Friday, 25 May 2007

What’s Happened to Law Actually

When I created this blog earlier this year, my other blog, F1 Central, had been operational for nearly 2 and a half years. However, I’d not done much blogging in that time, quite honestly. I had been thinking about creating a law(ish) blog for a while and with my rediscovered interest in blogging, I thought the timing was perfect. However, Law Actually has suffered a rather tumultuous beginning. It’s seen just a fraction of the entries that F1 Central has and keeping it updated has been a chore rather than a pleasure. I had some fairly clear-cut ideas as to the format and what I wanted from it but it’s not really ended up that way, sadly.

So, the Michael is left with 4 options:

1. Abandon Law Actually all together and concentrate on F1 Central;
2. Continue with 2 blogs and accept that one must take precedence over the other;
3. Merge them both in together;
4. Abandon F1 Central OVER Law Actually (OMG, surely not?!?)

Troublesomely, I’ve absolutely no idea which option I will be going for at this stage. I suppose it’s just a question of ‘wait and see’. While I ponder this dilemma I should probably continue as is, but will endeavor to reestablish the (mildly) comedic roots of law actually and not let it continue spiraling into a rather washed-out portal for me to publish semi-sensible articles on ‘pressing legal issues’.

Wednesday, 23 May 2007

Website....???? Web-what, sorry?!?

This one has been doing the rounds a lot this past week. And in typical style (where I’ve last seen it mentioned), it’s been grossly misreported.

So what’s it all about? Basically, a judge said the following: “The trouble is I don’t understand the language. I don’t really understand what a website is.” Naturally, many people have been very keen to jump on the bandwagon and point to this as being another example of a crusty, old out-of-touch judge needing some very simple, ordinarily-obvious thing explaining as though he was 5 years old or had just beamed down from an alien spaceship.

Actually, as it turns out, the judge is very computer-literate and has taken in-court notes on a laptop for several years. By asking for clarification, he claims, he was merely seeking clarity for the benefit of all following the case as to precisely what a website is. In other words, Mr Justice Openshaw claims that his question served the interest of justice.

Worryingly, though, when computer expert Peter Sams referred to a ‘mouse’ several times, the judge suggested that a pest control firm should be called and the trial be transferred to a different court. Okay – just kidding!!

Sunday, 20 May 2007

Major flaw in Google Adwords could hit company hard

“A federal judge set Nov. 9 as the jury selection date for a trademark infringement lawsuit filed against Google Inc. by American Blind & Wallpaper Factory Inc. The company alleges Google is harming it financially by selling phrases American Blind has trademarked -- like American Blind, and American Blind and Wallpaper Factory -- to competing companies through the AdWords online advertising platform, said David Rammelt, who is a partner at the law firm representing American Blind.

As a result, competitors' ads often appear as the top advertisements on Google's search engine when consumers are searching for American Blind, he said.

The search site operator's AdWords advertising program lets businesses make ads with keywords that appear alongside related search results.” “If ABWF were to be successful and prevent Google making trademark words available to any advertiser, Adwords could become much less attractive to advertisers, and choke off much of Google's revenue stream. According to Google's filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Adwords advertising program accounts for more than 98 percent of its $US11 billion annual revenue.”

Holy Moly!