Meet The Environment Movement's Newest Spokesperson

Ecowarrior or just a naughty man?

Osama bin Laden is blaming the West for global warming. An audio tape of him has been released, and on the tape he attacks George Bush's failure to sign up to Kyoto, and attacks the big government bailouts of banks.

He also quotes Chomsky.

When the Enemy of Civilisation begins to almost sound sane you know it's time to up your meds.

bin Laden seems to believe the US and other western countries are responsible for global warming. Clearly the Arabs are blameless - because, after all, they can't control what we do with all that oil they send us.

It's too early to tell what effect bin Laden's message will have - other than to give Fox News and other climate change deniers another stick to beat the environmental movement with.

Thanks Osama. I used to think you were just a loony in a cave. Now you're starting to really piss me off.

Having A National Identity Crisis? I Have The Answers

The Sunday Star Times reports that a new book out by academic Malcolm Mulholland is controversial, because it advocates that we find a new flag, a new national anthem and a new name for our country.

I don't find any of those things particularly controversial. Take our anthem. It sucks. I've said so before. I even suggested an alternative. And in these secular times the reference to God is hardly appropriate. If we're going to be saved by someone or something, how about Barack Obama? Or maybe Dan Carter's boot?

And our flag has a symbol in the top left corner that means nothing to a large number of us. The stars on the flag are nice, but I'm open-minded about what we ought to replace our current flag with. I don't care enough about flags to actually propose something positive - although the current one feels wrong.

Then there's the name. Maybe we could go for something more modern.  What about George? East Australia? The Shire?

Or what about Zealand 2.0? It's edgy and modern, but still honours the past.

I look forward to being labelled "controversial" by the Sunday Star Times.

Populist Key Moves To Save Cute Fluffy Animals

The PM has decided to fast-track tougher penalties for crimes against animals.

The need for action to protect animals has not suddenly become urgent. But the ever-populist Key seeks an opportunity to be shown to be "doing something". A few high-profile abuse cases give him that opportunity.

It's doubtful that toughening penalties will make any difference to the rates of animal abuse. But changes like these are easy to introduce, and give voters the impression the Government is doing something.

This is textbook Key - reactive rather than proactive. Instead of setting an agenda he follows the public mood. That will ensure he remains popular for a while longer, but he needs to be careful.  Many who voted for change are probably wondering why there has been so little of it. They may soon tire of an administration that does not seem to have the ability to change up a gear.

Friday Questions

Why is the Facebook "defriending"of Greens leader Metiria Turei by Trevor Mallard news?

Who cares?

Why is it that politicians are able to sling all sorts of mud at each other in the debating chamber and in the media, but "defriending" each other is just a step too far?

******

Seriously, Herald, didn't you do something similar to this when Clayton Weatherston was sentenced?

******

I hate ACDC and don't care they're on tour. Oops, that really wasn't a question, was it?

******

Does this mean we've agreed to call the War on Terror a draw? I say, Osama, be a good chap and stop blowing us up.

******

May we hope that the Chilcot Inquiry finally destroys what remains of the vile Tony Blair's tattered reputation? Although I suspect he will go into the inquiry wearing flame retardant trousers.

******

Is this the next cause celebre for nerds around the world? On to the Supreme Court?

Update On The Roeder Trial - Updated!

I reported a couple of weeks ago of an alarming development in the trial of Scott Roeder, who is on trial for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller. The judge had initially refused to rule out allowing the jury to consider a voluntary manslaughter charge, which Kansas law defines as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force".

The trial judge has now changed his mind and decided the jury may not convict on the lesser charge.

Roeder has admitted the killing, but claims it was justified because it saved lives. The initial decision to allow consideration of a lesser charge alarmed many at the time, who feared it might encourage others to shoot abortion doctors.

You would have to think a guilty of murder verdict is now a formality.

Update: The jury took just 37 minutes to find Roeder guilty of first-degree murder.

The AP report in the Herald indicates Roeder's legal team had expected the verdict:

Defence attorney Mark Rudy described his case as helpless and hopeless.

"I've never seen anyone lay himself out as much as Mr. Roeder did," Rudy said after the verdict, referring to his client's confessions.

 It appears Roeder now gets life, with a minimum of 25 years behind bars.

Invictus - The Review

You probably know by now that Clint Eastwood has made a film about the 1995 Rugby World Cup.

And, naturally, we all know who wins.

But, having seen the film, I can tell you there is a lot more to it than a simple rugby game.

The film, Invictus, tells the story of one great man’s determination to unite a broken country behind a sporting event. Nelson Mandela, played by Chris Rock in the most powerful performance of his career, forges a bond with Springboks captain Francois Pienaar, and together they devise a plan to win the Rugby World Cup. Sean Connery is simply stunning as Pienaar, and his performance dominates every scene he appears in.

But it’s not just the great acting that makes this film irresistible. The storyline is red-hot, and some of the visual effects are stunning. The twenty-minute long car chase through the streets of Johannesburg sets a new standard in edge-of-your-seat exhilaration.

Invictus is also a powerful morality tale. The All Blacks are displayed as the menacing monsters we all know them to be, but Eastwood’s casting is inspirational. Their leader, a ruthless Irishman and former IRA assassin by the name of Fitzpatrick (Daniel Craig), leads a group of hardened criminals into South Africa, determined to foil the plans of Mandela and Pienaar. Much of the film is about the battle between Pienaar and Fitzpatrick, and some of the fight scenes between them are spectacular. In the many masterfully shot martial arts scenes Eastwood is clearly paying homage to the Hong Kong film directors who influenced his work in films such as Unforgiven and The Bridges of Madison County.

We all know the Springboks win and unite the country, but Eastwood’s film shows how close Fitzpatrick and his thugs really came to destroying the party. The murderous Jonah Lomu is played by Dolph Lundgren, who puts on an awesome display of bloodthirsty brutality in perhaps his most villainous role yet. Lomu is Fitzpatrick’s enforcer, and the mad Irishman sends him out to track down and kill members of Pienaar’s team. Meanwhile, Harvey Keitel plays the hard-bitten cop with a heart of gold who has to clean up the mess.

But this is not just an action film, because there are some beautiful comic touches too. All Black Andrew Mehrtens is hilariously played by wisecracking Danny DeVito, while Mandela’s stand-up routine just before the tournament’s opening whistle has been described by some as the funniest thing ever put on celluloid.

Those who remember the 1995 game will be delighted to see an almost-perfect re-enactment of the masterful winning try scored by Mandela. In the film, as in the real final, the bond between Pienaar and Mandela is sealed with the President subbed on to the field with minutes to go, and with the fallen and mortally wounded Pienaar making an inspirational speech to his team about unity, the power of love, and never submitting to evil, before expiring in his dear friend’s arms.

