Sunday, February 22, 2009

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!).

Saturday, February 21, 2009

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.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Queensland woman sues Life Saving Australia: Will this set a bad precedent for other volunteer organisations?

A Queensland woman is suing Life Saving Australia and St Johns Ambulance service for what they describe as assault and negligence. The plaintiff was competing in a surf carnival in Victoria at the time.

I don't usually comment on these sort of cases, however I think this would set such an important and detrimental precedent for volunteer organisations of this nature. Surf Life Saving have a very important role on Australian beaches, and many of the men and women who patrol the beaches do this voluntarily.

For starters, this is a woman who is participating in what is already a risky recreational activity. I have no medical background, but I assume that it is tricky to know the full extent of an injury at the time of the accident. Perhaps her initial injury was much more serious than anyone first thought.

Further, although I studied torts in Queensland (good old Civil Liability Act), it is highly unlikely that this could amount to unlawful assault considering that it is usual for life savers to seek permission from conscious patients (which for a dislocated shoulder, it is likely that the plaintiff was conscious). Unless there is grievous bodily harm (which is a whole other can of worms), permission would preclude an action for assault.

An action for negligence seems similarly fated; how did the life saver fail in their duty of care? What sort of duty of care does a volunteer owe to a patient?

And from a non-legal perspective, was this particular life saver damned if they did and damned if they didn't? Would the plaintiff have preferred to have not been helped?

Facebook flip flops on Terms of Service, considers new 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities'

After a huge response to Facebook's changes to their Terms of Service, it appears that Facebook has backed down and reverted to their old TOS. Apparently they have done this to collaborate with users to create a 'more understandable document', and are requesting the users contribute to a new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (with Facebook now likening itself to an online 'country').

Now if only consumer advocacy groups and users would have such a big outcry to real issues in the real world, imagine what could be done!

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Could Facebook own you? Well they own your content

Facebook's new Terms of Service could mean that even after you close your account, they can continue to use their content as they please. This is a change from the previous Terms of Service, where the licence over your content expired on the termination of your account. Although the mind boggles as to what they could possible do with what appears to be worthless user generated content!

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Reading book outloud copyright? It could be if the reader is a computer

An executive director of the Author's guild, Paul Aiken, has spoken out about the use of text-to-speech software reading text from a book out loud. He claims that this is an infringement of copyright. If such a notion was somehow justifiable, how could they distinguish the reading of a book by computer software and the reading of a book by a human being? Would it be an infringement if a human being, who relied on an electronic or computer generated voice, read a book out loud?