Home » 2009 » May

Canada says no to counterfeiting: Microsoft Corporation v. PC Village

Canada says no to counterfeiting: Microsoft Corporation v. PC Village

The dispute between Microsoft Corporation and the defendants, PC Village Markham, PC Village Downtown - two software retailers in the Greater Toronto Area - and two of their employees, Syed Aziz and Johnson Ye, arose because the defendants were selling counterfeit Microsoft software, "software that was neither manufactured by Microsoft nor by any of its […]

Parody As Fair Dealing, Eh?

Parody As Fair Dealing, Eh?

s. 29.1 of Canada's Copyright Act provides that fair dealing for the purpose of criticism does not infringe copyright if the source is mentioned. The main issue then is whether parody - the use of humor or ridicule to point out some particular feature of the original work - is an acceptable form of criticism as per […]

Immunity under the Communications Decency Act

Immunity under the Communications Decency Act

Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230) gives "providers of interactive computer services" (like ISPs, internet forums and social networking sites) immunity from certain types of claims when the providers publish or republish the works of other people. It was enacted to overrule a 1995 decision that held an ISP […]

L’Oréal v. eBay: European courts rule eBay not liable for sales of counterfeit goods

L’Oréal v. eBay: European courts rule eBay not liable for sales of counterfeit goods

It is no secret that counterfeit goods have been sold over the internet for years. Your relation to someone who has purchased some form of counterfeited good over the internet most probably follows the six degrees of separation rule. As a prominent source of the sale of counterfeit goods, U.S.-based eBay has been sued by […]

Does Qualcomm's Value Chain Licensing System Survive Its Settlement With Broadcom? (Part Two)

Does Qualcomm's Value Chain Licensing System Survive Its Settlement With Broadcom? (Part Two)

Sean O'Connor is a Professor at the University of Washington School of Law and Chair of the Law, Technology & Arts Group, specializing in intellectual property and business law involving biotechnology, cyberspace/information technology, and new media/digital arts.  Professor O'Connor is an IP Osgoode Research Affiliate. This is the second part of Professor O'Connor's feature blog […]

When Is Market Destruction Creative?

When Is Market Destruction Creative?

Stan Liebowitz is the Ashbel Smith Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Dallas, School of Management. Economists and non-economists alike tend to be familiar with the phrase "creative destruction" and its implications that, although established firms may bemoan new innovation upsetting apple carts in their industry, and government may try to protect […]

High-tech patent litigation study: NPEs and others

High-tech patent litigation study: NPEs and others

In her research paper titled "Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and evidence in the litigation of high-tech patents," Assistant Professor Colleen V. Chien, at Santa Clara University School of Law, provides a snapshot of U.S. patent litigation that could not only inform current efforts to reform the patent system, but could also serve […]

EU Consumer Protection Reform: Liability for Software Code

EU Consumer Protection Reform: Liability for Software Code

A recent proposal by European Commissioners Meglena Kuneva and Viviane Reding outlined a number of consumer protections relating to licensing agreements.  In the event that the proposal becomes law, software companies could be held liable for their code.  The directive requires that products, including software licensed under licensing agreements, be held to a higher standard […]

Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?

Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?

This is the issue currently being considered in the US Congress through an attempt to introduce the Design Piracy Prohibition Act (Act). The Act was initially presented in 2006, but at that time the bill was criticized because the broad wording attempted to stop any design that was "substantially similar" to the original, which would […]