And, while we all know the bad guys get what they deserve in the final, the film version of that come-uppance is even bloodier and more spectacular than what really happened. I won’t spoil it for you, but the final battle scene is possibly even more stunning than Avatar’s.

If you only see one film this year then see this one. It will inspire you in a way no other film since Police Academy IV has.

Some Interesting US Trade Mark Cases

There's plenty of good serious stuff going on in the IP world, and then there are the odd cases. Here are a couple from the US. They're not particularly important from a legal precedent point of view, but the background to them is interesting.

Dick Estate Sues Google

The estate of sci-fi writer Philip K Dick is suing Google because Google's new mobile phone called Nexus One allegedly infringes its trade marks. Apparently in the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (The film Blade Runner was based on the book) a private detective is tracking down a rogue android, a Nexus 6 model. Apparently the Nexus One phone uses Google's Android operating system, so this might suggest a link to the original book.

It appears the Dick estate never registered the name "Nexus" as a mark, so they will be relying on a claim that Google are trading on the goodwill and reputation of the estate. In New Zealand the equivalent would be a passing off action, though you'd probably also throw in a claim for deceptive and misleading conduct under the Fair Trading Act as well, just to be sure.

Perhaps the Dick estate is hoping Google will throw some money at them to go away. It may work But the suit sounds desperately optimistic.

Gay Marriage Fight Becomes Trade Mark Fight

Elsewhere in the US the debate over Proposition 8 has hit the IP courts. The equal rights group Courage Campaign set up a site to monitor a court challenge to Proposition 8, and it adopted on its site a logo that was a parody of one used by anti-gay-marriage group ProtectMarriage.com.

The ProtectMarriage.com logo

The Courage Campaign logo

ProtectMarriage.com sued, but its motion was chucked out last week. The Courage Campaign argued that the logo was an obvious parody, and the judge agreed. As one attorney has explained:

According to 15 United States Code § 1125, one may parody, criticize, or comment upon the famous mark of an owner. The judge ruled that the public is not likely to be misled by Courage Campaign’s parody of the mark, and their version is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which protects freedom of speech).

We Don't Know How Lucky We Are

Here is some depressing news from the US.

Fox News is now the most trusted news channel in the US. According to a poll recently conducted about half of the US public trust them.  Be afraid.

But if this frightens you. it gets worse. It appears Obama currently has the power to order the assassination of US citizens anywhere in the world, and without any judicial oversight, if they are suspected of being involved in terrorism. Suspected by whom, you ask? The Government. The President. Pretty frightening, especially if you consider that a number of "terrorists" detained at Guantanamo have now been released for lack of evidence.

To be fair, Bush II also claimed this assassination right, but Obama has done nothing to reign in these extraordinary powers.

Sometimes we forget how good we have it in this small tinpot nation we call home.

If Only Ten People Vote She May Have A Shot

My favourite tin-foil hat wearer has been quiet lately, but Orly Taitz has a new adventure planned.

Taitz has announced on her blogsite (which I won’t link to, because I’m told it’s infected by malware, but what she said on her blog can safely be read here) that she plans to run for Secretary of State or Attorney General in California. Why? Because she believes that will give her standing to sue Barack Obama.

I don’t know whether holding such office would give Taitz such standing, but her various court battles have revealed her interpretations of the law to be imaginative, even if they’re seldom correct.

And I don’t know Californian politics, but if Taitz can only get about a dozen people to a rally against Bill O’Reilly, I’d say her chances of getting elected to any kind of political office were slim.

And could you imagine someone with such a delicate grasp of reality, and an even more delicate grasp of the law, being Attorney General of anywhere?

John's diary - 28/1/10

Dear Diary

Wow, what a busy couple of days! I just had to write!

Had to take one of Anne’s jobs off her the other day. I told her she should focus on getting national standards for literacy and numeracy sorted out. I told the media this wasn’t a demotion. Hopefully they didn’t see the crossed fingers behind my back.

In my job I get to meet a lot of people with poor literacy and numeracy skills. Some of them aren’t even in Cabinet. LOL!

Paula says more people are out of work. I don’t get this. I thought the national cycleway was supposed to bring jobs to all. What happened? Maybe we just need to promote this idea more. I made some suggestions about this to Paula, but she doesn’t like my slogan “National’s employment policy – get on your bike!”

Hey, what a big power cut that was in Auckland on Monday! There were lots of pictures on TV of this angry guy waving his arms around and losing his rag at Transpower. He looked kind of dangerous. Although those who know John Banks say he’s mostly harmless.

Murray’s sounding quite pleased at the moment. He says his men are closing in on the Shire.

Labour reappointed Phil Goff as leader. Then they had a barbecue at his pad. No way would I hold a BBQ for my colleagues. Some radio guy gatecrashed the last one I went to. Although I could station Tau next to the fence. Good luck to anyone who tries to get past him. LOL!

Talking of mad dogs, those pit bulls don’t look very nice. Apparently a bite from one is like being attacked by Trevor Mallard. Rodney had been saying he doesn’t like the dog control laws, because they interfere with dog owners’ rights. Funny how he’s harder on violent people than violent dogs. I didn’t pick him for an animal lover. Mind you, he’s always saying these violent offenders are animals. Maybe that’s his way of showing he cares for them.

Now Rodney says we may need to look at the dog control laws again. I like how Rodney can trade away his principles when they become politically inconvenient.

Sometimes you just can’t win. I announce a massive increase in the minimum wage yesterday and the bastards still complain. Oh wait, the press release says 25 cents, not 25%. LOL!

Simon’s just announced he wants a new law to criminalise cartels. He says he wants to put a stop to things like price fixing and bid rigging. I’d better check he’s included an exception for Rugby World Cup TV rights. LOL!

Better get going. Doing nothing is time consuming!

Pretending To Care

DPF, blogosphere spokes-weasel in chief for the Nats, has posted a particularly disingenuous piece (even by his standards) about the laughable minimum wage rise announced today by his party.

The problem he has is that no matter which way he tries to argue it, the 25 cents an hour rise is way less than average annual minimum wage rises under Labour.

Then come the excuses. Note his claim that Labour inherited a booming economy, while National inherited a recession. Hmmm, that's not how I remember the late '90s.

And I found this especially amusing:

The one period where it did increase much faster was 2005 – 2008, but that was not because of Labour – that was forced on them by NZ First and the Greens.

So, while there were significant increases in 2005-2008 under a Labour government, it wasn't anything to do with Labour. If must be hard being a party lackey and having to write this stuff. I wonder if he believes a word of it.

He also attacks Labour for its policy of seeking a rise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour, despite this being different to its election promises on the minimum wage issue. Talking of election promises, DPF, how are our tax cuts coming along?

