Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘effective technological measure’, for the purposes of Article 6(3) of that directive, is capable of covering technological measures comprising, principally, equipping not only the housing system containing the protected work, such as the videogame, with a recognition device in order to protect it against acts not authorised by the holder of any copyright, but also portable equipment or consoles intended to ensure access to those games and their use. It is for the national court to determine whether other measures or measures which are not installed in consoles could cause less interference with the activities of third parties or limitations to those activities, while still providing comparable protection of the rightholder’s rights. Accordingly, it is relevant to take account, inter alia, of the relative costs of different types of technological measures, of technological and practical aspects of their implementation, and of a comparison of the effectiveness of those different types of technological measures as regards the protection of the rightholder’s rights, that effectiveness however not having to be absolute. That court must also examine the purpose of devices, products or components, which are capable of circumventing those technological measures.In that regard, the evidence of use which third parties actually make of them will, in the light of the circumstances at issue, be particularly relevant. The national court may, in particular, examine how often those devices, products or components are in fact used in disregard of copyright and how often they are used for purposes which do not infringe copyright. Read the full judgment eng | ita
Google is making image search more convenient for those who are seeking pictures to use in their publications or personal works — it is letting you sort images by licensing rights under “Search Tools”. Previously, the option to sort search results by licensing rights was found under the “Advanced Image Search Page” and therefore much more inaccessible. In fact, a lot of users might not even have noticed that such an option existed. A minor tweak to its placement will no doubt help to raise awareness. In July last year, Microsoft’s Bing also introduced the option to let users filter image search results by usage rights.
MPEG LA, LLC has announced that a group of 25 companies have agreed on HEVC license terms expected to issue as part of an HEVC Patent Portfolio License in early 2014. High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC, also known as H.265 and MPEG-H Part 2) is a standard designed to improve video coding efficiency for the benefit of Internet and mobile service providers and consumers with increased speed and capacity. HEVC is also expected to deliver next generation higher resolution HDTV video displays for 4K and 8K Ultra High Definition TV (“UHDTV”). “As contemplated, the HEVC license will utilize a modern streamlined pool licensing approach with simple easy-to-understand terms making the technology readily accessible to the largest possible market in the shortest possible time,” said MPEG LA President and CEO Larry Horn. “MPEG LA salutes the cooperation of patent owners who have worked hard to reach common ground in making a joint patent license available for the convenience of HEVC adopters. As a result of their efforts, consumers benefiting from a marketplace of competitive technology choices will be the clear winners”. As work continues on evaluating patents for essentiality and concluding terms in final agreements, the license is currently supported by 25 prospective HEVC essential patent holders including Apple Inc., Cisco Technology Inc., Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, Hitachi Maxell ltd., JVC Kenwood corp., LG Electronics inc. and NEC corp. In its effort to include as much essential intellectual property as possible in one license for the benefit of the marketplace, MPEG LA continues to welcome the submission of issued patents for an evaluation of their essentiality to the HEVC Standard.
The escalating war between technology companies over intellectual property, that has already swept up the smartphone and tablet sectors and high-tech stalwarts such as Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., Samsung, RIM, and others, reaches the social media stage.
Yahoo says it owns patents for as many as 20 technologies used by Facebook, that include online advertising social networking, privacy controlling, and messaging. “Yahoo has a responsibility to its shareholders, employees and other stakeholders to protect its intellectual property. We must insist that Facebook either enter into a licensing agreement or we will be compelled to move forward unilaterally to protect our rights” the company said. Patent fights are nothing new in Silicon Valley, with the realm of smartphones having become the most visible backdrop for such battles. Google paid $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility last year largely to get access to the phone maker’s intellectual property. And a consortium of companies led by Apple and Microsoft paid $4.5 billion for more than 6,000 patents held by Nortel, the defunct communications equipment maker.
Toy maker Hasbro is suing Asus, claiming that naming Asus’s latest tablet the Transformer Prime is in violation of Hasbro’s brand copyright. In a statement, Hasbro asserted that ASUS was effectively banking on association with the legendary animated show, comics, and toys to sell the Transformer Prime. Last rumors suggest that because of the recent popularity of the movie franchise, Hasbro could argue that Asus was banking on the popularity of the Transformer franchise to sell a few more tablets. Companies in different industries are allowed to use similar named products without violating copyright law if the industries are essentially mutually exclusive, meaning company A is not benefiting financially from the name trademarked by company B. While Asus may be counting on the clear difference between a tablet and Hasbro’s line as a legal safety net, the diversity of Hasbro’s range may create enough of a conflict to force a name change.