I have been blogging less because I am working on a technology & law related project (more information soon). In the meantime:
Online Defamation
Kiwiblog noted an interesting Canadian defamation case (Baglow v Smith) involving defamation on political blog sites:
On 30 August 2011 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice handed down judgment in the case of Baglow v. Smith, 2011 ONSC 5131. The decision suggests that an allegedly defamatory statement made in a debate on a blog or internet forum may not be found to be defamatory if the plaintiff previously engaged in the debate but did not respond to the statement despite having the opportunity to do so.
Canadian law firm Heenan Blaikie has a summary of the case here:
At the risk of over-simplifying the matter, the court’s decision can be summarized as this: there is something meaningfully different about online statements, particularly those which are made on political blogs and discussion forums, which militates that they be treated differently for purposes of defamation law. Put somewhat differently (and, again, with the qualification that this over-simplifies matters): impugning someone’s name on the broadcast evening news is different from impugning their name on a blog.
New Zealand courts give weight to Canadian judgments, and it will be interesting to see whether this case is raised in a New Zealand defamation proceeding in due course.
Amazon’s “one click” patent reaffirmed in NZ
Amazon’s infamous “one click” patent has been reaffirmed in New Zealand by a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, Amazon.Com, Inc v Patrick Ryan Costigan [2011] NZIPOPAT 12 (21 July 2011). The opposition to the patent does seem to have been somewhat quixotic – the opponent was not represented at the hearing, whereas Amazon had a team headed by a QC appear to defend its patent, as well as evidence from US and Australian patent experts. The Commissioner also noted that the patent had been upheld in Australia.
Google cleared in Australian ad-word case
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission – the equivalent of NZ’s Commerce Commission (but rather tougher, it has to be said) – has lost a case it brought against Google alleging that Google engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by mixing ads into its search results. The Court also found Google had not breached trade practices law by using (or allowing the use of) competitors’ names and trademarks in sponsored links. The full 73 page judgment is here.
UK Govt asks for Search Engine De-optimisation
Computerworld reports:
Google and other search engines, including Microsoft Bing and Yahoo, will be asked by the UK government to push copyright-infringing websites down their search results under new plans.
Which sounds like it could open a can of worms… The article also notes:
… it is understood that there could be forthcoming legislation, within the Communications Bill, if an industry-run solution is not found.
Which will certainly be a can of worms.
Watch the UK Supreme Court live
In what is understood to be a first, the UK Supreme Court (which in 2009 replaced the House of Lords as the UK’s highest court) now transmits a live coverage of hearings. This is a good step forward for open justice, because while most court hearings are open to the public, they are usually rather inaccessible. The Supreme Court coverage is available here streamed via Sky UK.