What he won't admit is that nobody in National likes having a minimum wage policy. Nor do they like labour laws, unions, the four-week holiday, or any other entitlement workers enjoy. But these facts, while blatantly obvious to many, would frighten too many people if they were truly understood. Better to give the workers a few peanuts and pretend to care.

Finally he says this about Labour:

Do you really want them running the country again?

I bet if he tonight polled those in the minimum wage, he would not get the answer he wants.

Meet The New Spokesperson For The Sensible Sentencing Trust

Is there anything a politician won't do to gain support for a policy?

Take Judith Collins' shameless piece in the Herald today on the three-strikes law.

Her piece starts by relating the story of a horrible crime. We are being told that anyone who commits such crimes is a monster and must be put away forever.

As horrible as the crime committed by Nicholas Hawker clearly was, it isn't easy to see just what that has to do with the three-strikes law Collins is writing in support of. Nowhere does the article suggest that Hawker would have gone away for life (I mean actual life) if he had committed this offence under the proposed new laws. Would he have been on a strike already? If so why didn't Collins mention the fact?

This blatant piece of emotional manipulation also ignores the fact that judges now have the ability to impose minimum sentences, and that parole laws have been toughened considerably since the 1997 murder (a murder committed under a National government. Soft on crime, were they?)

So why raise the case, other than to smear opponents of the silly new law?

Collins says:

Time and again, victims of crime have told me they feel let down by a system that seems to put greater emphasis on the rights of offenders than victims.

Well, yes, of course they feel that way. Can you imagine many victims of a serious violent crime being satisfied with anything other than the ritual disembowelment of the offender? If someone did away with one of my children I'd want to see the person chopped into small pieces. And yet I don't support the death penalty. If our aim is solely to satisfy victims of crime then let's do away with sentencing by judges and conduct a poll of the victims: "Who wants to hang him? Any bids for a flogging? Stoning? What about life in a windowless cage?"

Could it be (and I know this will sound dreadfully unpopular) that we talk too much about the rights of victims already? How can we be impartial in our exercise of justice if we let emotion dominate proceedings?

But there's more:

People expect safe communities, where they can walk the streets without the threat of violence or intimidation, where they can sleep at night knowing their families are safe in their homes, where there is respect for property, people and the law.

Maybe we ought to then look at why people commit crime. Surely "because they're just bad people" doesn't really explain it. But that might raise a number of uncomfortable questions about the influence of poverty and economic disadvantage.

In this country we have many people who have made a thriving industry out of making excuses for criminals.

Those damned human rights people! Lefties, all of 'em!

In the past decade these people have overwhelmed the debate on law and order with their views on the rights of offenders.

Actually, who are "these people"? Because the only people who appear to be dominating the debate at the current time are the lock-em-up types beloved of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Note the reference to "the past decade" - ooh, it must be Labour she's referring to.

By making excuses for criminals, these people send a very strong signal that crime is acceptable in our communities, that it is an accepted fact of life.

I'm not sure that comment has any basis in reality. Would the Minister care to provide an example?

Recently, a senior judge told me that he believed there was "far too much emphasis on victims in our courts at the moment".

Blame the judges too. Bunch of pansy liberals, all of them.

It's this acceptance that every crime is solely a crime against the state rather than the individual that I believe is at the heart of the situation we now find ourselves in.

You wonder if she was shaking her head while she wrote this, marvelling at her own audacity. Does Collins really believe judges have no respect for victims? Of course they have respect - they are human, and they have to sit through these trials, listening to every ghastly detail. But judges are also responsible for upholding the rule of law. They must balance the rights of the victim with the rights of the offender (yes, even "bad people" have rights in our pansy liberal nanny-state) and the interests of justice as a whole. Judges must also follow precedent.

Justice and punishment must be impersonal, but that does not mean it should be blind to the human impact of crime and the human need for redress.

Straw man set up and ready to go down!

For every crime there are victims like Leigh and her family, and for justice to be truly done it must strive to bring peace and closure to those victims.

Bringing peace and closure are not the sole aims of the criminal justice system. Besides, many victims will never have closure - the trauma is just impossible to overcome. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I don't believe prison should be enjoyable. Prison should be an unpleasant experience so offenders do not want to return.

Next straw man ready to go down! I'd be surprised if many offenders think prison is a holiday camp. The fact of the matter is that many of these folk are messed up and lack the ability to control their behaviour. They don't think rationally. Most of them don't stop to think "if I waste that guy and get caught I'm going inside". Most violent offending is impulsive.

The justice system's sole focus should not be on punishment. It is very important to give people the opportunity to turn their lives around.

But pressure from those who advocate for the rights of criminals has resulted in too much focus on rehabilitating the prisoners who are least likely to be rehabilitated.

Those damn liberals again. But how do you know who can and cannot be rehabilitated?

The policy will deter criminals from committing further crimes...

Based on what evidence? 

...keep the worst offenders behind bars for longer and bring certainty to sentencing of the most hardened offenders.

Like a guy who maybe in his youth was a bad sort, but finds Jesus and then 20 years later gets done for manslaughter because he makes a careless mistake on the road? It's life without parole for him under the new law. Would that be a fair result?

Finally, shouldn't Garth McVicar get a writing credit for this article?

PM Key's Message To Minimum Wage Earners

Enjoy your pay rise.

John's Diary - 25/1/10

Dear Diary

It‘s been a pretty busy few days.

Went down the line to see some Maoris, and some old bloke got up and said I was doing really well.

It’s a pity visiting the Marae is a bit of a drag. It’s all talk talk talk! I heard the Ratana people say they wanted Labour to give them four seats in return for their support. But my arse was so sore from all the sitting that by the end of the talkfest I’d have given the buggers mine for free. LOL!

It’s funny how they like me, but.

Willie Apiata looks like one mean guy in that Herald photo. He’s staring coldly at the camera, as if he’s just found out someone’s boning his missus, or that some politician’s just told the media he is in Afghanistania. LOL!

Mind you, our boy Willie is a bit of a hero, and he won that big medal a couple of years ago (note to self: get picture taken with hero guy wearing medal). He’s probably pissed off with me right now, but I'll get Wayne to tell him not to worry. If the bad guys come for his family it’ll be like that Gladiator film, the one with that guy Crowe in it. That film didn’t do his career any harm, did it? He’s got bad knees and a fake hairdo, but he’s still a cricket legend. Mind you, he dies at the end of the film.

Talking of films, I just found out we gave $45 million to Hollywood for that Avatar film. I didn’t know they’d filmed it in New Zealand. Those blue people looked a bit odd, but maybe they were from Southland. I must ask Bill. He used to live there still lives there. Gerry tells me James Cameron got the script idea from reading Gerry’s latest plans for the Conservation estate. Cool! I so want to see one of those flying dragon things next time I’m in Hawaii talking about one day holidaying in New Zealand (cue the Tui billboard! LOL!)

