Earlier today, the Australian ACCC published a rather fine new video entitled “The Marker” to raise criminal conspiracy (cartel) awareness. At 16 minutes, a must for competition/antitrust law geeks. From the ACCC:
“Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims today announced the next part of an integrated strategy to prevent cartel involvement – release of The Marker, a short film that shows the devastating effects involvement in a cartel can have on individuals and businesses.”
Here is a link to the ACCC’s new video: Australian ACCC – The Marker video.
Interestingly, according to the Australian competition authority, the ACCC, recent Australian research into cartel activity found that more than half of business people do not know that cartel conduct (i.e., price-fixing, market division/allocation, output restriction agreements and bid-rigging) is a criminal offence and almost 1 in 10 business people said they would be likely to engage in cartel conduct if the opportunity presented itself.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
CANADIAN CONTEST RULES/PRECEDENTS
Do you need contest rules/precedents
for a Canadian contest?
We offer many types of Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents and forms (i.e., Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents to run common types of contests in Canada). These include precedents for random draw contests (i.e., where winners are chosen by random draw), skill contests (e.g., essay, photo or other types of contests where entrants submit content that is judged to enter the contest or for additional entries), trip contests and more. Also available are individual Canadian contest/sweepstakes precedents, including short rules (“mini-rules”), long rules, winner releases and a Canadian contest law checklist. For more information or to order, see: Canadian Contest Law Forms/Precedents. If you would like to discuss legal advice in relation to your contest or other promotion, contact us: Contact.
********************
I am in the habit of doing a daily media sweep for Canadian regulatory law developments. Yesterday, a few contests being run by Canadian companies caught my eye, one, involving social media related follows and blog comments by entrants for a chance to win a prize, unfortunately for lacking many of the key elements for a Canadian contest.
In a recent case that I can only describe as bizarre, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has announced that it has filed false advertising charges against the marketers of “Your Baby Can Read!”, a learning program for toddlers that, according to the FTC, was “widely touted” on the Internet teach young adults (er babies actually) to read.
In making the announcement, the FTC said:
“The FTC complaint charges Your Baby Can, LLC, its former CEO, and the product’s creator with false and deceptive advertising, for claims in ads and product packaging that the program could teach infants and toddlers to read and that scientific studies proved the claims. The complaint also charges company principal and product creator Robert Titzer, Ph.D, with making deceptive expert endorsements. Your Baby Can and Titzer represented that the program taught children as young as nine months old to read; gave children an early start on academic learning, making them more successful in life than those who didn’t use it; and that scientific studies proved these claims, according to the complaint.”
The defendants in this case, it seems, were also industrious marketers, marketing their product in various channels including online (YouTube, Twitter and Facebook), television (infomercials and cable ads on Lifetime, Discovery Kids, Disney DX, Cartoon Network and Nicekelodeon) and retail (including Wal-Mart, Kmart, Walgreens and Toys “R” Us).
With all the recent buzz in Canada around disclaimers, the general impression test and performance claims (including the recent Bell, Nivea, Richard v. Time, Yellow Page Marketing and ongoing Rogers cases), this one caught my eye as a rather perfect storm of allegedly false claims, underlying scientific testing with some expert endorsements thrown in for good measure.
Guest post by Andrei Mincov (Mincov Law Corporation)
And so, round one of Apple v. Samsung court saga is over.
A jury of nine Americans have unanimously handed Apple a victory in the form of a verdict for $1,049,343,540.00 in damages. Imagine a cheque for this amount: “One Billion Forty Nine Million Three Hundred Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Forty Dollars and 00 Cents.”
Kyle Vanhemert has a great day-by-day rendition of the trial.
The Wall Street Journal has an equally great chart showing the mutual patent and design patent claims of Apple and Samsung, and the jury’s decision as to each of these claims with respect to each of the allegedly infringing phone models.
Apple spokeswoman Katie Cotton in a statement to the New York Times said:
“We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.”
Samsung Electronics issued the following statement:
“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.”
Our friends at Competition Policy International, ever the innovators, have launched a very nice new “People and Organizations” application on their website, which lists hundreds of competition/antitrust law individuals, companies and firms around the world.
From Competition Policy International:
“Welcome to our people and organization section. We’re building our comprehensive community of competition players by creating individual pages devoted to our registered members and their organizations. You can search by both name or organization in the people area; or search by organization in the organization area.”
