Australian Technology and IP Business

The Panel copyright decision

The effect of last year's High Court decision on The Panel's use of short segment's of other station's programs was dependent on whether the segments were "substantial".

Ten's program "The Panel" contained 20 brief excerpts from programmes previously broadcast by Channel Nine. The Panel Segments ranged in duration from eight to 42 seconds. They were taken from programmes of the usual advertised length of 30 minutes to one hour.

Channel Nine alleged infringement of copyright.

At trial and on appeal Ten made out a fair dealing defence in respect of nine extracts.  The dispute still to be resolved was whether the remaining 11 extracts that were copied and re-broadcast were "substantial" parts of the programmes from which they were taken.  Only if they were "substantial" parts of those programmes will Nine’s copyright be infringed.

Nine argued that each visual image capable of being observed as a separate image on a television screen and accompanying sounds is "a television broadcast" in which copyright subsists. Channel Ten argued that the excerpts were too insignificant to constitute a broadcast and therefore did not attract the protection of copyright.

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has now applied the High Court ruling to the facts of the case.

The court found that Channel Ten infringed Channel Nine’s  broadcast copyright in relation to the following extracts from Channel Nine’s programs: The Inaugural Allan Border Medal Dinner, Midday (Prime Minister singing Happy Birthday), Wide World of Sports (Grand Final Celebration/Glen Lazarus cartwheel), Australia’s Most Wanted (re-enactment of stabbing by party gatecrashers), Pick Your Face (Kerri-Anne Kennerley) and The Today Show (child yawning).

IP licensing adds value to businesses

This article in The McKinsey Quarterly argues that too many companies treat the licensing of IP as a one-way street by relying solely on their own research and hoping to profit by licensing it to others.

"But companies that derive a significant share of their revenues from licensing intellectual property understand that in-licensing—the purchase of IP from outside sources—can boost their performance no less than internal research. Instead of viewing new ideas and technology from other companies as competition, they use external IP to spur innovation and to improve their own products. The most successful companies go further still by taking externally developed knowledge, incorporating it into their own new products, and then licensing those products to others, thereby gaining even more revenues from licensing...

Counterintuitive though it may seem, in-licensing can drive innovation, for successful in-licensors better understand the gaps— ideas or technologies they need to improve processes, create new products, or complement current ones—in their own IP portfolios. These companies also know how to find partners to close the gaps. In addition, in-licensors are more likely than other companies to meet their financial and strategic expectations for IP and to rate IP management as a source of competitive advantage."

McKinsey research shows that companies could earn 5 to 10 percent of their operating income from the sale or licensing of intellectual property.

Copyright Exceptions

Kim Weatherall has collected links to various views on the copyright review and possible fair use exceptions here.

ENUM trial starts

ZDNet is reporting the commencement of Australia's first ENUM trial. It will take a year.

ENUM connects conventional phone numbers with Web pages, email, Internet fax services and other services.

A Copyright Fair Use exception for Australia?

The Attorney-General's Department has released an Issues Paper "Fair Use and Other Copyright Exceptions (an examination of fair use, fair dealing and other exceptions in the Digital Age)". (via Kim Weatherall).

From the Introduction:

1.5 A fair use exception, based on the model in the United States, would list a number of factors or principles of ‘fairness’ for a court to consider in deciding whether any activity should be an exception to copyright (ie outside the uses that the copyright owner is able to stop). A specific exception would identify a particular activity (eg. time-shifting) that would be an exception to copyright. The main difference between the two approaches is that a fair use exception would be openended and flexible while a specific exception would be more certain but confined by its scope.
1.6 The Copyright Act currently contains a number of exceptions to copyright known as the ‘fair dealing’ exceptions. The fair dealing exceptions are also based on a concept of fairness but are confined to four specific purposes, such as study criticism and review. The Government is reviewing whether these and other current exceptions are adequate - or whether a new general exception based on ‘fair use’ or new specific exceptions might be appropriate.

How does the USA currently operate? A good example is this chart on copyright clearances for documentary films referred to recently by Professor Lessig.

Understanding Bill Gates and Microsoft

Bill Gates explains how the different Microsoft systems fit together and where they are headed in this 2 part Endgadget interview here and here.