Featured Posts

Chase Bank Limits Cash Withdrawals, Bans International... Before you read this report, remember to sign up to for 100% free stock alerts Chase Bank has moved to limit cash withdrawals while banning business customers from sending...

Read more

Richemont chairman Johann Rupert to take 'grey gap... Billionaire 62-year-old to take 12 months off from Cartier and Montblanc luxury goods groupRichemont's chairman and founder Johann Rupert is to take a year off from September, leaving management of the...

Read more

Cambodia: aftermath of fatal shoe factory collapse... Workers clear rubble following the collapse of a shoe factory in Kampong Speu, Cambodia, on Thursday

Read more

Spate of recent shock departures by 50-something CEOs While the rising financial rewards of running a modern multinational have been well publicised, executive recruiters say the pressures of the job have also been ratcheted upOn approaching his 60th birthday...

Read more

UK Uncut loses legal challenge over Goldman Sachs tax... While judge agreed the deal was 'not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue', he ruled it was not unlawfulCampaign group UK Uncut Legal Action has lost its high court challenge over the legality...

Read more

VIDEO: Inside the life of Kim Dotcom

Category : World News

The controversial internet tycoon, Kim Dotcom, who is accused of copyright infringement by the United States, has launched a new file sharing service.

See the original post: VIDEO: Inside the life of Kim Dotcom

Post to Twitter

Impact of Supreme Court Copyright Decision Limited to Small Proportion of Copying in Schools, Access Copyright Says

Category : Stocks

TORONTO, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – July 12, 2012) - Access Copyright notes with interest and concern the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision announced today in favour of the Council of Ministers of Education in the appeal of Access Copyright’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Tariff. This very close decision (5:4) will have a limited impact on the importance of the Access Copyright licence to the education community, according to a preliminary analysis by the copyright licensing collective.

Read the original here: Impact of Supreme Court Copyright Decision Limited to Small Proportion of Copying in Schools, Access Copyright Says

Post to Twitter

Judge backs Google over Oracle

Category : World News

A US judge dismisses the central basis of Oracle’s $1bn copyright claim against Google.

Read more: Judge backs Google over Oracle

Post to Twitter

Google ‘breached Java copyright’

Category : Business

A US jury finds Google breached copyright in a case brought by Oracle over its Java programming language, but can’t agree whether it constitutes “fair use”.

Go here to read the rest: Google ‘breached Java copyright’

Post to Twitter

Why Oracle vs. Google Matters to You

Category : Stocks

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — The tech industry is on tenterhooks awaiting the result of the Oracle vs. Google trial.

The reason: Oracle is claiming Google should pay it billions of dollars based on the idea that application programming interfaces, the instruction sets for using its Java programming language, are covered by copyright. The judge is inclined to agree, and the question before the jury is what that would be worth.

There’s a lot at stake in Google vs. Oracle, in which Oracle says Google should pay it billions based on the idea its APIs are covered by copyright.

To Florian Mueller of Fosspatents, who acknowledged during the trial a consulting agreement with Oracle, this is settled law. Attorney Edward Noughton of Brown Rudnick agrees that the judge has assumed the 37 APIs at issue are subject to Oracle’s copyright — the only issue being whether Google copied them and what that should cost it.

Click to view a price quote on GOOG.

Click to research the Internet industry.

Read the original here: Why Oracle vs. Google Matters to You

Post to Twitter

Google v Oracle: a far-reaching trial of characters as much as copyright

Category : Business

Google’s battle with Oracle may have far-reaching patent implications, but the lay jury will rule by more personal criteria

One owns a half-share in a 767 jumbo jet, the other flies a Russian MiG-29 fighter (and has reportedly tried his hand at mock aerial dogfights).

This week Larry Page, the 39-year-old co-founder of Google, and Larry Ellison, the 67-year-old Oracle chief executive and MiG owner, have been testifying in a San Francisco court as their companies clash over accusations that elements of Google’s mobile phone software were copied without a licence from Oracle-owned software.

The case pits Silicon Valley “old money” against a new generation. Ellison made his pile producing software for big organisations in the days before the internet changed everything; Page’s business is successful precisely because of the internet revolution.

The two companies are almost the same size, with $38bn (£23.6bn) in annual revenues and between $8bn and $9bn in profits. In the lawsuit, lodged in August 2010, Oracle accuses Google of infringing copyrights and a single patent related to the Java programming language, acquired along with Sun Microsystems in April 2009. It is the biggest legal fight in the technology industry since 1998, when the US department of justice sued Microsoft for breaking antitrust law – and won.

