Not playing the game
The IPKat learns from the BBC, via his friend Simon Haslam, that PlayStation purveyors Sony plan to block attempts to import the PlayStation 3s console. Sony has said it will use the "full scope of the law" to block the importation of P3s into Europe before the official release date.
Above right: Sony is playing a cat-and-mouse game with unauthorised importers - and their Sony-loving customers. Below left: pirates bringing the new P3s to Europe.
The new console goes on sale in the US and Japan this November, but is not out in Europe until 2007. Says the IPKat, that's the whole point: the real game is seeing how many P3s you can import into the EU before you're allowed to do so. Merpel adds, there are probably easier ways of simultaneously alienating consumers, distributors and retailers - but not many ...
See earlier IPKat post on Sony enforcement activity here
Shoot to kill
Also, via Simon Haslam, the IPKat has discovered from the BBC that NetResult - a business engaged by the English football Premier League to monitor websites - has warned the YouTube website that the Premiership goals posted on YouTube by 101greatgoals.blogspot.com are infringing Premier League copyright. This news comes after YouTube removed nearly 30,000 files from its website after the Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers objected that 29,549 music video, movie and TV clips had been posted without there permission. YouTube shows about 100 million clips per day. It is now owned by Google.
The IPKat suspects that YouTube will become a magnet for litigation, since Google has a large wallet and is well worth suing. The issue here is very similar to that faced by eBay and its VeRO policy (see recent IPKat post here). Merpel adds, this all dodges the really interesting issue: is there copyright in a goal as a dramatic work?
Half-baked, or hot potatoes?
This Friday, 27 October, at 9.45am - and not a minute earlier - the Court of Appeal for England and Wales gives its judgments in the two appeals of Macrossan v Comptroller General and Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and others. These cases address two of the hottest potatoes for modern British patent law: Macrossan (see earlier IPKat post here) is an appeal against a refusal to grant a patent for an automated system for putting together company incorporation documentation, while Aerotel is an appeal against the refusal to allow an application to patent a means of routing pre-paid telephone calls.
Will the Court of Appeal uproot four decades of British case law and expand the scope of patent protection? Or will it upturn boiling cauldrons of coruscating wrath upon the appellants for having the temerity to waste its time? To find out, come to Court 63 on Friday to hear the decisions, or be patient a little and read them on the IPKat.
Tuesday, 24 October 2006
Not playing the game