Posts

Showing posts from 2017

BUMP

Image
Jane Lambert

Chancery Division (Mr Justice Snowden) Banner Universal Motion Pictures Ltd v Endemol Shine Group Ltd and others[2017] EWHC 2600 (Ch)

In Denmark there was once a game show called "Minute Winner" which was devised by a Mr Derek Banner. Mr Banner claimed to have assigned his rights in the format for the game show to a company that he had set up called Banner Universal Motion Pictures Ltd. ("BUMP"). The rights that BUMP claims to have acquired were essentially copyright in a document entitled

"MINUTE WINNER Mini-format Game show Daily or weekly show. Or short one minute between main programs. Morning, Evening or Afternoon program. One minute, or 30 minutes with several winnings"
and the benefit of an obligation of confidence under Swedish and English trade secrecy laws. The obligation of confidence is said to have arisen when Mr Banner met Jock Millgardh and Matthias Olsson of the Swedish company Friday TV AB ("Friday") to discuss Mr Ba…

Copyright in Photographs - Pablo Star Media Ltd v Bowen

Image
Jane Lambert

Pablo Star Media Ltd v Bowen [2017] EWHC 2541 (IPEC) (13 Oct 2017)

The above photograph is of a pub in Tenby where Dylan Thomas left the manuscript of Under Milk Woodon a stool.  Under Milk Wood is a radio play about the residents of a fictional village called Llareggub. I am told by those proficient in the language that Llareggub means nothing at all in Welsh but the letters do mean something in English if the spelling is reversed.

"Llareggub" less the first 3 letters spelt backwoods with the addition of the particle "-ation"

I thought of Llareggub when I read Judge Hacon's judgment in the appeal from Deputy District Judge Vary's decision in Pablo Star Media Ltd v Bowen [2017] EWHC 2541 (IPEC) (13 Oct 2017) where the learned Enterprise Judge dismissed a copyright owner's appeal against Deputy District Judge Vary's award of £250 damages plus £3 interest for infringing the copyright in the photo of Dylan Thomas and his bride less £164.10 c…

Construction of Terms in Cross-Licensing Agreements: Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others

Image
Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justices Kitchin and Floyd)Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1526 (11 Oct 2017)

Jane Lambert

In FRAND8 Oct 2017 I discussed the terms upon which patents for inventions that are essential to a standard are licensed.  I noted that courts around the world had held that those terms should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory - in other words, FRAND. The Court of Appeal's decision in
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1526 (11 Oct 2017) concerned the construction of a clause licensing such patents. It is important to note, however, that none of the judges who heard the appeal mentioned the acronym, FRAND, and it appeared only twice in the judgment of the trial judge.

The case turned on the construction of this clause:

"QUALCOMM Option to Obtain Covenant Not to Assert. Philips hereby grants QUALCOMM an option to designate any or all o…

FRAND

Image
FRAND stands for "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory". It refers to the terms upon which the owner of a patent for an invention that is essential to a standard ("standard essential patent" or "SEP") should license its use.

In Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and another [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) (5 April 2017), the first and so far only case on FRAND in the United Kingdom, Mr Justice Birss explained what is meant by FRAND at para [83] of his judgment:

"The point of FRAND in standard setting is fairly easy to understand. Standards exist so that different manufacturers can produce equipment which is interoperable with the result that the manufacturers compete with one another. So the phone makers compete in the market for phones and the public can select a phone from any supplier and be sure (for example) that if it is a 4G phone, it will work with any 4G network. As a society we want the best, most up to date technology…

Another Data Protection Act! "You're joking! Not another one!" - A Short History of Data Protection Legislation in the UK

Image
Standard YouTube Licence

Jane Lambert
The reaction of Brenda from Bristol to Mrs May's announcement of a snap election earlier this year made her an internet star.  There was a similar reaction to the government's introduction of a new Data Protection Bill last week and one can understand why.  Three statutes, one Council regulation and a directive in a little over 30 years for the processing of personal data is quite a lot of legislation - especially for an activity that the United States leaves largely unregulated.

The Younger Report 
Towards the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, concern was expressed in a number of countries about the power of computers to gather, collate and disseminate personal information. In the UK, such concerns were referred to a committee chaired by Sir Kenneth Younger that had been appointed to consider privacy.  In its report - the Younger Committee Report on Privacy 1972 (Cmnd 5012) - the committee found no evidence that the use of co…