Though Microsoft survived the subsequent court-ordered sanctions, it was never the same again. And the effect could be just as significant if Oracle wins. It would, say observers, give copyright protection to elements of a computer language known as “APIs” – application programming interfaces – that tell software how to carry out specified commands. “That could potentially turn the industry on its head,” Mark Webbink, executive director of the Centre for Patent Innovations at New York Law School, told the San Francisco Mercury. It could also lead to many more copyright fights in an industry that is already wary, and wearying, of legal wrangles over patents such as those between Apple and Android handset companies.

For Google, it could mean paying royalties on every copy of Android used – now about 300m handsets and tablets worldwide – which would defeat the purpose of making it free to use.

Oracle’s lead lawyer is David Boies, who acted for the US government against Microsoft, famously getting Bill Gates to appear “evasive and nonresponsive” (to quote an observer) in a video deposition during which he queried the meaning of “compete” and “ask”, and frequently responded: “I don’t recall.”

When Boies examined Page this week, there were what looked like echoes of those moments. Page will have been well aware of it – when he set up Google with Sergey Brin and adopted a company motto of “Don’t Be Evil”, the pair had Microsoft’s misdeeds in mind.

Boies sought to get Page, dressed in a shirt and tie rather than the more casual gear of Google’s headquarters, to say whether he thought Java was free. Page was elusive to the extent that Judge William Alsup – who has presided over a number of hi-tech trials – told him to answer: “Yes, no, I don’t know or I don’t recall.” Page frequently opted for the latter, according to court reports.

But Ellison did not escape unscathed. In previous video testimony, asked whether anybody could use Java without paying a royalty, he replied: “That’s correct” – but on the stand, he replied: “Not sure.” His testimony on the stand and in the video seemed at odds more than once.

Google contends that Java is open for anyone to use, and that it used the same names for elements which it argues are like parts of speech such as verbs or nouns, and can’t be copyrighted. Oracle says that they are creative work – “building blocks” to quote Ellison – and so attract copyright, and that Google has infringed that. It is demanding a multimillion-dollar payout and a cut of Google’s revenues from search and purchase on Android – the latter being a figure Google has fought hard to keep secret.

The trial has already produced surprises. Ellison said that Oracle – a business software maker – had considered but rejected buying BlackBerry maker RIM and smartphone company Palm (the latter since acquired and closed by Hewlett-Packard).

Page surprised onlookers who have heard him enthuse about the growth in the use of smartphones powered by Android software. Asked whether Android was a critical asset for Google, he replied: “It was important. I wouldn’t say critical.” For those observing Google’s increasing efforts to stay ahead of the internet’s shift to mobile – internet-enabled phones are forecast to outnumber PCs online as soon as next year by 1.82bn to 1.78bn – playing down Android was unexpected.

In the industry, sympathies are split. Oracle is famous as a tough negotiator and ferocious litigator that wraps customers tightly in its embrace. Ellison is its public face, a billionaire born in New York to an unmarried mother and an Air Force pilot. He has fought bitter battles with business rivals, married and divorced four times, is the owner of one of the largest yachts in the world and many exotic cars. Oracle is not the sort of company to have inhouse frivolities, unlike Google’s freewheeling culture.

On the Groklaw website – which backs open source software, denounces its patenting and has been running daily unofficial transcripts from the court – Oracle are clearly the bad guys. Ellison may as well have horns.

Yet some in the industry sympathise with him. They feel Sun was ineffectual and let Google run all over it, as it has to others. “Some ten years ago we dropped Java from our products because it was something like 95% open source, which means not open source,” Richard Zybert, of Zybert Computing in Birmingham, which makes servers, routers and USB devices, told the Guardian. “I have mixed feelings about this. Oracle are idiots, but I don’t believe Google didn’t know what they were doing. It’s just when you grow like this, you get careless. This is not the first time Google has acted like the law was for little people.”

Yet it may be that legal doctrine will not, in the end, decide the case. Ilya Kazi, a partner at law firm Mathys & Squire, points out that the case is being heard in front of a lay jury, including a plumber, a retired postman, a store designer for Gap and a nurse. “I could talk at length about the niceties of copyright law,” he told the Guardian. “But I don’t think that will be what decides it. It’s going to be decided in the jury room by who they like or don’t like.”

Key questions

Oracle lawyer: Can you copyright a computer programming language?

Larry Ellison, Oracle CEO: I don’t know if you can … I just don’t know that.