I heard some people were complaining because we don’t want to pick up the tab for the care of the disabled by their parents. Tony says we can’t afford it. I guess he’s right. I figure anyone who puts so much effort into his wardrobe must be pretty onto it. Me, I’m just happy in a Hawaiian shirt. And in Hawaii! Still, employing all those people as caregivers would shut the Labour lot up for a while. It’s a pretty good job creation scheme, eh? LOL!

Nick’s in some hot water right now (global warming?? LOL!) The newspaper says someone’s suing him for saying stuff that, like, maybe wasn’t true or something. Can someone really sue you for making stuff up? (note to self: check house and assets are in family trust). Must ask Simon or Chris. They know all about that legal stuff. I’d ask Murray, because he used to be a lawyer too, but he’s off to London now. I can’t remember why. Something about searching for the “One Ring”, I recall.

Rodney’s much happier now the three strikes law is going ahead. For a while I thought Rodney didn’t like me. He once even said my government had done nothing, and he said it like that was a bad thing. Now Rodney’s grinning so much I’m worried he might be turning into Tim Shadbolt (note to memoir writer: I have nothing against Tim Shadbolt, or for that matter the people of Southland. Especially not the blue ones. I like blue). Rodney says the new law will solve our crime problems. But I don’t understand how people can be committing all this crime, because everywhere I look I see cops. Oh wait, those are my diplomatic protection officers. LOL!

No more time to write. It’s crazy how much time it takes to get nothing done.

Should Labour Dance For Ratana?

This time every year we see a pilgrimage by politicians to Ratana.

I confess to not knowing much about Ratana and what it stands for. But it identifies itself as being both a spiritual and political movement. Being of a non-religious persuasion, I have strong reservations against any political movement that also takes on religious or spiritual aspects. So I have no fondness for Ratana.

The demand by Ratana that Labour recognise Ratana’s support with four places on the Labour list is unwelcome. It would be like the Pope telling John Key the support of the Catholic Church would be assured if National placed four bishops on its list. That Ratana chooses (reluctantly it seems) to go with Labour must be very nice for Labour, but it would be inappropriate for Labour to reward that support in any material way.

I’m not a party strategist, but I assume the support of Ratana must be worth a few votes. Quite how many I don’t know. Otherwise, if you were Labour, why would you endure the annual humiliation? And for what? It appears Ratana’s traditional support for Labour may be wavering, if the praise of John Key and the Maori Party over the weekend are anything to go by. Labour needs to find out what Key’s secret is – because for the life of me I can’t think what he has done to earn such praise. The best thing you can say is that the leader of a party traditionally hostile to Maori has prevented his party from doing anything to make things much worse for Maori. After all, it’s hard to point to a single meaningful thing Key’s government has done.

Does the demand for four Labour list MPs and the almost unfathomable support for Key suggest that what matters to Ratana’s leaders is not so much substance as the baubles of power?

And does it really matter which party Ratana endorses?

No Power To The People

What have we learned from the power outage tonight?

1. People don't know what to do when confronted with an intersection where the lights are out.
2. John Banks wil grandstand over any issue if it will give him airtime. You're not fooling anyone, Napoleon.
3. Patrick Strange, Transpower's CEO, only ever appears on TV when he's being mauled by politicians and TV current affairs hosts. In that regard, given the constant flak he gets, he probably feels a bit like an ACC call centre employee. Except that he earns probably 10-20 times the salary of an ACC call centre employee.
4. The owner of the land where the incident leading to the outage occurred is in desperate need of anger management.
5. Our power supply is imperfect. Want a perfect system? Fine. Prepared to pay double to get it? Thought not.
   

From Software To IP Consultants

Most arguments against software patentability I've heard display a lack of understanding about how the patent system actually works. And some in the IT world hold the view that anyone who speaks in favour of software patents is a tool of Microsoft.

Here is an analysis written by a colleague of mine about the patentability of software in New Zealand. It summarises and then critiques the main arguments against software patentability.

******

IP Watchdog's Gene Quinn writes that his company is being sued by a company called Invent Help. They are apparently an organisation that, for a fee, encourages people to list their ideas. It seems this crowd handle everything from the patenting of inventions to the eventual licensing of them - and it would appear from Quinn's articles that they do it badly.

The invention submission business looks to be quite big in the US. I'm not aware of anyone doing anything similar in any significant way in New Zealand. I'm aware of a number of IP consultants in this country who purport to assist inventors with their ideas, and who claim they can help commercialise them. Some of these consultants may have skills to offer inventors, but to my knowledge none of them has expertise in patent law. Those consultants who get results are the ones who work with the experts – the patent attorneys who can help devise patenting strategies, and the licensing lawyers who can ensure any commercial deal protects the inventor.

I can think of a couple of reasons why a “one-stop-shop” invention submission business would be hard to set up and maintain in New Zealand (other than the ever-present problem of small market size).

Privilege rules

Privilege and disclosure rules in New Zealand make it dangerous for IP consultants to get involved in giving advice around patentability and freedom to operate. Dealing with these issues is critical to the successful commercialisation of an invention.

For example, a patent attorney’s patent search report subsequently disclosed by the inventor client to its IP consultant may be discoverable in subsequent infringement proceedings. That is because, although the law treats as privileged communications between the lawyer/patent attorney and the client, privilege can be lost if the client discloses to others. If privilege is lost a client may be compelled to produce a copy of any such report during proceedings. This could be a problem for the client if the patent attorney’s report is unfavourable, for example if it concludes that the client’s prospects of obtaining a strong patent are low.

Not able to give legal advice

The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 makes it difficult for IP consultants to provide advice to clients on legal or patenting matters. In most cases you need to be a lawyer holding a practising certificate if you intend to give legal advice, or to hold yourself out as a lawyer. So IP consultants who claim to have legal expertise can get themselves into trouble.

And the rules governing who may hold practising certificates make it difficult for multi-disciplinary IP practices (e.g. containing both practising lawyers/patent attorneys and commercial consultants) to operate. Many in the patent attorney profession have direct experience of the efforts to which the Law Society will go to protect its monopoly on the giving of legal advice. During submissions over the (then) Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill, the Law Society displayed an aggressive hostility to the prospect of lawyers and patent attorneys being in partnership together, or sharing income. That hostility suggests that anyone else who moves onto the turf of lawyers will be in for a rough ride.

The Big Smurf People Did It

Former Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad told a conference on Wednesday that the 9/11 attacks were staged.

But his explanation was truly imaginative. He apparently said:

There is strong evidence that the attacks were staged. If they can make Avatar, they can make anything

Exactly what does this mean? Was the attack all a trick? Maybe the buildings were never hit at all. Were they ever there? Maybe the attack was the work of giant smurfs.

