IMPACT®

Private copies of music: the debate gathers pace

A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) recommends that UK law be changed so that people are allowed to take a 'private copy' of their music. Taking a private copy means copying purchased music on to something else such as a computer or MP3 player.

Specifications – and why IT lawyers are interested in them

(#1 in our "Plea for Understanding" Series)

A while ago, we at IMPACT® promised that we would from time to time be looking at why IT lawyers seem to want to delve into areas which are not perceived to be their legitimate concern. After due consultation, the first area we’d like to look at involves specifications.

These come in various types - see for instance our schematic on the traditional software / systems lifecycle.

The key deliverables on IT-based projects are mainly intangibles – software and services – which are in themselves difficult to assess or measure. What in fact are being bought and sold are their outputs: lines of code perhaps, but really functionality (what the software can do) – and the results of services as measured by service levels or performance indicators.

So, when a customer decides to spend thousands of pounds on ACME Software’s Accounts System v 2.1, they are usually buying it because of what it will do. The same goes for buying hosted or managed services – but how is this to be captured and written down? The answer is... a specification.

The problem is that specifications aren’t always very good. The annals of IT litigation are filled with failed projects that were set rolling (often for massive sums) when there was in fact no real capture of what was to be delivered, and so no way to tell whether the supplier has delivered or not. The nightmare scenario is a customer refusing to pay anything until it gets what it thinks it ordered, and a supplier refusing to do any more work until it gets paid – stalemate.

When an IT lawyer asks to see a specification (of whatever kind), many clients appear to suspect their motives. Surely the specification isn’t a "legal" document, so why ask for it?

Lawyers want to see specifications because the whole point of having a written contract is to capture the deal in clear terms so anyone picking up the document can tell what the deal is. If properly written, the contract document promotes certainty and helps avoid disputes. Key people move on and with them their understanding of who agreed what, but the contract document should remain to provide a clear "baseline". If the lawyer needs to write the deal down, and if the essence of the deal is the specification, it can hardly be surprising that the lawyer needs to know what he or she is writing about.

Glad we could clear that up.

Chambers & Partners recognises our IP expertise

We've just been recognised by Chambers & Partners for our intellectual property work. Without further ado, here's what Chambers say:

"Freeth Cartwright enters the table this year after winning praise as “the best in Nottinghamshire.” The IP and technology group has a growing reputation in the local market, where it handles UK and European trade mark opposition matters for a number of medium-sized businesses. It also has a substantial international practice and wins referrals from overseas lawyers and clients relating to trade mark and patent applications in the UK and Europe. A dedicated team of two partners and four associates is supported by separate e-commerce and IT teams. The team has a significant trade mark filing and registered design filing practice and advises on everything from brand protection to EU law and patent infringement. Its e-commerce team offers a high-level strategic branding service and, unlike its competitors, carries out niche data dispute work. The firm acts for clients including Experian, Miss Moneypenny’s nightclub and Orchard Toys. Clients like this firm because the lawyers here are “friendly and co-operative specialists who really understand our business.”

Data Protection Crimes consultation closes today

At the begining of September I posted an aricle about the consultation on beefing up the penalties for the criminal offences under the Data Protection Act 1998.

The consultation period ends today.

Battle of the Big Boys

USA Today reports that IBM has filed two patent lawsuits against Amazon claiming that technologies that Amazon uses on its website infringe IBM patents. The article suggests that IBM has tried to broker license deals with Amazon for the use of this technology but, IBM allege, that Amazon has refused every time. IBM now resorts to litigation to resolve the issue.

IBM is one of the world's leading patent holders, earning according to USA today about $1billion a year in royalties from licensing deals. Interestingly the article explains that IBM - a New York based business has chosen to file the lawsuits in certain federal districts of Texas as these are seen as more favourable to actions of this kind.

IBM's actions show:

• how lucrative intellectual property can be as a source of revenue for a business;
• how you should assert your rights against infringement when licensing negotiations fail;
• you should take care to choose a receptive jurisdiction in which to issue proceedings.

For more information about disputes see our guide to disputes.

Apple boldly goes...

... where so many have gone before!

Voice recognition seems to have been around forever but Apple Computers has just been granted a patent (7123728) by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for a “method and apparatus for speech recognition using latent semantic adaptation". The patent was originally filed on Sept. 28, 2001. The inventor is Jerome R. Bellegarda. The invention apparently relates to Apple's "text to speech" and "voice over technologies".

Voice recognition is clearly a popular research area given the number of companies boasting the technology. Even Google has recently been granted a patent for technology that would allow you to conduct a search using your voice.

Policy note published on computer crime

The Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology (POST) has published a note on computer crime. Key points are:

• Computer crime is increasing. A DTI report found that 62% of UK businesses suffered a computer security incident in 2006.
• A lot of people don't regard computer security incidents as "crimes" and so report issues to their ISPs or techies. Assessing the true scale of such crime is therefore difficult.
• There is legislation in place to deal with computer crime, and this is currently undergoing change. See the IMPACT series on the Computer Misuse Act for more information (links at the end of this post).
• Various police and government departments are involved in tackling computer crime, but more police officers need to get familiar with the issues so that evidence isn't lost.
• Investigating computer crime can be resource intensive.
• Computer users have to take responsibility for their own computer security.
• ISPs have a duty to remove illegal website content and implementing security measures for their services.

IMPACT series on the Computer Misuse Act
Offences under the Act
Criticisms of the Act
Prosecutions under the Act
Changes to the Act by the Police and Criminal Justice Bill
Teen pleads guilty to  Computer Misuse Act offence

Defamation damages for Corporate Bodies

The House of Lords in the recent case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl, has confirmed that a corporate body can sue for defamation damages even where actual loss resulting from the alleged defamatory statement cannot be proved. Attempts so far in the UK to stop corporate bodies from claiming defamation damages have so far failed. While the House of Lords has issued guidance that only modest awards should be made in favour of corporate bodies where actual loss cannot be proved, the case reinforces the position that permits anyone to claim for defamation without proof of actual loss provided that the defamatory nature of the statement can be proven.

Good news for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Mediation groups have set up an 80 strong panel of mediators in direct competition to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR). The new combined group is known as In Place of Strife (IPOS) incorporating ACI. IPOS should see parties being able to mediate a dispute whatever its value, at a bargain cost of around £300 per party, much cheaper than was previously the case.

GameCity Festival starts today

Just a quick reminder that the GameCity Festival, a celebration of interactive entertainment, starts this weekend. The Festival is in venues throughout Nottingham. If you're in the East Midlands this weekend come along!

Our previous post about the Festival

GameCity Festival website