Lawyer: If you discovered that lines of code had been copied from someone else’s [intellectual property], would this be a violation of Google policy?

Larry Page, Google CEO: The question is a hypothetical one, but yes, it would be a problem.

Lawyer Android was a critical asset for Google?

LP: It was important. I

Post to Twitter

YouTube loses music clip copyright battle in court

Category : Business

German court rules that YouTube must take down copyrighted music clips – a move which could lead to royalty payments

YouTube must take down copyrighted clips of music, a German court has ruled, in a move that could be a step towards forcing it to pay large sums in royalties.

The move is a fresh setback for Google’s video site after a US appeals court this month reopened a $1bn (£620m) case brought by media conglomerate Viacom, as well as the Premier League and other media companies against YouTube in the US over copyrighted videos on the site.

Gema, a German royalties group, scored the victory in Hamburg on Friday, where the court ruled the website was responsible for the content its users published, a decision that could be a first step towards YouTube – and potentially other internet publishers – having to pay royalties on videos with copyrighted music embedded in the soundtrack.

The case, for allegedly infringing the copyright on seven music clips, was brought against YouTube in 2010 by Gema and several other groups handling music rights.

YouTube argued it merely provided the technical framework to publish content and was not responsible for monitoring videos and music clips for possible copyright violations.

The court ruled that YouTube was responsible for the content users post online and should remove any clips for which Gema had asserted copyright protection. It also said YouTube did not have to proactively trawl through its site in search of possible copyright violations, but must remove clips at the request of the rights holder.

In a statement, YouTube said: “This court’s interpretation of the European Union Copyright Directive would make it much more difficult for user generated content platforms to operate. It would jeopardise not only YouTube but every other innovative service on the internet that allows users to submit content by forcing them to implement filtering.”

A spokesman for Gema said: “This is an important partial victory.”

The agency, which says it represents more than 64,000 songwriters and musicians, demands that music-on-demand platforms that stream music to users for free and are financed by advertisements pay just over 10% of their music revenues.

Sites that are very interactive should also have to pay at least €0.60 (£0.49) per stream, according to Gema.

YouTube says 60 hours of video are uploaded to its site every minute, and more than 3bn hours of video are watched on the platform each month.

Google said on Friday it was prepared to resume negotiations with Gema to seek an agreement on the use of copyrighted content. Gema and YouTube held talks from April 2009 until the suit was filed in September 2010, with no result.

Recent lawsuits have centred on a crucial issue for media companies: how to win internet viewers without ceding control of TV shows, movies and music.

A push for better legal protection of artists’ and media companies’ rights has met opposition from those who fear tighter regulation will curb their freedom to download movies and music for free and encourage internet surveillance.

Earlier this year, tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets across Europe to protest against an international anti-piracy agreement.

One vocal group opposing the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) is Germany’s upstart Pirate party, which came out of nowhere last year and according to a recent poll has overtaken the Greens to become the third strongest political grouping in the country.

The arrest of Kim Dotcom, the German national who founded the online file-sharing site, earlier this year is the most prominent recent case of authorities cracking down on copyright infringement.

Prosecutors say he was the ringleader of a group that netted $175m since 2005 by copying and distributing music, movies and other copyrighted content without authorisation.

UPDATE: Christian Louboutin Versus Yves Saint Laurent — Fashion Group Philly Presents Protecting the Brand Business Forum on Design, Copyright, and Trademark Issues

Category : World News

PHILADELPHIA, PA–(Marketwire – Apr 9, 2012) – Fashion Group International Philadelphia, a fashion industry non-profit, professional organization, will present a design, copyright, and trademark law discussion, “Protecting the Brand,” Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 5:30 pm to 8:30 pm, at Davio’s, The Director’s Room, 111 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA.

The rest is here: UPDATE: Christian Louboutin Versus Yves Saint Laurent — Fashion Group Philly Presents Protecting the Brand Business Forum on Design, Copyright, and Trademark Issues

Post to Twitter

Change on the Horizon for Small Claim Copyright Infringement?

Category : World News

A current study explores alternatives to the prohibitive nature of the costs tied to copyright infringement cases.

Continue reading here: Change on the Horizon for Small Claim Copyright Infringement?

Post to Twitter

Do We Need a Copyright Symbol for Sharing?

Category : Business, World News

A blogger has proposed a copyright symbol to credit those who share a lot online. But why stop there?

More here: Do We Need a Copyright Symbol for Sharing?

Post to Twitter