Curious if you’re listed? Or your company or firm? Take a look:
CPI – People and Organizations
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Guest post by Jacob Kojfman (Vancouver Tech Law)
Last week, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) received a piece of very good news when a jury awarded it a $1-billion decision in its patent infringement case against Samsung.
The jury in the case decided that Samsung was violating Apple’s patents on a number of design and software matters. The jury did not find that Samsung violated any of Apple’s intellectual property in its tablet design.
The ramifications to this decision are huge. Aside from the obvious, that Samsung will stop selling the phones and tablets that were the subject of the jury decision, the bigger question is the mobile-phone and tablet industries as a whole: what happens next?
There is the possibility for further innovation in the market by all the companies involved. Microsoft, a late entry to the smartphone game, has received positive accolades for its system. However, this the Nokia phone that runs the Windows system is not selling well. Samsung, which is the largest seller of smartphones, could easily fall from its perch if it is no longer allowed to sell its iPhone-esque devices in America.
While there is hope for further innovation, smaller upstarts may feel deterred from launching products that even appear to be too similar to those of Apple’s, for fear of getting bogged down in lengthy and costly litigation. One of the perks of Apple’s giant horde of cash.
More importantly, this decision could just be the start of on-going legal battles for Apple. Google has filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming patent infringement. This lawsuit just adds to the further drama that is the smartphone wars. Google’s Android system is the operating system of the Samsung phones and tablets at the heart of Apple’s recent legal victory. According to Rich Karlgaard, columnist of the Wall Street Journal, all that is happening now is that companies are taking products that already exist and making them better, a strategy that Steve Jobs used.
Only time will tell if we have greater innovation in this industry, if we end up in a copycat world, and if so, will we just end up living in an Apple-dominated world.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
A few regulatory, intellectual property and advertising law updates caught my eye today including:
A flurry of media reports and notes relating to Apple’s $1 billion jury victory over Samsung in one of the largest patent fights in history (see e.g.: Check, Please: Experts Say Apple, Samsung Face Sky-High Legal Fees, Samsung Violated Apple Patents, Jury Rules, Apple’s $1B Patent Victory Could Help Company Corner the Market, Jury Hands Apple $1B Victory Over Samsung in Epic Patent Trial, Samsung Ordered to Pay Apple $1 Billion for Patent Violations).
A few updates on China’s largest international investment foray – in it’s $15 billion friendly bid for Nexen (see e.g.: Outcome of $15.1-billion Nexen-CNOOC Merger is Murky).
Commentary on the growing political divide between Alberta and British Columbia over the Northern Gateway pipeline (see e.g.: Growing Divide Between B.C., Alberta on Northern Gateway: Poll).
An interesting New York Times Op Ed on bribery and corruption in the oil and mining industries (see: U.S. Oil and Mining Companies Must Disclose Payments to Foreign Governments).
Several new Canadian telemarketing developments, including a new Do Not Call List Status Report issued by the CRTC (see: National Do Not Call List (DNCL) Status Report (July 31, 2012) and a Federal Liberal association in violation of the Do Not Call List Rules (see: Guelph Federal Liberal Association in Violation of Unsolicited Telecommunciations Rules).
The International Cooperation Network (ICN), an association comprised of global competition law enforcement agencies and members, has announced a number of upcoming workshops including:
2012 Cartel Workshop – Panama
From the ICN:
“The Panamanian Consumer Protection and Free Competition Authority (ACODECO) invite you to the 2012 International Competition Network (ICN) Cartel Workshop, which will be held in Panama City, Panama, from October 2 to 4, 2012. The 2012 Cartel Workshop will be the 9th annual workshop hosted under ICN promotion, and is a continuation of the series of agency-led conferences that began in 1999. During the three-day Workshop, which main theme is “Enhancing Global Cartel Enforcement: Building on Solid Foundations”, discussions will focus on effective strategies to investigate cartel conduct. The Workshop will build on the foundations of global cartel enforcement by highlighting previous Cartel Working Group work products, including the Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual. During the Workshop sessions, participants will discuss topics covered by the Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual, such as: Searches, Raids and Inspections; Drafting Case Initiation; Investigative Strategies; Inverviewing Techniques; and Cartel Case Resolution Methods.”
For more information see: ICN Cartel Workshop.
2012 Advocacy Workshop 2012 – Paris
For more information see: ICN Advocacy Workshop 2012.
2012 ICN Merger Workshop – Bogota
For more information see: ICN Events.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
