Bill C-32, the Act to amend the Copyright Act, has a lot of provisions, mostly aimed at balancing the interests of creators of copyrightable content with those who consume (or work with) that content.

Probably the most controversial provision involves ‘digital locks’, i.e. technical protection measures that are designed to prevent people from using the works in ways that the owner does not want. The Act makes it an offence to ‘break’ those locks for any purpose at all.

Some of the attacks on the locks rule have been a bit exaggerated, claiming that there should be no protection — . . . [more]

Congratulations to Sue Conner: her comment was our 8000th. Less than a year ago we were celebrating our 6000th comment. This is heartwarming for those of us who post to Slaw: your comments, whatever their complexion, are our rewards, and you’ve been bountiful.

But. There are those who lurk, those whose fingers hesitate uncertainly over mouse or keyboard, debating whether to send us their thoughts. You know who you are. Hesitate no longer. Talk to us, and you’ll see that it turns into a conversation. We’re a friendly group here, and we try to be interesting and accurate; your comments . . . [more]

Welcome to the newly refurbished Slaw. We’ve freshened up the design — after three years. We’ve added some new functionality, particularly when it comes to choosing how you subscribe to Slaw. Just take a look at the column to your right to learn about all of this.

And we’ve added a new left column for, well, our new Columns. Starting today, we’re bringing you a fresh column every day, written by experts on the topics — Legal Publishing, the Practice of Law, Legal Information, Outsourcing, Legal Marketing, Justice Issues, Legal Technology, and e-Discovery.

All of this more means “a bit . . . [more]

A Patent Prosecution Highway (“PPH”) program was implemented between the Canadian and US patent offices in 2008 to accelerate patent examination and issuance. Under the PPH, an applicant with allowable claims in either a US or Canadian patent application may request that the other country’s patent office provide a fast track examination to the corresponding application. The sharing of search and examination results between offices is intended to expedite and improve the quality of examination.

As an example of how the PPH works, if a US patent application is examined and claims are approved as patentable (“allowable”) by the US . . . [more]

When should software and business methods be patentable, if ever? Two courts are currently grappling with this very question. In the United States, the Supreme Court is expected to deliver its decision in Bilski v. Kappos within weeks. In Canada, the Federal Court recently heard oral arguments in Amazon.com, Inc. v. The Attorney General of Canada et al, the Amazon 1-Click appeal. Both cases are likely to shape the patent landscape for years to come.

Previous developments

Previous decisions in Bilski and Amazon both conspicuously broke with established patentability requirements and led to the current appeals. Each discarded earlier . . . [more]

In Canada, under s. 48(1) of the Patent Act, a patentee can disclaim portions of an issued patent if “by mistake, accident or inadvertence, and without any willful intent to defraud or mislead the public,” the patentee has “made a specification too broad, claiming more than that of which the patentee… was the inventor.” Disclaimers can be filed to correct errors in patents and can be used to enhance the validity of existing claims by narrowing the claims based on newly discovered prior art. However, patentees should proceed with caution, as disclaimers filed in the wrong manner, or for . . . [more]

  and by Jill Jarvis-TonusJill Jarvis-Tonus, B.F.A. (Dramatic Arts), LL.B., leads the New Media/Copyright Practice group for Bereskin & Parr LLP. In recent years, Jill has increasingly worked on copyright and trade mark matters relating to new media products and Internet services, including the drafting of website agreements and other Internet related contracts, the selection and protection of domain names, advising on the infringement of copyrights and trade marks on the internet and privacy law concerns.
[click on the author’s name to go to email and web page links]

Twitter has become a cultural phenomenon, 140 characters at a . . . [more]

The decision in Vinod Chopra Films Private Limited et al. v. John Doe 2010 FC 387 by Hughes, J. concerns a review of a “rolling” Anton Piller order granted by the Federal Court of Canada in a copyright infringement case to an Indian film production company and its Canadian licensee against various un-named persons who (according to the claim) “deal in counterfeit video recordings.”

Pursuant to Justice Zinn’s Order of January 26, 2010, the plaintiffs seized allegedly counterfeit copies of a film entitled “3 Idiots” from a number of defendants who then sought review of the Order.

An Anton Piller . . . [more]

I’m pleased to be able to tell you that this coming week we have a firm guest blogger joining us. Bereskin & Parr is a leading Canadian IP firm with offices in Toronto, Montréal, Mississauga, and the Waterloo Region. They’ve provided us with the following description:

Founded in 1965, Bereskin & Parr LLP serves clients in over 100 countries worldwide. With more than 260 people, including more than 70 lawyers, patent and trade mark agents, Bereskin & Parr and its award-winning professionals are consistently rated in Canada as the benchmark for intellectual property law.

The firm has dedicated practice groups

One of the big issues that Canada’s e-commerce / e-transactions / etc. legislation in the past decade was intended to resolve was the legal status of electronic signatures. At least that was the popular impression. A lot of people (not necessarily lawyers) referred to the legislation as ‘the e-signature bill’. (The Law Commission of England and Wales concluded that no legislation was needed to make e-signature valid in that country / those countries, however, and I suspect that conclusion was valid here too.)

Have there been any cases in any jurisdiction in Canada on the legal status of electronic signatures . . . [more]

The Ontario Divisional Court is going to hear an appeal of the Warman v Wilkins-Fournier case, in which the issue is whether an internet intermediary (here a blog site) must disclose the names of people alleged to have defamed someone.

The Ottawa Citizen has the story.

The trial decision requiring disclosure is at 2009 CanLII 14054 (ON S.C.)

Both sides are suitably apocalyptic in their predictions of disaster if they lose. (Canadian Civil Liberties Association and CIPPIC intervened against disclosure.)

Those opposing disclosure (on court order) say that whistleblowing and populist activism will be chilled or will dry up if . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal to the plaintiff in the British Columbia case of Crookes v Newton 2009 BCCA 392.

The Court blog has a summary of the facts and of the appeal judgment.

Basically, the question is whether someone who posts a link to a defamatory publication has him/her/itself published a defamation. The BCCA held 2:1 that in some circumstances the link could be defamatory — but only if in context the poster of the link called particular attention to it and indicated agreement. The majority held (as had the trial court) that . . . [more]