But any thoughts the 911 Truth Movement would trumpet the arrival their new supporter  were doubt quenched by the things Mahathir Mohamad said about Jews. According to the Jakarta Globe:

The former premier also blamed Jews for hindering progress in US foreign policy. Voicing his disappointment that Barack Obama had not yet ended the war in Afghanistan or closed the US terror detention center at Guantanamo, he explained that “there are forces in the United States which prevent the president from doing some things. One of the forces is the Jewish lobby.”

Jews “had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom," Mahathir said.

"Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world."

Villain, fool or both?

No More Moore

David Farrar is always trying to stir the pot*. He claimed yesterday on Kiwiblog that nobody on Labour's Red Alert blog had written a post in praise of Moore's nomination. He either missed, or deliberately ignored, the Labour Party press release endorsing the appointment of Moore as US ambassador, and praising Moore.

Since then there has been a post on Red Alert praising Moore's appointment.

But why wouldn't Labour be happy? It is a great honour, and it goes to a man from the red party.

And for those in the party who dislike Moore intensely (which, from the whispers that circulate, may be quite a number), this is a great achievement. He's leaving the country.

Finally, this Tom Scott cartoon on Moore's appointment is pure genius (it's pic number two in the gallery).

* He's apparently on holiday - again. They guy takes more holidays than the PM!

Get A Grip

Salon's Patrick Smith (an airline pilot) writes on the US terrorism threat hysteria:

This country needs to get a grip. We need a slap in the face, a splash of cold water.

On Saturday, 57-year-old Jules Paul Bouloute opened an emergency exit inside the American Airlines terminal at Kennedy airport. Alarms blared and sirens flashed. Bouloute later told police that he'd opened the door by accident.

Which is what you'd assume. Sure, the exit was clearly marked, but it happens all the time, does it not? In office buildings, shopping malls, hospitals and airports, well-intended people become distracted and pass through restricted doorways. And you would think our airport security force would keep this in mind and react accordingly, and not with the assumption that every errant traveler is a terrorist poised for mass murder. To the contrary, why in the world would an attacker go around setting off alarms and drawing attention to himself?

Bouloute faces up to seven years in prison, if convicted - all because he opened the wrong door.

The official response has been to blame Bouloute for the ensuing chaos, but Smith regards the official response as a hysterical overreaction:

"As a result of the defendant's actions, thousands of people were required to evacuate and to be rescreened by TSA, causing substantial delays in the airlines' schedules," District Attorney Richard Browne said in a statement.

No, I'm sorry, Mr. District Attorney, but that's not it. What caused the delays and what hassled so many travelers was not the defendant's actions, but our mindless and hysterical response to them.

The media and officials, in all possible gravity, keep describing the incident as a "security breach." Not to harp on semantics, but am I the only person who finds this silly? Granted I'm not privy to every detail, but let me go out on a limb here: It was an accident. A simple and minor accident. As Bouloute's attorney told reporters, "He just walked through the wrong door."

How could he have missed all the red signs and placards? Who knows, though bear in mind that Bouloute had come from Haiti, where three days earlier an earthquake had killed or injured hundreds of thousands of people, some of them, we have to presume, Bouloute's friends or family.

 Airline terror (hijackings and bombings) has been part of the international scene for a few decades now. But 9/11 made everyone jumpier, and so the most minor breach of security becomes a national crisis.

Aircraft technology is such that the skies are safer than they have ever been. The risk of the plane you are in crashing or falling from the sky is remote. You're many times more likely to be killed driving your car.

And it affects us, because every move the US authorities make leads to further restrictions on travel from New Zealand.

If the goal of aviation authorities is to make flying almost impossible, they are succeeding wonderfully.

"Though Shalt Not Kill - Unless They Be Taliban"

Our armed forces in Afghanistan are apparently using gun sights that have biblical inscriptions on them.

According to the Herald:

The New Zealand soldiers were issued with Trijicon advanced combat optical gun sights but defence officials have only just learned they had a biblical inscription put on them by the American manufacturer, Trijicon Incorporated.

The sights, dubbed "Jesus sights" by overseas media, were also issued to American troops, and troops from other countries, but the news outraged Muslim groups, who said it could provide propaganda material for extremists claiming there was a "crusader war against Islam" by the United States.

If we're going to have biblical inscriptions on our weapons, may I put forward the following for consideration:

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. (Genesis 9:6)

The Lord blesses his people with peace (Psalm 29:11)

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace (I Corinthians 14:33)

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God (Matthew 5:9)

Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone  (John 8:7)

Though shalt not kill  (Exodus 20:13)

Kill Obama?

Here's how Lindsay Perigo finshes a press release on the victory by Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race:

May today’s vote be heard around the world, and obviate the need for another equally audible shot

Meaning, I assume, that Barack Obama should be murdered if this vote doesn't bring about a change in the US politicial scene.

Will Perigo do the job himself?

That SAS Photo

The Herald and Stuff websites have published a photo of two New Zealand SAS soldiers in Kabul.

There is apparently a media convention (though this was denied by the Herald's John Roughan on Checkpoint tonight) of not identifying SAS men or operational matters relating to them.

This is tricky stuff. The Herald claims the picture was newsworthy. On the other hand, does it put the lives of our men at risk?

I must say I feel uncomfortable about the publication of this photo. Our men are in Afghanistan to do an important job, and publishing details of where they are and who they are has the potential to endanger their security. Well, that's one argument anyway. The other is that we ave a right to know what our troops are doing in our name.

Do you have a view?

Jumper

Out my office window I can see a guy standing on the edge of a pedestrian walkway over Sturdee Street, threatening to jump. He has been gesticulating wildly, and the police have closed the road off. Traffic is a mess.

He’s been there a while now. It’s a strange place to plan to jump, because it’s actually not that high up, and his chances of surviving would be reasonably good. But his chances of being horribly injured and living the rest of his life as a vegetable would be reasonably high.

The police are trying to talk him down, but he’s been up there a couple of hours now.

My guess is he won’t jump, but I’ll keep you posted.

Update 11:47am:  He's still there, though the police are on the walkway too and are quite close. They're obviously having a chat. He's not waving his arms much. I expect they'll wear him out soon.

Update 12:17pm: Still there. Every time I look it seems the police have taken a step closer. Getting boring now. This guy has no sense of theatre. They are so close they could almost reach out and grab him.

A workmate asks a good question: why don't they sneak up and put a bouncy castle underneath him? He's facing the cops, not the road, and wouldn't notice.

Maybe the police need a flatdeck truck covered with mattresses for such events. It could be on standby...

Update 12:21pm:  Finally he gave up, and the police now have him. Back to work, people!

