Advocacy group: UK databases illegal

An advocacy group says almost a quarter of British government databases are illegal under human rights or data privacy laws. The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust said on Monday that 11 out of 46 major government databases breach laws intended to protect personal details of British citizens.

Britain uses databases to store information including DNA profiles, biographical details of all children, hospital records and details of welfare payments. The country's justice ministry says the trust's report offers no evidence that laws have been breached, or that the government's policy is flawed.

The trust says it has identified problems with a further 29 British databases. It says only 6 databases are both necessary and legal.

Trademark fee cut in the United Kingdom: Could price wars loom? [United Kingdom]

A price war looked set to break out on Monday over trademark fees, as the UK’s Intellectual Property Office proposes its first cuts in charges for more than a decade. The move comes just days after European Union countries agreed to let the European trademark office – formally known as the Office of Harmonisation for the Internal Market – cut its fees by 40 per cent.

The cuts by the IPO are expected in particular to benefit small and medium-sized companies that often find the costs of protecting their intellectual property onerous. The IPO will unveil on Monday proposals to reduce its fees for trademark applications made electronically by 15 per cent, and offer additional price reductions for companies that want to oppose applications.

It will also give companies more ability to pay only part of the application fee up-front, meaning that less money should lost when applications are abandoned. The proposed reductions will be subject to consultation before coming into force in October.

The Alicante-based OHIM issues the “community trademark”, an intellectual property right that applies across the 27-country EU bloc, while the IPO – like other national offices in Europe – administers lower-cost trademarks that give domestic protection only. Some EU countries were concerned that the OHIM’s move, which was prompted by unexpected popularity of the community trademark and subsequent financial surpluses at the office, might undercut business at their national offices. The UK move comes after a decline in domestic applications for patent and trademark applications, which fell 12 per cent last year.

Angiotech win boosts firms looking for patent protection in UK [Patent Law]

A decision by the House of Lords backing Angiotech Pharmaceuticals in a dispute with Conor MedSystems is being hailed as a groundbreaking decision that will make it easier for pharmaceutical firms to get patent protection in the UK.

According to Canada-based Angiotech, the Lords confirmed, “in a precedent-setting decision”, the validity of one of the firm’s patents related to its paclitaxel coated stents. The patent in question was granted in June 1997 and opposed by Conor and four other companies but after more than “nine years of legal battles, their challenge proved unsuccessful and the validity of the patent was maintained,” Angiotech notes. Then, in February 2005, Angiotech brought a lawsuit against Conor in the Netherlands and the latter responded by commencing proceedings in the UK to revoke the patent. Conor argued that the claims in the patent lacked “inventive step” (ie, were obvious) under UK law. Both the UK trial court and the UK Court of Appeal decided that the patent was indeed invalid so Angiotech appealed to the House of Lords which has upheld the validity of its patent and agreed with the Dutch court’s earlier decision that clarifies the obviousness standard in relation to innovations. Commenting on the case, Sue Streatfield, an intellectual property specialist at law firm Eversheds, said it could lead to “a lowering of the current threshold for achieving inventive step”. She noted that Lord Hoffman found that the test for the latter is to be determined by whether the product is obvious not whether it has the claimed effect. Therefore, “so long as a patent is sufficient, the test should not be affected by the amount of evidence the specification contains as to whether the invention will work,” Ms Streatfield added. The House of Lords decision, which was unanimous, reflects “an important development in bringing uniformity to the interpretation” across Europe, Angiotech added.

Copyright law joy awaits music fans

Proposed changes to copyright laws will allow owners to move their music legally from CDs to MP3 players.

They would also let owners copy music from a PC to a portable player or to CDs.

The proposals, released on Tuesday, amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which technically makes it illegal for people to shift their music and films from one format to another.

The changes would apply only to content copied for the owner's private use.

Multiple copying and file sharing on the internet would still be banned.

Owners would not be allowed to sell or give away their copies.

"To allow consumers to copy works and then pass on the original could result in a loss of sales for right holders," the proposals warn.

The consultation on proposed changes to UK copyright exceptions were launched on Tuesday by Intellectual Property Minister Lord Triesman.

It follows the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, which recommended that certain aspects of the system should be reformed.

The proposals are designed to provide clarity about copyright issues in light of changing technologies.

Lacoste loses crocodile trademark row [UK]

A Gloucestershire dental practice has come out smiling after defeating fashion chain Lacoste in a dispute over a crocodile trademark.

The two dentists were challenged by the French clothing giant after using a grinning reptile as the logo on their practice’s welcome sign.

Lacoste claimed the cartoon crocodile was too similar to their own globally recognised logo, and could cause confusion among shoppers which could damage their business.

The battle began in 2004 when dentists Dr Tim Rumney and Dr Simon Moore first applied to register the new logo – a plain green crocodile with white teeth – for The Dental Practice in Cheltenham.

Lacoste objected saying it was too similar to their own green crocodile logo, which is pictured side-on with gaping red jaws.

Now, following a three year battle, the UK Intellectual Property Office judge has dismissed claims the emblems are too similar.

The dentists represented themselves at an initial hearing in May at the Intellectual Property Office in Newport, where Judge Ann Corbett ruled in the practice's favour.

But Lacoste’s legal team launched a subsequent appeal, which was finally rejected late last year.

Dr Rumney said he was "astonished" his practice had encountered such difficulties.

He said: "We are happy the situation has been resolved but astonished by the length of time it took to reach this conclusion.

"I suppose it is a big success for our business but we certainly did not regard it as taking anyone on."

He added: "We do not consider ourselves to be in the same market place at all and do not see that we are treading on any toes. We chose the sign with little second thought."

