publication and news
My 2010 talk on Internet Censorship and Content Filtering at the University of Wollongong attracted lots of comment. Becky Walker's Vimeo captures me in full flight or watch this slightly shorter extract:
argy from becky walker on Vimeo.
Read about the new Web Dispute Resolution Policy the planning committee for which I have the honour of chairing.
I'm chuffed to have been selected by the Australian Council of Professions as 2009 Professional of the Year. In my view the world is reaching the point where ethics, professionalism and trustworthiness will become more overtly valued.
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has released its annual report on the operation of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). There has been an increase in the number of complaints and WIPO also notes that the proposal to increase the number of generic top level domains on issue has the potential to cause serious problems for trademark owners. WIPO also has updated its very useful case studies on technology and intellectual property disputes, which very much reflect the type of case conducted by ArgyStar.com.
The Technology Dispute Centre was officially launched by Justice Roger Gyles in 2008 with a special video appearance by our Patron, Sir Laurence Street. The TDC was the first science, technology and intellectual property subject matter-specific dispute centre in the world outside the famous WIPO Mediation and Arbitration Center in Geneva, Switzerland. Our focus is on having ADR practitioners with scientific and technological skills and aptitude that can add value not only by generating options that the parties may not have considered for resolving their disputes but, more importantly, by providing guidance at the earliest stage of a project to minimise the chances of a dispute arising. If you are interested in becoming a Foundation Fellow of the TDC please email Gail Fulton for a copy of the Information Memorandum.
One of the many innovations offered by ArgyStar.com is a service for resolving multi-jurisdictional patent disputes. This involves the parties agreeing to a single global arbitration to deal with both validity and infringement. The benefit to the parties is obviously a saving in time and cost compared to running multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions. The benefit to the patentee is that its patent can’t be rendered invalid by an arbitration – the arbitrator can only decline to enforce it if the arbitrator determines there are grounds on which a court could revoke it. That outcome would leave the originator free to pursue other alleged infringers but leave the defendant to the arbitration with a free licence. If the defendant is found to infringe then obviously the arbitrator can also make the normal orders to deal with infringement. Because the arbitration is essentially held in camera there is no exposure of expert witnesses and they can’t be played off against other witnesses around the world. The parties can agree on procedures such as discovery, affidavits and depositions, etc and make it as complex or as streamlined as they wish. They can of course also agree on the seat of arbitration be it Sydney, London, New York, Hong Kong, Singapore or Geneva.
Mediation is always available as well but we believe that patentees prefer binding orders if they think they can win an infringement action, and there’s some advantage to a prospective defendant otherwise considering pre-emptive revocation proceedings to instead persuade the patentee to run a global arbitration.
By the way, I recommend James Melamed's excellent article, The Mediation Industry: Our Time Has Come.