Mike Moore As US Ambassador - Good Or Bad?

I'm not sure what to make of the appointment of Mike Moore as our latest ambassador to the US.

The one thing in his favour is that he is high profile and knows some of the key people in the US.

But whenever I have heard him speak or have read anything written by him, my impression has been of someone who is full of ideas, but ideas that are often confused and unfocused, or lacking meat. I suspect he would have made a great ad-man.

And on some critical issues (such as the environment and climate change) he appears almost reactionary.

It is telling that you have to look quite hard to find people in the Labour Party who have kind words for him. It is clear that when he and Helen Clark fought for control of the Labour Party in the '90s a lot of love was lost. That may simply say more about the people who beat Moore than about Moore. I just don't know.

Another View On The Three Strikes Law

Press release: Sensible Whaling Trust
20 January 2010, 9.49pm
For immediate release

Three Strikes Law Doesn’t Go Far Enough

The Sensible Whaling Trust welcomes the new proposed three strikes law, and congratulates the Government for having the courage to deal with serious offenders.

However, the proposed law has one critical flaw. The Sensible Whaling Trust would like to see the law extended to cover whales and other sea mammals.

The proposed new law will do nothing to protect victims of cetacean crime, and does nothing to deter these animals from the consequences of their actions. A tough three strikes policy will cut down on whale crime, and will ensure whales and other sea mammals who have committed more than two serious offences suffer the maximum penalty.

The Trust has prepared a draft bill. Under that bill first and second time offenders will have a harpoon strike recorded against them. The third offence, however, will result in the maximum penalty being imposed - death. We believe instituting the death penalty will deter whales and other sea mammals from committing these outrageous offences.

The list of strike offences under our proposed bill is as follows:

• Swimming.

These cetacean creatures are a menace and have proven time and time again that they have no respect for society’s values. They behave like a pack of animals, and society needs to send them a message – that we will not tolerate this sort of behaviour.

Victims of sea mammal crime often tell us that what most hurts is the way these animals strut about knowing that nobody can touch them. They are a law unto themselves. Porpoises roam about the sea as if they own the place, while dolphins behave like larrikins and show no respect for our laws. If we had better laws it is clear that Moko the Dolphin would no longer carry on in such a despicable manner.

Society has had enough. The Sensible Whaling Trust is calling for the immediate implementation of a three strikes law, to crack down on cetacean crime.

Patent Litigation Can Be Big Business

The IP Watchdog blog reports that Eastman Kodak Company is suing Apple for patent infringement. Kodak alleges that Apple has infringed numerous Kodak patents associated with the iPhone, iPod Touch and various Mac computers.

It gets worse for Apple. Nokia has also claimed Apple’s products infringe its patents.

The stakes in these infringement cases are potentially huge. It is unclear what damages might be sought, but to put things in perspective, Research in Motion (the makers of the Blackberry phone) were successfully sued for patent infringement by “patent troll”  NTP, and eventually settled the litigation by paying NTP US$612 million.

And late last year, successful patent infringement litigation against Microsoft relating to its Word product  saw the plaintiff, a Canadian company, awarded US$290 million in damages.

These amounts are mind-boggling. But they don’t tell the full story about the challenges facing those who look to enforce their patent rights.

This post on the Patent Baristas blog discusses how expensive it can be to pursue patent litigation in the US. Being able to afford to sue infringers is always an issue for small companies and start-ups. That doesn't mean they shouldn't bother to protect their inventions, because patents have a deterrent value, and huge awards like the NTP one reinforce the value of that deterrent. But inventors need to be realistic about what they can afford to do in the event someone infringes their rights.

These huge awards also demonstrate why it is important for businesses to conduct freedom to operate searches, to make sure their technologies are not infringing the patents of others. FTO searching at the right point during the development cycle can identify potential risks and, in many cases, avoid future infringement problems.

More On (Moron?) Three Strikes Law

Here are some random thoughts on the proposed three-strikes law, in no particular order. Apologies if they sound more like a rant.

Retrospective laws are unfair

Garth McVicar wants the proposed law to be retrospective, according to the Herald:

He had hoped the law would be retrospective so criminals' previous violence convictions were included in their "strikes" tally.

"As it is, they get a clean slate and they are able to start again. I don't think that's fair to New Zealanders."

Fair? Law changes are almost never retrospective. That's because retrospective laws are unfair. We're told offenders will be deterred by the new law. That assumes they have the capacity to act rationally. Now why would we be encouraging an offender to exercise his/her mind to think about consequences while at the same time saying we might change the rules on them anyway.  Idiot.

The myth of deterrence

The theory many offenders will think twice before offending belongs in fantasyland. A few might. But most violent offending is sudden and is not pre-meditated. People who are caught up in the moment are unlikely to be capable of rational thought at the time they most need it.

And let's also not pretend the majority of our crims are bright. Will they even know the law exists? Even though their lawyer might tell them they're going to be in deep shit next time they get in trouble, will they remember this? That someone could forget or disregard something so monumental may sound unlikely, but when I was a young lawyer I had to deal with a few offenders. I discovered that for most of them there was nothing you could do or tell them that would make a difference to their actions. And they wouldn't understand a lot of what you said anyway. Most people who offend are at the bottom of the heap. They are usually poorly educated and often lack social skills. Act rationally? If they were rational they wouldn't be in shit in the first place.

No incentive to rehabilitate

For many of these three-strike offenders, we will still have to release them at some point. What incentive is there for them to rehabilitate if it makes no difference to the time they spend inside? In fact, if we assume these people have the capacity to think rationally about consequences at the very moment they are committing violence, what incentive does a maximum penalty give the offender to not go all the way? If you're going to go down for life without parole for murder, why kill just one person?

Opposition? What opposition?

Labour have been very quiet on this issue. Why? They have said the law won't make a difference, but does that mean they will oppose it at every step?

Will Labour repeal this bad law if elected? My guess is no. When was the last time a government softened a sentencing law?

A Beautiful Hollywood Unlove Story

I don’t generally go for all the Hollywood tittle-tattle, and yet this story amused me.

Not because it tells the sad story of a Hollywood legend’s demise, but because it seems to go counter to the usual glossy PR releases we expect to be fed when a star is battling some illness.

It appears that Dennis Hopper may be on his deathbed. Like any true Hollywood legend, he has been married countless times (actually, five times). Despite being at death’s door, he’s divorcing his fifth wife, to make sure she doesn’t contest his will and get her mitts on any more of his estate than was agreed in their pre-nuptial agreement.

She is reportedly livid at Hopper's actions and has apparently barricaded herself in their California house while he lies dying in hospital.

