Atlanteknology - Technology News for Atlantic Canada

How Opal Mehta got caught?

By now many of you will have heard of this story. Here is a brief summary: 17 year old (Kaavya Viswanathan) gets big contract from a top tier publisher to publish her critically acclaimed book. Problems arose when some people noticed striking similarities between passages in Kaavya's novel and one that was published years earlier by Megan F. McCafferty. In fact, one could say that passages were lifted almost word for word.

So now the publisher's are angry, and denials are flying. None of this is particularly exciting to me except for the fact that there are some interesting legal issues. The first is whether Kaavya is (or may be) guilty of copyright infringement. Or is this a matter of plagiarism?

Section 3(1) of the Copyright Act of Canada states, in part, "For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever..." Obviously this issue is a matter of USA law but the substance is similar. It is doubtful in this case that Kaavya's activities (if proven) amount to copyright infringement but, as noted in the article I link to, she probably is in hot water with her publisher in terms of breach of contract. No doubt there is some term in there somewhere where she says, among other things, that she is the author of the book, that is it original etc etc.

The moral of the story is this (in my opinion) - read the contracts that you sign carefully. Understand the words and the meaning before you sign on the dotted line. On the flip side, make sure the contracts you ask others to sign are carefully worded to protect your interests as fully as is possible. It can work to your advantage is things go wrong at some point in the future.

Holy Flying Cow (take II)

I spoke with a chap from Australia a week or so ago concerning a Nova Scotia legal decision involving the Coffee News and The Flying Cow (see my post of January 9, 2006). Apparently various media outlets have picked up on the story and reported on it.  Unfortunately, the reports seem to leave out a few details (according to the person I spoke with) which I thought I would comment on.

The case was essentially this: The Defendant obtained a franchise for the Coffee News here in Nova Scotia. Things proceeded smoothly for a time and then the defendant, according to the case report, decided to strike out on his own.  Unfortunately he chose to copy all of the major characteristics of the Coffee News’ publication including the format, styles, and colours.  According to the Judge in the case it was quite evident that the Defendant fully intended on using the goodwill that the Plaintiff's publication had built up to sell his own publication. Also unfortunate for the Defendant was the fact that he represented himself in what was and is a complicated and fluctuating area of copyright law.

At the end of the day the Judge held that the Defendant had violated the Plaintiff's copyright without permission and had passed off his magazine/publication as that of the Plaintiff's.  The Judge further held that this was done quite wilfully and with full knowledge of what he was doing. Importantly, the Judge did not say that mere ideas could be copyrighted or otherwise protected by intellectual property laws. 

The person I spoke with was quite concerned, justifiably so, about the implications of such a finding.  So, to everyone out there who might be concerned about the case based on how it was reported in the media, I reiterate my earlier comments with the brief follow up being this:

The case does not create new law in terms of the protection of ideas nor, in my opinion, does it hinder publishers of magazines, journals, newspapers etc., in their creative efforts (or at least it does not expand or detract from what an individual may or may not do in ordinary course).

(If you want a copy of the case - email me and I will give it up for you)

PriceWaterhouseCoopers Canadian Life Sciences Industry Forecast

PricewaterhouseCoopers and BIOTECanada recently released their 2006 life sciences and biotech  industry report.  It is brief and its results are somewhat predictable (funding issues are, generally, the most important concern) but it is also interesting to note that the respondents wanted to hear more about success stories by Canadian companies.

This is part of what I am trying to accomplish with this blog and I know others are doing to same thing in different ways and in different forums. I participated in an event at Dalhousie University a few weeks ago called Techpreneur.ca where successful technology entrepreneurs talked about their companies and their experiences - it was both enlightening and motivating. Keep an eye out for the next instalment in the fall.

Bionova Newsletter

I am the Vice-president of Bionova, The Nova Scotia Biotechnology and Life Sciences Industry Association (say that 5 times fast) and one of the initiatives we have implemented in the last year or so is a very nice newsletter which is published on our website. I encourage you to bookmark it and check back from time to time as new articles are published as there is a wide assortment of news, all of which highlights the exciting level of activity in Nova Scotia in this emerging industry.

Ebay versus FIFA - the sale of World Cup Tickets

Here is an interesting story.

It seems that the government of the UK introduced yesterday a change in the law governing the sale of tickets for the World Cup not authorized by football's world governing body FIFA. Under the existing legislation it was already an offence to sell tickets for any of England's group matches at this summer's finals in Germany. But yesterday's amendment widened the definition of a designated match covered by the legislation making it illegal to sell tickets for any World Cup games - period.

Ebay agreed to prevent the sale of tickets on its UK sites or by individuals from the UK but has, so far, refused to ban the sale of tickets elsewhere in the world.

This raises further issues regarding the extra-jurisdictional application of a nation's laws to activities in other countries. it will be interesting to see how this plays itself out in the lead up to the World Cup. Stay tuned!

Holy Blood! The verdict is in

At last, the verdict is in in the case of The Da Vinci Code versus The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

In case you were not aware, the authors of the latter book (which I read and enjoyed thoroughly) sued the author of the former (which I did not read and have no intention of reading), accusing him of stealing their idea (in many more words than that). That is, the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that their descendants exist to this day (to brutally paraphrase the essence of it).

The problem here is that the authors of the Holy Blood sought to use (and expand on) principles of copyright law. The issue is that no rights exist in mere ideas. So, for example, no one owns the theorem E=MC(squared).

Had the authors of The Holy Blood won, they would have significantly and wrongly expanded on what rights can be protected and what things cannot be protected.

All of which brings me back to an earlier post of mine on the case of The Flying Cow versus The Coffee News. I got a call from a chap in Australia who was very concerned that the case stood for the principle that ideas could be protected. Apparently the case had been reported on in the international media.

Well, as I told him and reaffirm to you, the case does not stand for this. It is, in my opinion, rightly decided and firmly grounded in traditional copyright principles. The plain fact is, according to the judge, that the defendants copied almost the entirety of the plaintiff's publication and this is simply not allowed.

Have a good weekend.