http://www.legality.biz/index.htmlLatest IT & ecommerce legal newsenmark@legality.bizCopyright (c) 2007 - 2008 Legality Limited2008-02-11T09:27:31+00:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:33:20 +0000mark@legality.bizCommercial2008-02-11T09:27:31+00:00http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/93f31e2c58b9d67d29c7501b427df4f6-11.html#unique-entry-id-11http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/93f31e2c58b9d67d29c7501b427df4f6-11.html#unique-entry-id-11
In euNetworks Fiber UK Ltd v Abovenet Communications UK Ltd (21 December 2007), the High Court heard that during the negotiations for the sale of duct and the lease of fibre-optic cable, the parties had used terminology which had no standard industry definition. This led to a dispute between them as to the extent of the duct purchased and the fibre-optic cable leased.

The plaintiff claimed that the purchase and lease was only over part of its London network. It defined this as the “backbone” and not the “mesh”. However, the defendant argued that the lease covered substantially the whole of the plaintiff’s London network with the exception of the “laterals” (the fibred ducts connecting the network to individual properties). It was the use of the words “network”, “backbone”, “mesh” and “laterals” which had led to the confusion. There was also a dispute over the correct maps which should have been physically annexed to the Agreement.

One of the parties admitted that just before executing the contract, it had realised that there were these ambiguities in the agreement. It had not brought these to the other’s attention for fear of jeopardising the deal.

The High Court ruled that the sale of the duct and the lease of the fibre-optic cable extended over substantially the whole of the plaintiff’s London network. It ruled that where there is a defined word or phrase in an agreement, its meaning could not be interpreted by reference to a “private dictionary”.

It is clear from this case that when entering into a contract where the subject matter is highly innovative, the parties must identify and define any terminology and expressions which have no standard industry meaning. This will prevent any confusion between the parties and therefore avoid a costly dispute.
]]>mark@legality.bizPress Releases2007-08-02T16:39:12+01:00http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/96b866ad65657ea01ef6c8d8dab45c4b-10.html#unique-entry-id-10http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/96b866ad65657ea01ef6c8d8dab45c4b-10.html#unique-entry-id-10
Mancunia (http://slurl.com/secondlife/Mancunia/128/128/0), which launched earlier this week, replicates the Deansgate area of Manchester centred around the mile-long road running through the city centre. The BJL office in Mancunia provides a creative thinking space where individuals can share their innovative ideas.

Drawing on its expertise of dealing with the legal issues posed by Second Life and other virtual worlds, and the use of Web2.0 generally, Legality advised BJL how to protect their investment in Mancunia, and how to safeguard the intellectual property rights of BJL’s clients wishing to advertise and establish a presence in Second Life.

Mark Roberts, managing director of Legality, comments: "Second Life is rapidly becoming a powerful online tool for a range of business and marketing activity . With over five million users, it is widely touted as the internet's next big thing. With Gartner Research predicting that, by 2011, four of every five internet users will actively participate in Second Life or a similar medium, it is hardly surprising that many businesses are looking to establish a presence that replicates their offline operations.”

He adds: “However, real-world participants in virtual worlds want to know how to protect their business from a range of legal pitfalls – from copyright infringement to liability for statements made by employees online. Legality provides informed and comprehensive advice in all these areas.”

As a niche practice specialising in technology law, Legality can advise companies on the legal steps required to establish a presence in virtual worlds. This includes advising on agreements with software developers and other professionals, e-commerce matters, intellectual property rights, brand protection and licensing, privacy, data protection and related employment issues.

Mr Roberts adds: “At present, very few law firms have true experience in Second Life and similar media. Clients may find it difficult to source a suitable lawyer, and could end up paying for their chosen solicitor to climb a steep learning curve – before the real work even gets started. Legality has the existing knowledge and expertise. We speak our clients' language and operate at the cutting edge of digital technology.”

Legality provides a free one hour consultation to all new clients.
]]>mark@legality.bizMedia2007-05-04T07:49:57+01:00http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/cf2d247f9284882d324490ad78750aa5-9.html#unique-entry-id-9http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/cf2d247f9284882d324490ad78750aa5-9.html#unique-entry-id-9The ICSTIS Code of Practice for premium rate call services has been amended by the issue of a revised ICSTIS Statement of Expectations. The Statement sets out ICSTIS' interpretation of the Code of Practice. The revised Statement introduces three new rules. Compliance with the new rules is mandatory.

In summary, the Statement of Expectations provides that:

Viewers must be able to assess their chances of getting through to air.
This is to be achieved by requiring Call TV Quiz services to show the total number of callers in the preceding 15 minute period. This infomration must be updated at least every 10 minutes.

Viewers must be provided with clear pricing information.
The price of calls must be read out by a presenter or voice-over at least every 10 minutes. Existing rules required only that call costs were provided on-screen, and as part of the introductory message on the phone lines themselves.

Viewers must be warned as to the cost of calls made.
Viewers must be warned every time they spend £10 in a day. The warning must make clear the number of calls, the cost of each chargeable call and that this may vary across different networks.