I can imagine the PR release now:

Dennis is battling this illness with the courage, determination and strength he is famed for. With the support of his fans and his loving children, and with a vindictive bitch of an ex-wife out to destroy him financially and emotionally, we all hope and pray he’ll get through this.

I suppose the fact this soap opera amuses me makes me a bad person. So be it.

Weakened Three Strikes Law To Proceed - Updated

National and ACT have reached a deal on the three-strikes policy trumpeted by ACT during the last election campaign.

The version agreed upon is much weaker than that promised by ACT.

Says the Herald:

If passed into law, an offender would receive a standard sentence and warning for the first offence, a possible jail sentence with a second sentence, and with a third offence he or she would receive the maximum penalty in prison for that offence, rather than a life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment of 25 years as originally proposed.

The court can still decide not to order the maximum sentence be served without parole if found unjust. The policy would only apply to offenders aged 18 years and over.

The new law probably won't affect a lot of offenders, as it sounds as if the exceptions will allow judges to exercise discretion to avoid unjust results. My pick is that it won't have any positive effect on crime rates, or if it does the effect will be unnoticable. This is more about spin and saving face.
 
Still, it will keep some of the law and order mob happy. Others will be disappointed that the flogging and hanging of shoplifters and jaywalkers are not yet part of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill.

Update: Now I've read a bit more about what is proposed, it appears the discretion of the judge to impose a sentence other than the maximum under the proposed new law will be quite limited. A judge will only be able to override the maximum sentence if it would be "manifestly unjust" to impose the maximum.

This will still, hopefully, ensure the most obvious injustices are prevented. And it's still better than ACT's original proposals. But it's still bad law.

Not Ready For A Republic?

Although I would welcome the throwing off of the shackles that bind us to Mother England, the visit of Prince William shows that maybe we aren’t ready to become a republic.

I find royal visits tedious. The last royal visit I got excited about was in 1983, when Charles and Diana toured. But then I was only ten or eleven.

Nowadays, whenever I hear the words “royal visit” I feel a creeping lethargy. I imagine the tedious things The Royal will be required to do – shake hands, meet dignitaries, cuddle a kiwi, face a Maori challenge, dodge a handful of cranky protesters, all while saying how lovely we are.

We don’t need the royal family. Nor do we need to remain bound to England in the way we are. And I say that having lived in the UK for almost three years. We are an independent nation at the other end of the world, so our subservience to the Queen is baffling.

But, as William’s visit appears to show, my view is a minority one. His visit has been the main local news story for the last two days. Crowds have gathered everywhere he has gone, and he has charmed those he has met. If I hear another radio or TV interview of someone gushing about how “cool” or “lovely” the prince is I may well scream (although to paraphrase, in the blogosphere no one can hear you scream).

The popularity of the royals may change when the current monarch dies. Elizabeth II has been around for so long that it is hard to imagine a world without her. However, her son Charles is unfashionable and his celebrity status is diminished by his unfortunate looks. His appearance shouldn’t matter, but it does. His two sons are photogenic and have spent many years adorning the front pages of woman’s magazines. Maybe that is why people adore them and not their father. Just as they adored Diana. But as William and Harry get older their appeal may well recede along with their hairlines and youthful good looks. Unless one of them marries someone pretty and fashionable there could be trouble ahead for the Windsors.

And maybe then we will get the republic we need. And if we are looking for a President – well, let’s just say I would be honoured if asked.

Online Poll Suggests Climate Change Denial Widespread

According to an online Herald poll, half of us either don't believe in climate change, or have our doubts about it.

I am always sceptical about online polls. But because I don't know what the survey methodology was, I have to assume the findings may have some validity.

It's no surprise that so many of us are sceptical about climate change, or are plain in denial. There has been bad press lately about various climate scientists sending emails to each other I'm sure they now regret sending. And the denial movement is vocal and well funded.

And I wonder if for some people the problem is just too damn big to really come to terms with. Better just to go into denial.

Climate change is real. The world scientific community is clear on that, and they have no reason to be foisting a vast conspiracy on us. Anyone who believes otherwise is a conspiracy theorist of the highest order themselves.

And yet it is pretty clear that some people just won't be moved. Maybe we ought to ship some of them to Tuvalu.

John's Diary - 18/1/10

Best day EVA!!

I got to meet a real prince and shake his hand and stuff. He's so cool. And all the cameras were there and everything.

I got to spend like the entire day with him! And he has sooo many amazing stories! And he's such a chilled out dude too. We had a barbecue and he was like the life of the party.

Wow, I haven't had this much fun since I met Daniel Carter. Although Letterman was pretty amazing too!

I can't wait to tell Bill and Gerry. They will be like sooo envious.

LOL
John

No Saint

The Pope has visted Rome's main synagogue to speak in defence of Pius XII, who was Pope during World War II.

Pius XII is already well advanced on the road to canonisation. So presumably Benedict XVI felt he needed to say something in defence of Pius XII's controversial war papacy.

There is intense debate about whether Pius did enough to help the Jews, or to denouce their persecution by the Nazis. There appears to be evidence that he at very least disapproved of the persecution of the Jews. But he did little to publicly condemn the Nazis' anti-Semitism. Given the power the Church has in many parts of Europe, it is hard to believe saying nothing was a better moral choice than making a stand.

But when you visit the Vatican, as I have a couple of times, you begin to understand wby Pius XII did very little. If you were to live amidst such splendour, surrounded by great works of art, would you want to be known as the guy who lost it all? If Pius XII had condemned the atrocities against the Jews, Hitler may well have dismantled the Vatican state. Who knows what might have then happened to the treasures of the Church.

So to have condemned Hitler and his persecution of the Jews would have taken great moral courage. That is a courage it appears Pius XII did not possess. That does not mean he was a man of evil. But a man without the courage to do what is right can hardly be a saint either.

Time For A Change?

An assortment of random Sunday bits- because I can't be arsed writing something more thoughtful.

My last post dealt with the odious Pat Robertson and his comments on Haiti.

His "pact with the devil" claim is cut to pieces here. Worth a read.

******

Does anyone care that Prince William is in town?

No, me neither. Just checking.

******

It appears Deborah Coddington doesn't like snitches. Fair enough - who does?

She labels as a snitch the guy who taped MPs talking at a National Party function during the last election campaign.

That secret recording always struck me as a shabby trick, and although the guy was not (as far as I recall) affiliated to Labour, it certainly didn't do the Clark government any favours. Many on the left who think National has a secret agenda believe this kind of deceit is justifiable - if it gets the truth out. Though that would suggest Key has an agenda. A plan? Any plan would be better than sleepwalking through these perilous economic times.

She appears uncertain whether Cameron Slater is a whistleblower or something else. But she proves that Slater's not the darling of everyone on the right.

