Atlanteknology - Technology News for Atlantic Canada

To blog or not to blog?

I am no expert on employment law matters. But I do know a thing or two about technology issues and, of course, I maintain a blog.

Blogging by employees is much more prevalent than it used to be and, with the increased usage, we have seen a corresponding increase in legal issues.

Does an employer have the right to monitor what its employee do on the internet? IN particular, what rights and obligations do employers have with respect to blogs maintained by an employee?

The principal question here is whether, under the circumstances, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. What limits such an expectation? Factors of relevance are – who owns the systems (hardware etc)? Is there a policy on what is acceptable or otherwise? Has the employee been informed of the policy? What does the collective agreement say? Is the employer a private company or a public entity (Canada Post for example)?

Now, in contrast to email, blogging is by its very nature a public endeavour. The expectation of privacy is, therefore, much diminished. The employer, when faced with an employee who blogs about his or her workplace, can utilize principals such as the duty of good faith fidelity to name a few, if the postings are not flattering in nature.

There is also the issue of defamation.

So what happens when an employee blogs about his or her employer? There have been several cases in Canada on the subject including a Starbucks employee who was fired because he blogged about a manager who would not let him go home when he indicated he was sick. In that case Starbucks required employees sign an employment contract wherein the employee agreed not to make negative comments about the company.

Now, I am not doing justice to this topic. For example, what of employees who blog about their employers on their own time? What if the employer suffers no prejudice in such circumstances but a fellow employee is harmed? Topics for another day perhaps.

It seems to me that the reasonable rule of thumb is this – if the topic or posting is going to reflect poorly on the employer, the safest bet, if you want to keep your employment, is to hold your tongue (in the figurative sense). Thinking logically, is it going to be good for your career advancement, in that organization or any subsequent organization, if you are know as the person who complains about your employer to the whole world?

The old saying – “if you do not have anything good to say, do not say anything at all” seems to be the phrase of the day as far as this topic is concerned.

Report on environmental business practices - for capitalists (its true)

This post is not strictly about intellectual property law issues, but it is about technology and the environment and, being a closet environmentalist and economic capitalist, I thought this was interesting.

Novaknowledge just released a report on economic and environmental business practices and I think you will find some of the real world examples to be incredible.

For example, the report notes that the global environmental economy market is $846 billion.

With respect to specific examples, the report features input provided by innovative companies like Neenah Paper, Chanterelle Country Inn & Cottages, and Crossley Carpets who are adopting sustainable business practices and using it to their advantage.

Neenah Paper reduced its electricity usage by 93%, going from 27 megawatts to 2 megawatts per year, by burning its waste stream. Chanterelle Country Inn & Cottages uses its sustainable practices to build a competitive advantage and claims 25% higher revenues than other Cape Breton tourism operators. Crossley Carpets is saving $475,000 a year by re-capturing lost heat and enhancing its competitiveness by demonstrating resource stewardship.

According to Phyllis Collier, Project Manager for NovaKnowledge, “Most companies know it is the right thing to do, but 75% participants said they lack the resources to investigate the science, or lack the tools to generate the data required to make informed decisions.” (She is referring to the use, by businesses, of environmentally productive business practices).

Something to think about both for businesses which want to tap into the market and for business which seek to obtain a competitive edge in the marketplace.

My little legal plug – some of this technology can be protected, whether via patents, trade secrets, or otherwise. Don’t let good ideas get lost, stolen, or compromised!

Law in the Digital Age Conference

The Dalhousie Student Association of Law and Technology is pleased to present SALT Conference 2007: Law in the Digital Age. 

Encouraged by last year's success, this year's free day long conference will be held on Friday, March 9, 12 pm - 6 pm with a reception and door prizes to follow.

The conference will feature 3 moderated panels with professional and academic speakers from across Canada, including:

Session 1, 12 - 2 pm: Day to Day IT Law in a Business Setting

Moderator: Rod Burgar (Accelerator Inc, former president of IT.Can)
Duncan Card (Bennett Jones)
Don Johnston (Aird & Berlis, current president of IT.Can)
David Roach (Facult of Management, Director - Norman Newman Centre for Entrepreneurship)

Session 2, 4:30 - 6 pm: Protecting Creators' Rights

Moderator: Teresa Scassa (Dalhousie University, Faculty of Law)
Barrie Dunn (McInnes Cooper)
Sunny Handa (Blakes)
Jenna Wilson (Dimock Stratton)

Session 3, 4:30 - 6 pm: Security, Privacy & Liability

Moderator: Michael Deturbide (Dalhousie University, Faculty of Law)
David Fraser (McInnes Cooper)
Susheel Gupta (Department of Justice)

Copying - How much is too much?

In R v. Allen, the Alberta Provincial Court examined the availability of copyright protection for maps and the standard for willful blindness of copyright, in a criminal proceeding for infringement.

The plaintiff had created a map book for the city of Calgary that contained numerous details in addition to the normal geographic features of streets. His maps included the locations of buildings, sports facilities and other significant landmarks. The maps had specific pagination, a grid system, together with numerous other features and the Court concluded that the sum of the parts added up to an artistic and literary work capable of being protected by copyright.

This finding was critical because maps, being general known facts (the location of streets), are not typically capable of being copyrighted pursuant to intellectual property law protection. A reproduction of the road system is a fact and could not be protected by copyright.

Following unsuccessful negotiations concerning a joint venture, the defendant had copied the plaintiff’s map book subject with some minor modifications. The Court concluded that the modifications were of a purely cosmetic and mechanical nature.

The standard for criminal liability pursuant to the Copyright Act is that the defendant must know his or her acts constituted an infringing activity. In this case the Court concluded that the defendant must have known, from all of the surrounding facts, that the plaintiff’s maps were subject to copyright and, as a result, found him guilty.

I have read numerous cases in recent history where individuals attempt to circumvent copyright by taking another person’s work (whether it is a map, a chart, a book or otherwise) by making numerous minor and incidental changes, and then repackaging the material as original. The Courts must review the materials to determine whether they are quantitatively or qualitatively similar (in a substantial way) to the original copyrighted work. More often than not, the Courts conclude that there is copyright infringement.

Undoubtedly this sort of activity will continue into the future but it is important to reiterate that making minor modifications to a copyrighted work will not circumvent copyright and allow an individual to avoid liability. There are real criminal penalties which can flow from copyright infringement.