Investing in Litigation: Commercial interests vs Justice

Big money is to be made by investing in lawsuits, or so it is claimed by Richard Fields, chief executive of Juridica Capital Management. Many large investment companies are doing it, with investors rolling money into litigation between corporations, where the lawyers fees are enormous and the winnings are potentially even bigger.

But isn't the legal system about finding justice for parties who find themselves in a dispute? It seems to me that making litigation a speculative investment like crude oil will corrode the already fragile justice system. Plus the pressure placed on the lawyers to win the case at any cost may further corrupt legal practitioners who are already encouraged by their firm to win at any cost. I also think the scope for corruption in these matters has been overlooked. From the point of view of an almost legal practitioner, I cannot see how any move to invest in litigation is a good one.

Could Social Networking lead to Mistrials: Juror twittering causes appeal

Two civil cases could be thrown out of court due to juror's using social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, to allegedly discuss the case which they were deliberating upon before a verdict was given. It is alleged that while the juror's did not disclose confidential facts about the case, they were influenced by the replies they received.

With many people owning smart phones which can access the internet almost anywhere, the possibility of this happening in almost any jury trial (whether civil or criminal) is most probable.

Additionally, many trials, even those of low notoriety can be looked up using Google, therefore providing juror's with the opportunity to research the case they are deliberating upon with ease. I found this out when writing a University assignment which involved attending a jury trial which was relatively unknown. Before a verdict had even been reached, I could access key information about the trial (which was perfect for my assignment).

Patents: May be hurting the economy and preventing innovation says economists

Here is an interesting article which says what many people, particularly in the IT world where software patents appear to be given out in cornflake packets, have been thinking for a while now.

Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine believe the current patent/copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. The two professors have published their views in a new book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, from Cambridge University Press. In particular, they point to the fact that patents are being used to prevent AIDS sufferers in Africa from receiving life saving drugs, or students being prosecuted for pirating music off the Internet.

Levine states "There's plenty of protection for inventors and plenty of protection and opportunities to make money for creators. It's not that we see this as some sort of charitable act that people are going to invent and create things without earning money. Evidence shows very strongly there are lots of ways to make money without patents and copyright."

In terms of technology, many software companies use patent portfolios to use as defence should they be found in violation of a patent, such as Novell announcing that it would use it's portfolio of patents to defend against claims against some of its open source programs.

It appears that people are starting to see that patents are not being used for their original intent and purpose, which is to protect innovation from being blatantly copied without credit, rather than wipe it out all together. Another example is the patent over One click check out.

Copyrighting a Fact: How Railcorp claims copyright in a train timetable

Alvin Singh has received a cease and desist notice from RailCorp Sydney, demanding that he remove his popular iPhone application Transit Sydney from the itunes applications store.

They are likely to be relying on the previous decision of Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2002), where it was found that Telstra owned copyright in the Telstra White Pages, a telephone directory. However, the 2007 case of Ice TV went against this decision, with a finding that there was no copyright infringement when Ice TV distributed an electronic, subscription based reproduction of Nine Networks programing schedule. The judge in Ice TV distinguished Desktop Marketing Systems as there is only one logical way of organising a telephone directory, but many ways of presenting broadcasting schedules. I am of the opinion that this will fall into the latter category, however every case turns on its facts in this situation (there appears to be no settled law on this point).

Interesting Blog to watch: 'You are Not a Lawyer'

I stumbled across an interesting blog which has began a 'You are Not a Lawyer'. It aims to clear up misconceptions about the law that the technologically minded (and other laypersons) seem to have. The author, Paul Ohm, starts with the topic of 'Being acquitted versus Being searched'.

Amazon 1-Click Patent: Prior art claim has no final answer

The Controversial 1-Click patent has come to light again, with reports that evidence of prior art was submitted with no final answer from the USPTO. Peter Calveley, an actor who worked on Lord of the Rings, cited as prior art an earlier e-commerce patent and the Digicash electronic cash system.

The 1-Click patent refers to the technique of allowing customers to make purchases online with a single click, with payment and shipping information needed to complete the purchase previously entered. Therefore, any other online merchant must ensure that their check out procedure involves at least 2 clicks (which Barnes and Noble discovered when they tried to introduce their own version of 1-Click). According to critics, the 1-Click technology does not deserve a patent as it is not innovative, which is understandable as it really only allows users to input their shipping and billing information before rather than after purchase (hardly innovative!).

Judge dimisses privacy case against Google: Judge states that law suit itself greater invasion

A Pennsylvania couple who sued Google when photographs of their house appeared on Street View have had their case dismissed. A District court judge threw out the case, finding that they had no basis on which to continue their case. They failed on their claim for invasion of privacy on the basis that the photographs did not reveal private facts about the plaintiffs, which was required to establish the claim. The couple also allowed the relevant images to remain on Google Street View, despite the fact that there is a procedure to have photographs removed. Judge Amy Reynolds also pointed out that the case itself brought more publicity to the couple's address, names and photographs of their property, thereby invoking further invasion of their privacy.

On the issue of negligence, her Honour held that Google did not fail in any duty recognised by law and did not believe that the plaintiff suffered damage from the alleged trespass. Judge Amy Reynolds also pointed out that unjust enrichment typically occurs when there is a breach of contact, and here there was no contractual relationship between Google and the plaintiffs.

This is a very positive decision for Google, as they could have expected many more claims against them had this case succeeded.