IMPACT®

China looks to strengthen intellectual property rights

China has announced a new strategy that will see its intellectual property laws revised. This development will be closely watched to see if this affords foreign rights holders better methods of policing their rights in China. It is also a sign of the country's increasing confidence in its own new technology. China appears to be gearing up to re-position itself on the world's stage as an innovator of intellectual property rather than merely a major source of of poor quality infringements. Mind you, it will be interesting to see just how the Chinese Health Ministry intends to protect "the patents" of traditional Chinese medicine when the medicine in question must surely be un-patentable by virtue of the fact that it is traditional.

MYGAZINES INFRINGING COPYRIGHT

Mygazines is a website that grants a surfer of the internet easy access to well-known magazines covering a wide range of subjects, which are normally only available for purchase on the high street. Users of the site can copy and download or simply read in their entirety high quality digital versions of the latest editions of US magazines such as People, The Economist or Men's Health. Can the owners of the copyrighted works do anything at all? Normally the answer is a clear yes given the clear infringement of copyright by the Mygazine website. However on this occasion jurisdictional issues complicate the position.

The website is registered in the Caribbean Island nation of Anguilla by a registrant ingeniously called "John Smith" and outside the jurisdiction of American copyright law. Potentially, the copyright owners can sue for damages in a US court because the content of the website is available over the internet to American nationals. However, a US court could not oblige Anguillan Mygazine officials to turn up as the defending party at court nor allow the copyright owners to collect any damages for any ruling which was made in the absence of those officials.

As US giants such as Time Warner (the owner of People and Sports Illustrated) and The Economist try their hardest to find a way of stopping Mr Smith and his rogue outfit, the copyright infringement continues. To infuriate these giants further, Mygazine has told the world that its business is bona fide and likened it to a doctor's waiting area, where the public can read magazines which they have not bought. This may be a perfectly valid argument in a parallel IP universe, but doesn’t really bear the same fruit in the real world.

NODUS EVENT

The next NODUS event will be on 18th September at Freeth Cartwright's offices.

Our Guest speakers are from Intellectual Property Chambers 3 New Square.

Further details will be published shortly.

THE FIGHTBACK AGAINST INTERNET PIRACY CONTINUES AS PINBALL GAME RULING THREATENS TO OPEN THE FLOODGATES

The Patents County Court has ruled that an individual must pay damages of around £6,000 and legal costs of £10,000 to media company Topware Interactive for placing its game (Dream Pinball 3D) on an internet sharing network thereby infringing Topware's copyright in the game. See the BBC's online report today about the ruling which potentially opens the floodgates for similar actions by media companies.

In a file-sharing network such as eMule and eDonkey, the file being shared is held on a member's computer. Those who want access to a particular form of media, be it a game, music item or video, can obtain bite sized chunks of it from everyone else who has it in the network.

The successful action by Topware against individuals shows that media companies are no longer turning a blind eye to internet pirates. The action also sounds a warning to the many individuals who have infringed Topware's and other media creator's copyrighted works over the internet and those who plan to do so.

The ruling is also topical. It comes at a time when the UK's top ISPs are cracking down on illegal downloads (see our blog entry of 24 July 2008) and when the government is expected to consult the music industry in an effort to oblige all ISPs to tackle music piracy. Slowly but surely the creator's of UK Media are fighting back against internet pirates.

POLICE CANNOT RETAIN OLD RECORDS OF MINOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES?

Recently the BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7520139.stm) that the police could be obliged to remove thousands of old criminal records of minor offences from the national database This report came after the Information Tribunal dismissed appeals from 5 police forces including Humberside and Greater Manchester and instead upheld the information commissioner's ruling that the holding of records for minor offences breached key principles of the Data Protection Act ("DPA").

The records that were at issue related to a caution and minor thefts such as theft by teenager of a 99p packet of meat in 1984. This information had floated to the surface when the individuals concerned were making job applications. Although not confirmed, it is likely that the minor convictions fell under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act exceptions which allow an employer to request additional information on "spent" convictions when recruiting for certain professions such as a teacher or doctor.

The Information Tribunal confirmed that the DPA was explicit in saying that any personal data held must be relevant, up-to-date and not excessive. Clearly, the retention of information on the theft of a packet of meat almost 25 years ago was seen to be irrelevant today. The Information Tribunal's decision has the effect of opening the floodgates to applications from thousands of offenders who committed a minor crime when they were young.

These applications will be further fuelled from the fact that criminal records are currently allowed to remain on the police national computer for up to 100 years. Ian Redhead of the Association of Chief Police Officers expressed the disappointment of the police forces to the decision and commented that the decision could have far reaching consequences for the police service as a whole. Sensibly, Mr Redhead also commented that it was important that clear national guidelines are now put in place so that forces take a consistent approach to the retention of criminal records.

Although the ruling is sensible and, on the surface, a victory for those who struggle to get employment as a result of a minor blip on their life CV, Mr Redhead is perhaps rightly cautious. For example, whilst the ruling is satisfactory for offenders who have only committed only one minor offence in their life times, would it also extend to serial offenders who have committed minor crimes "x" years ago? Surely in this case, information of all of the crimes committed by a serial offender would still be relevant under the DPA. The position is not as clear-cut as it originally appears to be.  KP