray – Universities and their employees: who owns developed IP? http://ff.im/-7RmgI
• Hannahland: Ph D candidate on UWA v Gray http://ff.im/-7WcoR

• RT @filemot: Useful note on Bose case and reckless US trademark intent to use statements by foreignershttp://tr.im/yb7L

• Even the Australian doesn’t believe the Govt’s attempt to filter the web (RT @nicsuzor) http://ff.im/-7zg5v

• RT @IPThinkTank: ACTA 5th negotiation roundhttp://short.to/pqtt
• SPICY IP: WTO rules in favour of Brazil, allows for cross retaliation against U.S. IPRs http://ff.im/-7KvwX

Selected microblog posts from the past week:

• Holman’s review David Koepsell – Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes http://ff.im/-7dK4P
• Patent Docs: Falsehoods, Distortions and Outright Lies in the Gene Patenting Debate http://ff.im/-7dK9H
• Koepsell fights back http://ff.im/-7dKek
• David Koepsell Doesn’t Know How to Cut His Losseshttp://ff.im/-7dKbE
• Patently-O: BRCA Gene Patents http://ff.im/-7mFuc

• Wyeth gets interloc. injunction in Australia against Alphapharm for alleged infringement of Efexor-XR patent:http://bit.ly/dvYwy
• Kenny J also rejects a higher threshold for interlocutory injunctions in patent cases http://bit.ly/SQViX ; Beecham doesn’t rule.

• RT @patentlyo: #Patent: Microsoft v. i4i: Briefing the Appeal http://digg.com/u1Bbhg

• RT @asilverstein: RT @bnatechlaw: Blogged Turning the Page on “Hyperwrap” Contracts http://bit.ly/Fv5hf

• How to Report Abuse to WordPress.com | PlagiarismToday http://ff.im/-733JQ
• RT @MegLG: Music Publishers Group Finally Sues Lyrics Sites 08/26/2009 http://ow.ly/lnOo
• the 1709 Copyright Blog: Knockback for record labels in US streaming decision http://ff.im/-73utR

• Pros and Cons of Stand-Alone Non-Verbal Logos and Other Trademark Styles: A Legal Perspective : Duets Bloghttp://ff.im/-73bMH
• RT @MegLG: Three Chocolate Companies Run Three Different Ways when it comes to TMs http://ow.ly/l2kyProperty, Intangible via @RonColeman

• EU wants to investigate patent quality and trade mark system (via IPKat) http://ff.im/-73vD3
• RT @mikk_IPR: Interactive Treaty Maphttp://www.pof.com.au/POFInteractiveMap. Berne Convention and WTO not included (yet?)
• At last … the 1709 Copyright Blog: Scottish court rules on jurisdiction regarding online infringementshttp://ff.im/-73c1h

Ernie the Attorney posts an interesting review of “Free the Market” by Gary L. Reback, apparently the principal Government lawyer behind the Justice Department’s anti-trust law suit against Microsoft.

The key question posed by the book is this: do we need better government regulation of the tech sector?  Also: is the current state of technology development such that we need to re-examine how we use antitrust law to regulate it?  These are important questions, and Reback does a great job of laying the groundwork for understanding these questions.  

Fishpond’s price is AUD$36.69, which is not bad. If you do a search of the book on addall.com, you’ll see quite a number of bookshops are prepared to sell it for between US$6.60 and, say, US$20. That’s the new price, not just for used ones. The cheapest ones are mostly through Amazon. But, here’s the thing, none of them will sell them to Australia. You get a nice notice telling you that customs restrictions or somethings preclude the sale.

Customs restrictions?

On 15 January 2009, the European Commission commenced new proceedings against Microsoft alleging that Microsoft was abusing its dominant position in the market by tying Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system:

According to the Commission:

The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world’s PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match. The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain. In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.

Apparently, Microsoft has 8 weeks to reply.

Microsoft’s initial press release notes that the Statement of Objections served by the Commission specifically states that the US settlement with the DOJ in 2002 (Wikipedia here) does not make the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows lawful under EU law.  Other than that it is fairly bland, as you would expect, stating that “We are committed to conducting our business in full compliance with European law.”

Read the Commission’s Press Release. Read Microsoft’s here or here.