Columns

Patent Trolling by Ton Zijlstra (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/djcCbF

How Corporate Canada Rejected the Canadian Government’s Plan to Combat Patent Trolls

The Internet Association, a U.S.-based industry association that counts most of the biggest names in the Internet economy as its members (including Google, Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, and Yahoo), recently released a policy paper on how Canada could become more competitive in the digital economy. The report’s recommendations on tax reform generated some attention, but buried within the 27-page report was a call for patent reform.

The Internet giants warned against patent trolling, which refers to instances when companies that had no involvement in the creation or invention of a patent demand licences or other payments from legitimate companies by relying on dubious patents. Studies indicate that patent trolling has a negative impact on economic growth and innovation and is a particularly big problem in the U.S., which tends to be more litigious than Canada.

Given those concerns, the Internet Association urged the Canadian government to enact reforms to “limit the ability of non-practicing entities [a euphemism for patent trolls] of exploiting patents to make unreasonable demands of productive companies and prevent crippling damage awards.”

While the Canadian government has yet to respond publicly to the recommendations, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) reports that according to documents recently obtained under the Access to Information Act, earlier this year Industry Minister James Moore launched a series of private consultations with Canadian business on intellectual property issues. The government came prepared to engage directly on the patent trolling issue, going so far as to identify several potential policy measures. Yet it was Canadian business that discouraged Moore from taking action, warning against the “unintended consequences” of patent reforms.

October 20, 2014 — 4 comments — Columns

CBC News advertising board, CBC Broadcast Centre, Toronto, Southern Ontario, Canada by Pranav Bhatt (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/9HBz23

Broadcaster Copyright Misuse and Collusion?: Why Criticism Over the Government’s Political Ad Copyright Exception May Be Pointed in the Wrong Direction

The Canadian Thanksgiving weekend featured escalating rhetoric over the government’s proposed copyright exception for political advertising with claims of fascism, censorship, expropriation, and more. The commentary bears almost no relationship to reality. The truth is that the government and the broadcasters both agree that the current law already permits use without authorization. For all the claims of “theft”, the copyright owner (broadcasters) and user (political parties) both agree that the works can be used without further permission or payment. As Ariel Katz points out this morning, the bigger issue may well be whether Canada’s broadcasters violated the Competition Act by conspiring to not air perfectly lawful political advertisements.

I wrote about the controversy in my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version), but the debate can be boiled down to three issues.

October 14, 2014 — 22 comments — Columns

Trust by Terry Johnston (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/Hf1p8

The Canadian Wireless Market and the Big 3: It’s Always Been a Matter of Trust

Fresh off the contentious hearing on the future of television regulation, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission jumped back into the fire last week with a hearing on the wireless market that focused on whether changes are needed to the wholesale market to improve competition.

The Big 3 – Bell, Telus, and Rogers – unsurprisingly opposed new measures, arguing that the Commission should reject the Competition Bureau’s independent finding that there are competition concerns along with the smaller players and consumer groups that support new regulations. Instead, they argue that Canadians can trust that the market is already competitive and that reforms would reduce investment and harm the quality of the networks.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that if that message evokes a sense of déjà vu, perhaps that is because it is seemingly always a matter of trust when it comes to Canadian wireless services.

October 6, 2014 — 11 comments — Columns

0 - Netflix image by thinkaholic_me (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ewj8CZ

CRTC vs. Netflix: Has Canada’s Broadcast Regulator Started a Fight It Can’t Win?

Canadian regulatory hearings are usually relatively predictable affairs with scripted presentations and well-rehearsed speaking lines to most questions. During the recent two-week Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing on the future of television regulation (dubbed “TalkTV” by the CRTC), Chair Jean-Pierre Blais expressed frustration on several occasions with the unwillingness of witnesses to veer much beyond their prepared notes.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that changed on the final day of the hearing, though it was Blais that seemingly departed from the script. Netflix, the online video giant that popped up in virtually every discussion, was one of the last witnesses on the schedule. The company had submitted comments to the CRTC consultation over the summer, but had not asked for an opportunity to appear before the Commission.

After the CRTC requested that it come to Gatineau to answer questions, the company came prepared to discuss the development of its business, but chafed at the prospect of disclosing confidential information such as subscriber numbers and spending on Canadian content. Blais took great umbrage at its reluctance to disclose the information, ultimately ordering the company to comply with the information request and implying that failure to do so could result in new regulation.

September 29, 2014 — 10 comments — Columns

The Netflix Screen by Mike K (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/73HcFe

The CRTC’s Future of Television Hearing Turns Into The Netflix Show

Five years ago, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission held two major hearings on new media and the Internet. The 2009 hearings, which featured contributions from the major telecom and broadcast companies in Canada, paved the way for Canadian net neutrality rules and the renewal of a regulatory exemption for new media broadcasters such as online video services.

Despite weeks of hearings, Netflix was only mentioned twice: once when it was referenced in a quote from a U.S. publication on the emergence of Internet video and a second time when a Canadian company referred to its mail-based DVD rental service.

Netflix may not have been top-of-mind in 2009, but my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that today it is seemingly the only thing the industry wants to talk about. New consumer choice of television channels was billed as the centerpiece of the CRTC’s future of television hearing, but witness after witness has turned it into The Netflix Show. Starting with the Ontario government, broadcasters, broadcast distributors, producers, and other creators have lined up to warn ominously about the impact of Netflix on the future of the Canadian television system.

September 15, 2014 — 10 comments — Columns