Apple Corp (the Beatles recording label) and Apple Computers are in court in England fighting over the use of the “Apple” trade-mark for i-Tunes. Seems the companies entered into an agreement many years ago that described how each party could use the term. The ultimate court decision will be based on the interpretation of that agreement, and the UK legal tests for confusion.

Apple Computers’ lawyer has been quoted as saying in court that even a “moron in a hurry” wouldn’t be confused. I was ready to laud the lawyer for coming up with a new phrase as catchy as “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”.

From some quick research however I traced the phrase back to a statement by a judge in the 1979 UK case of Morning Star Cooperative Society v Express Newspapers Ltd.

Regardless of its origin, the notoriety of the Apple case may turn that phrase into one that we will hear many times.

So how similar are the trade-marks? You be the judge. Below are images of their trade-marks taken from Google images. Apple Computers uses the stylised version with the bite out of it.

Note that these are protected by trade-mark and perhaps copyright of Apple Computers and Apple Corp. Their reproduction here is merely for journalistic purposes, is not connected with any wares or services of this blog or the author, and is allowed under “fair dealing” or “fair use” doctrines.

Read a Wired News article

Read a Techdirt article

Technolawyer – a technology information service for lawyers – released an ebook in December called Blawgworld 2006 – Capital of Big Ideas. It contains samples from 51 of “the most influential blawgs”, including eLegal Canton.

It has been downloaded over 25,000 times by Technolawyer members!

It is now available to non-members.

That’s the title of an article in the latest Info-Tech Advisor, a regular newsletter of the Info-Tech Research Group. The article starts off by saying:

A lack of on-device security poses the greatest risk to corporate data, and is therefore the top deterrent to mobile deployments. Mobile security should be taken seriously, but it can be a relatively simple task as long as threats are prioritized appropriately.

The article talks about real vs hyped threats to mobile devices such as phones, pda’s, and laptops, and some practical solutions.

Its a good read.

The Info-Tech Advisor is only available by paid subscription, but a pdf of this article is at the link below, with their permission.

And take a look at their web site – including the chart comparing them with other providers.

Read the article

Go to the Info-Tech website

Techdirt has a post with a different spin on the Network Neutrality issue. Some telcos have suggested that entitles like Google and Vonage should be paying them over and above normal bandwidth fees, because they are taking advantage of their networks.

Techdirt argues that the Telcos should instead pay Google and Vonage, because those kinds of services cause more people to want broadband. The arguement is backed up by similar deals in the video business.

Read the Techdirt post

David Canton – For the London Free Press – Saturday March 25, 2006

Read this on Canoe

A subscriber to residential high-speed Internet services recently complained to the Privacy Commissioner that his Internet Service Provider (ISP) was reading his outgoing e-mails and declining to send them if they did not go through their own mail server.

The Privacy Commissioner decided the ISP had not breached any privacy obligations. The decision suggested the complainant was a spammer. The real reason behind the complaint may have been the individual did not want the spam he was sending to be blocked by the ISP.

The complainant subscribed to the ISP’s high-speed Internet service. He also subscribed to a web-centred company’s e-mail service, which allows individuals to send and receive e-mail messages from external mail accounts. The complainant was upset because he could not send e-mail without going through his ISP’s mail servers.

The ISP stated it makes its customers use its outgoing mail server because of its anti-spam measures. The complainant alleged by “reading” his outgoing e-mail, the ISP was collecting and using his personal information without consent.

Information travelling over the Internet is sent in packets which are combined at the other end to form the web page, image, e-mail, or whatever other form the information is in. Each packet contains information that is used to send the packets to the right place. One piece of that information is the port number information.

Think of the port number as a highway number.

Port 25 relates to e-mail.

The Internet knows a packet is e-mail if it refers to port 25.

In this instance, when port 25 was identified, the ISP looked at the destination IP address to make sure the e-mail was being routed through its own mail servers.

If that was not the case, it assumed the e-mail was spam and did not send it.

The ISP stated it did not otherwise inspect the content of the packet.

The complainant was trying to route his e-mail through the outside mail server, and believed his ISP did not have the right to know that he was using the other web-centred company as a third-party mail provider.

An important element of the commissioner’s findings was that the ISP’s terms of service — to which the complainant consented when subscribing for service — state the user agrees the ISP can monitor use of the ISP’s internet services, and monitor, review and retain content, material or information if the ISP believes such activity is necessary to provide the ISP’s Internet service to its customers. The ISP can read just about anything sent by users if it decides it is necessary for service.

A PCWorld article says a spammer has been assesed a $900,000 fine, which they describe as the largest ever. The articel also mentions that 4 people have been charged for a Nigerian money transfer scam.

That won’t do much on its own to lessen the amount of spam we get, but everything that discourages spammers helps.

Read the article

This report containing recommendations for Canadian telecom policy was released yesterday, as you may have seen in today’s press.

My main interest was whether it would deal with network neutrality.

Michael Geist reports that it does indeed embrace the concept. Lets hope both the industry and the government listens to the growing demand for this concept.

Read Michael’s post for more detail

Read an earlier article of mine on the topic

Read another post of mine on the topic

This looks like it will be an interesting conference, with some first rate speakers. It has been organized by a group of journalists, entrepreneurs, and fellow legal blogger, Rob Hyndman.

It will be in Toronto May 15 and 16th. More information about the conference and registration is available on its web site.

go to the Mesh web site

So says a Wired article from Forbes.com. Seems that Forbes did an article about the 20 most important tools of all time. It did not mention duct tape – but the response was so great they decided to do an article about it.

Read the Wired article

In preparation for the upcoming ICANN meeting in Wellington, New Zealand, CIRA sent an open letter to ICANN. CIRA is concerned about the way ICANN carries on business, citing issues in accountability, transparency of decision making, and fair process.

Until CIRA is satisfied, it is suspending the payment of money to ICANN, and declining certain ICANN activities.

So add CIRA to the list of those unhappy with ICANN governance and the Verisign decision. That list includes many countries outside of North America, the US Department of Justice, and a group of 23 ICANN registrars which made a “Joint Request for Reconsideration and Emergency Relief” regarding the ICANN settlement with VeriSign.

Read the CIRA letter

Read the registrar request