Lacoste was ordered to pay £1,000 towards the dental practice's legal costs at the initial hearing as well as a further £450 towards the costs of the second hearing.

Sony loses privacy complaint over Unfit Kids [International - Data Privacy]

A documentary that cited video games among the reasons for childhood obesity did not treat Sony unfairly when criticising the PlayStation maker's refusal to sponsor a fitness scheme for kids. Sony also lost a claim that the company's privacy was breached.

The ruling was published by Ofcom, the regulator for the UK's communications industries, yesterday. Sony Computer Entertainment UK Ltd had complained that Ian Wright's Unfit Kids, a Channel 4 show presented by the former footballer, made Sony the target for unfair, one-side and pejorative comment.

Sony also argued that its privacy was "unwarrantably infringed" when footage of the company's offices and logo were used and a confidential email from the company was included in the programme.

In the programme, Ian Wright explored some of the reasons behind childhood obesity. In the first show, Wright selected overweight 13–14 year olds who did little or no exercise and devised an After School Fitness Club programme for them. He tried to extend the project and the second episode of the series, broadcast on 20th September 2006, showed his attempt to secure funding.

He arranged to meet representatives of Sony to seek sponsorship from them. Sony decided not to sponsor the scheme. Sony was referred to in the programme which also showed an email from the company in relation to sponsorship and footage of the exterior of the company's offices.

Sony complained to Ofcom.

Sony said that Wright's comments created an erroneous and unfair impression of the company, which was disproportionate in the context of the refusal of a request for sponsorship. In particular, Sony complained about Wright's remark, "Fuck Sony, man. Sony's not gonna stop this from working".

Sony also argued that the programme implied wrongdoing on Sony's part, alleging that it failed to sponsor Wright's project and unfairly contrasted this with a statement about the firm's worldwide turnover of $8.6 billion from video games. Wright also said that there is a Sony PlayStation game for "every single thing that a child can go out and exercise [for]."

Sony also claimed that the programme makers did not explain the nature and purpose of the programme to them and that they did not inform Sony that its refusal to have the meeting with Wright filmed would be referred to negatively in the programme. It complained that Sony's positive views about Wright's project and the company's involvement in other sports-based initiatives were omitted.

Channel 4 countered that it was "perfectly reasonable" for Wright to express his frustration at the company's decision. It also said that Sony was made aware from the outset the nature and purpose of the programme.

Sony said its privacy was infringed when its offices and logo were filmed without permission and it pointed out that the email used in the programme was confidential correspondence intended for the addressee only. Channel 4 countered that the programme makers did not need permission to film Sony's offices "as the programme makers were filming openly from a public highway." It added, "All company emails are routinely accompanied by confidentiality wording," but said that there was express authorisation from a Sony representative to use the email.

Ofcom found that the inclusion of Wright's reaction to the news that Sony was not going to provide funding was "reasonable as a reflection of his disappointment." This did not amount to an allegation of wrongdoing to which the programme makers should have given Sony an opportunity to respond, said Ofcom.

Ofcom said it was "entirely acceptable" for the programme makers to film and broadcast footage recorded from a public place. Ofcom added: "Such material was firmly in the public domain and did not require consent from the company."

Ofcom noted that there was a clear conflict between Sony and Channel 4 as to whether the broadcaster had permission to use the email. It concluded that it was for the courts to determine the question of any misuse of confidential information.

However, Ofcom was able to consider whether there had been an infringement of Sony's privacy under Rule 8.1 of the Broadcasting Code which states: "Any infringement of privacy in programmes, or in connection with obtaining material included in programmes, must be warranted."

Ofcom said it considered both the subject matter and content of Sony's email and ruled that the parts used did not contain any information that was inherently private to Sony, such as exposing the inner workings of the company.

The regulator also said it was foreseeable that the programme would wish to make reference to what Sony had said in the email and there was no evidence Sony had specifically asked for it not to be included. Ofcom ruled that Sony did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

Ofcom's ruling concluded: "The complaints of unfair treatment and infringement of privacy were not upheld. Accordingly the complaint was not upheld."

Britain's Information Commissioner's Office Worried Over Data Privacy [Data Privacy - United Kingdom]

The UK's data protection watchdog has warned that greater transparency about data collection is needed as more personal information is shared between different organisations.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has published new guidelines for individuals to better understand how and why organisations use their data under the current Data Protection Act.

People are not always aware of the extent to which their personal data can be shared by different organisations, according to the ICO -- between, for instance, the police and a local authority.

Iain Bourne, head of data protection projects at the ICO, said in a statement: "More and more information is being shared about us, often for useful and wholly legitimate purposes. It is important that individuals are aware of their rights under the Data Protection Act."

Responding to the ICO's warning, Graham Hann, a technology partner at European law firm Taylor Wessing, said UK data protection laws "are not clearly interpreted in many areas" which can make it difficult for people to understand their rights. Wessing warned that although the general legal requirement is that companies cannot use individuals' data in ways they have not consented to, there are exceptions.

He said in a statement: "New laws brought in recently require that customers opt in to sharing of data for marketing purposes where the marketing would be by email. However not all organisations have caught up to speed with these laws and individuals may find their details being used by businesses wishing to sell them goods or services that they have no interest in receiving."

Businesses should be wary of buying data from third-party sources, he said, and be sure to verify they have legal right to use the data in the way they intend.

The law firm added that consumers' awareness of data protection issues has "risen dramatically in recent years".

The latest data warning from the data protection watchdog follows the launch of silicon.com's Full Disclosure campaign - which is aiming to persuade the UK government to change the law on data breaches so that companies have a legal requirement to inform individuals when their data has been put at risk by a security breach.