Prof Andrew Christie is launching the auDRP Overview, an analysis of decisions under the auDRP on Wednesday 27 August 2014 at 9:15am.
The Full Court (Finn, Emmett and Bennett JJ) has unanimously allowed the appeal from Rares J’s finding that Optus TV Now did not infringe the copyright held by the AFL, the NRL and Telstra in broadcasts (or films) of the footy. Based on the summary, the Full Court has found that Optus either made the copies of the broadcast and films or Optus and the subscriber did so jointly. As Optus was the.. Read More
At first instance, Rares J has ruled that Optus’ TV Now service does not infringe the copyright in broadcasts of the AFL or the NRL (its the first round only as, by agreement, leave to appeal to the Full Court was given to whichever party lost before the decision was handed down). The pressures of time mean that I can only provide a very brief synopsis at this stage: however, his Honour has.. Read More
Follow last Friday’s post, in the twittersphere @wenhu points out that s 22(6) defines who the maker of a communication is: (6) For the purposes of this Act, a communication other than a broadcast is taken to have been made by the person responsible for determining the content of the communication. (6A) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of subsection (6), a person is not responsible for determining the content of a communication merely because the person.. Read More
The media yesterday was splashed with stories about how Optus is threatening the flow of revenues to sports such as the NRL and the AFL through its TV Now service (for example, here and here and here). Hundreds of millions of dollars are apparently at stake. Basically, it looks like you download an “app” to your phone or computer and you can then record (or perhaps more strictly, instruct Optus to record) a television.. Read More
The transcript of Telstra’s unsuccessful application for special leave has now been posted here. The Sydney Morning Herald speculates that Telstra is seeking talks with the Attorney General “to close the loophole”. One consequence of the High Court’s revolution in copyright law is that the privacy regime which prevents the use of the Integrated Public Number Database (and IPND Industry Code) to create reverse-number directories has been undermined. As its name suggests, a reverse-number.. Read More
The High Court (Gummow and Bell JJ) refused Telstra’s special leave application this morning. Young QC for Telstra ran hard on the concurrent findings that there was human skill and effort in the collection and verification of the data. However, that ran up against Yates J‘s findings at  –  and Keane CJ’s findings at  – . At , Perram J had said: Had the tasks been attended to manually an.. Read More
On Telstra’s opposition to the grant of Amazon’s 1-click patent in Australia, the Commissioner’s delegate has found that: claims 1, 2 and 4 to 61 were invalid; but: It seems to me that the use to which server generated client identifiers [i.e., cookies] are put in the present invention is both an elegant and inventive way of achieving one action ordering functionality. Therefore I consider that any of the claims having this integer.. Read More
Mr Bohdan Zograf has very kindly translated the IPwars post on Telstra v PDC into Belorussian for the benefit (one hopes) of everyone in Belorussia interested in IP! Those of you with the appropriate linguistic skills can see it here.
The Full Court (Keane CJ, Perram and Yates JJ) have dismissed Telstra’s appeal in the Phone Directories case. First impressions. Given the (arguably) disparate reasoning in the 2 judgments in IceTV, the Chief Judge has to weave a rather tricky path. His Honour nonetheless clearly recognised:  The reasoning of all the judges of the High Court in IceTV requires a revision of the relevance of skill and labour to the subsistence of.. Read More