DMCA review and iPhones; Chinese font copyright case

Mobile and iPhone locking v. the DRM

Every three years the US Copyright Office reviews whether there is a need to provide further exceptions to the digital rights management provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This process will next take place in 2009 and cellular news reports that the US-based Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a request for an exemption to cover ‘jailbreaking’. Before law and order fans start tut tutting, ‘jailbreaking’ is the process of unlocking iPhones so that they will run software that does not originate from Apple. The EFF has made a similar application to continue an order which allows those who own mobile phones to unlock them so that they work on other networks.

The IPKat thinks that this is quite right and sounds like the sort of practice that would be stopped by competition law if copyright law doesn’t get there first. However, if you make is harder for service providers to ‘hook’ customers by giving them cheap or subsidised handsets, it is likely that the providers will recoup their profits elsewhere – probably by making the handsets reflect something more like their true market value.

EFF press release and documents available here.

Chinese font copyright case

The IPKat has learnt from People’s Daily Online that Founder Electronics has sued Procter & Gamble (Guangzhou) for copyright infringement. The claim is that P & G infringed Founder’s copyright in its fonts by using Founder’s “Qian style” and "Cartoon style” fonts on 55 P & G products (including the one pictured) and publicity material. The case is before the People’s Court in Beijing Haidian District.

The IPKat reckons that this is one to watch. It’s rare that font copyright cases come before the courts.

DMCA review and iPhones; Chinese font copyright case DMCA review and iPhones; Chinese font copyright case Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, December 08, 2008 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.