Legality Comments
The new rules will go some way to restoring trust and confidence in premium rate Quiz TV shows. This follows concerns expressed by MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in its report of 25 January 2007.
]]>mark@legality.bizCommercial2007-03-27T14:03:03+01:00http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/cfa7df0ecf7e239136082a58b6eb474e-8.html#unique-entry-id-8http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/cfa7df0ecf7e239136082a58b6eb474e-8.html#unique-entry-id-8The Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the circumstances in which a claimant can successfully claim damages for wasted staff time.

Whilst generally applicable to all commercial disputes, the issue of wasted staff time is particularly relevant to IT contracts, where problem contracts readily swallow up significant amounts of management time. This is exacerbated by the fact that IT project staff are often an expensive resource, and that their time is typically shared across several projects.

In Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities [2007] EWCA, the Court of Appeal concluded that:

(a) The fact and extent of any diversion of staff time have to be properly established;

(b) The claimant will have to prove that the diversion of staff time caused significant disruption to the business; and

(c) The claim should be described in terms of 'loss of revenue' that is attributable to the diverted time of the staff concerned. However, unless the defendant can provide evidence to the contrary, it would be reasonable for the Court to infer that had staff not been diverted, they would have generated revenues in other parts of the business. The Court suggested that the amount recoverable could be at least equal to the costs of employing the staff concerned.

The decision of the Court of Appeal will be welcomed by those seeking to recover wasted staff time. However, as many limitation of liability clauses explicitly seek to exclude "loss of revenues", claimants should be prepared to fully document and prove any claim for wasted staff time.
]]>mark@legality.bizIntellectual Property2007-03-09T13:54:16+00:00http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/1bb7d90ac72ff90080a701244abf24aa-6.html#unique-entry-id-6http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/1bb7d90ac72ff90080a701244abf24aa-6.html#unique-entry-id-6With effect from Monday, 2nd April 2007, the Patent Office will change it's name to the UK Intellectual Property Office.

The change of name has been effected following a recommendation in the Gower Review of Intellectual Property, and better reflects the diversity of work undertaken at the Patent Office.]]>mark@legality.bizSpam2007-03-07T10:51:57+00:00http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/e9a8f1a14ccc0f64a348feedac7e128c-5.html#unique-entry-id-5http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/e9a8f1a14ccc0f64a348feedac7e128c-5.html#unique-entry-id-5A Scotsman has won a landmark case against a UK sender of spam and successfully recovered damages and costs of over £1,300.

Gordon Dick successfully enforced the provisions of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, which prohibits the sending of unsolicited direct marketing to individuals (including sole traders and unincorporated partnerships) unless the individual concerned has chosen to 'opt-in' to receive such materials.

The defendant, Transcom Internet Services based in Henley-on-Thames, had admitted to sending an email advertising spam filtered email lists to an estimated 72,000 recipients. Mr Dick was awarded £750 plus interest and expenses of £617.

It was anticipated that the Regulations would be of little effect to UK individuals receiving spam - as most spam originates from outside the UK. However, Mr Dick has demonstrated that the Courts are willing and able to enforce the Regulations against UK based offenders.

Mr Dick has set up a new web-site to help others make legal claims against spammers.]]>mark@legality.bizFreedom of Information2007-03-02T13:15:41+00:00http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/0730372bbc3027306c364a3a716191d5-4.html#unique-entry-id-4http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/0730372bbc3027306c364a3a716191d5-4.html#unique-entry-id-4The Information Commissioner has published best practice guidelines for the amount of time a public body should take to formally repsond to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The Information Commissioner recommends that a public body should aim to respond within 20 days, extended to up to 40 days for exceptional circumstances (such as particularly complex requests encompassing particularly sensitive issues).

The same time-scales are also recommended for undertaking an internal review following a complaint about a public authority's response to a request for information.

Guidelines for time limits on carrying out internal reviews.

Guidelines for time limits on responding to an information request.]]>mark@legality.bizDomain Names2007-03-02T12:19:04+00:00http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/a8f79ab8a391b928491b4dc6759caa3b-3.html#unique-entry-id-3http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/a8f79ab8a391b928491b4dc6759caa3b-3.html#unique-entry-id-3The F.A. Premier League Limited has failed in its complaint against Premier League Tickets Limited. The F.A. Premier League Limited had sought to have the domain name premierleaguetickets.co.uk transferred to it, alleging that the use of the domain by Premier League Tickets Limited was abusive.

However, the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service found that although F.A. Premier League Limited did have certain rights in respect of a name or mark that was similar to the domain name, the domain name was not being utilised abusively by Premier League Tickets Limited. This was because Premier League Tickets Limited had been commonly known by the name identical to the domain name and there was no evidence that their use of the domain name had been abusive.

The full transcript of the Nominet decision is available here.]]>mark@legality.bizCommercial2007-03-02T11:14:43+00:00http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/ada4652f3015cf422db79dcd8e066cba-2.html#unique-entry-id-2http://www.legality.biz/blog_files/ada4652f3015cf422db79dcd8e066cba-2.html#unique-entry-id-2With effect from 1st January 2007, all the information that must appear on a company's letterheads must now appear on the company's web-site and emails.

The change was effected by The Companies (Registrar, Languages and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2006. The Regulations require all companies to provide the following information on their web-site:

- The full company name

- The place of registration (e.g. England & Wales)

- The registered company number

- The registered company address.

The same information must also appear on all company e-mails.]]>