How ironic, though, that this man, now so opposed to name suppression, for a long time made personally cruel and hurtful remarks about many with whom he disagreed, while hiding behind his pseudonym of Whale Oil.

******

Michael Laws doesn't like bloggers:

PREJUDICE #235: "Bloggers" are opinionated losers who spend way too much time in darkened rooms. They have porn addictions, staple microwave pizza to their bibs, are blubbery and smell.

This peculiar purview has been harboured ever since blogging became the online onanism. Which was the first day some idiot decided to anonymously opine and imagined that people gave a continental.
 
I'm probably still right. If I was to take a cross-section of bloggers I'd wager that most don't have a partner or a wardrobe, are in desperate need of a stomach staple and regard deodorant as the devil's snare. They would also be exceedingly jealous of each other: like literary fiction writers. Too many only children, I suspect.

 And the only thing that has shaken him from this conceit is... meeting Cameron Slater...

Apparently we're all against Slater because we're envious - nothing to do with his toxic personality or alleged breaches of the law then.

******

So a UK blogger thinks we dress badly.

I've written before about what I think of those who express strong views on how Kiwi men dress. Perhaps I'm one of those badly dressed men, since I clearly don't spend enough time in the mirror preening. Nor do I particularly care what some overseas fashionista thinks. I'm not even sure why we have a fashion industry. I mean, what is it for?

On the other hand, our famous cultural cringe is never far away when it comes to being commented on by foreign types. Heaven forbid that someone might not like something about us. Does this call for general panic?

******

There may be a softer, kinder face to US power nowadays. but many on the left are still defiantly anti-American. Much of the comment on the left surrounding the now-postponed visit by Hilary Clinton has been hostile. And commentators like Matt McCarten still dream about those heady days in the '80s when we told the US to shove it. And didn't we do well? Even if the US policy of outspending the USSR on nuclear weapons eventually helped to destroy that superpower.

Anti-Americans argue we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. Sure the place is a hellhole, but, really, what choice do we have but to stay? It remains the frontline in the War on Terror. And if we want American support and protection (militarily and economically) we need to do our bit.

There's no shortage of anti-US feeling in the blogosphere. For example this comments thread on Public Address. It seems a good number of people really think Communist China would be a better master than the US.

The last US President was a notorious fool, and squandered most of the goodwill towards the US that existed post 9/11. That has fed much of the anti-Americanism that exists today. But a new man's in charge. He's not perfect, but he's no Bush. He is slowly changing the way the US looks at the world. Perhaps it's time we changed too.

Exploiting A Tragedy To Make A Point: Another Hall Of Shame Entrant

US televangelist Pat Robertson has been on TV calling the Haiti earthquake a "blessing in disguise" for destroying so many buildings and leaving the nation with no choice but to rebuild.

He also claims the earthquake is God's curse on the Haitian people, for making a pact with the Devil in the 19th century to drive the French out.

Some of what he said, together with a video of his comments, can be found here.

Robertson was in trouble a couple of years ago for his comments in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It seems he just doesn't learn.

What an awful man. He is 2010's first Imperator Fish Hall of Shame inductee.

UK Dispenses With Jury In Trial

After the David Bain trial the world seemed to go mad. It seemed everyone had an opinion on whether or not he'd done the deed. Except for me, it seemed - I still don't. A good number of people came to the conclusion that the acquittal was a monstrous injustice (perhaps forgetting the 13 years Bain had already served behind bars), and that we ought to do away with the jury system forthwith.

But there are some good reasons why we have a jury system for criminal trials. The notion of being tried by one's peers is an important one in our system. Judges may be legally trained, but like everyone they have prejudices. Judges tend to be drawn from the higher echelons of society, so may not always be the best judges of what goes on at the lower end.

And having someone in a position to determine what the decider of facts can consider may be important. Judges frequently make decisions on what evidence the jury may hear. If the judge is also to decide on the facts, how will a judge be able to put out of his or her mind the evidence they may have just ruled inadmissible?

In Britain this week, however, the first crown court criminal trial to take place without a jury in more than 400 years has just begun.

The background behind the case is highly unusual. The case involves four men accused of a £1.75m armed robbery.  But three previous jury trials have had to be aborted, following various illnesses, the loss of jurors, and allegations of jury tampering.

So the Court of Appeal has ruled that there will be no jury for the trial.

This ruling flies in the face of the principle that a person has the right to be tried before his/her peers, and is hugely controversial. But it remains to be seen whether this case is precedent-setting or a one-off.

In New Zealand the Crimes Act 1961 provides that everyone charged with an offence is entitled to trial by jury. There are some exceptions, where the accused may elect not to have a jury trial.

But until recently the right to dispense with a jury was the accused's prerogative. However, in 2008 the Crimes Act was amended so that the prosecution is now entitled to seek trial by judge alone where necessary due to the complexity or length of the case, or where there are reasonable grounds to believe the intimidation of jurors might occur.

So it seems we may be going in a similar direction.

No Contempt For Slater - No Surprises There

Those of you who follow this blog may recall a couple of posts by me on the Cameron Slater issue earlier this week

A lot of so-called experts in the media have been quick to list all the things Slater is going to go to prison for, including contempt of court, perverting the course of justice, and just about every other offence short of sheep bothering.

Never mind the presumption of innocence, sub judice and all that.

Now I have to say I'm not particularly fond of Slater, but I am rather fond of the law, being one of those lawyer types. And while I'm by no means an expert in this area of law, it appears I must know more than some of the rent-a-quotes who have been in the media this week, and who have been publicly planning Slater's incarceration (I won't name them).

Because I have been saying (on this blog and on others) that the penatlies for breaching name suppression may well be limited to a mere fine, and that if anyone thinks Slater is bound to face different charges they may be proven wrong.

And so it turns out.

I know it's the sign of a rampant ego to parade one's little victories over the hoi polloi, but come on, let me have this one. I was right, it seems. For now anyway.

John Key - Genius

It's amazing what a bit of time under the Hawaiian sun does.

Because John Key apparently has a secret plan to end whaling in the Southern Ocean. But he won't tell us what it is - it's a secret, stupid!

I wonder what other secretive but genius plans he has been coming up with during his holiday. Here are my picks.

• Setting and meeting ambitious carbon reduction targets without actually doing anything.
• Closing the income gap with Australia by doing exactly the opposite of what the Australians did.
• Raising educational standards by ignoring experts who say your plans won't work, and proving that currency traders and accountants know more about education than those education-expert-type-persons.
• "Getting tough" on criminals and actually reducing crime in the process.
• Joining the SAS and singlehandedly winning the war in Afghanistan by taking down the Taliban leader in a knife fight.
• Being photographed with more All Blacks.

With these kinds of ideas, maybe Key should go on holiday all year round.

Avatar: Any Good?

I think I may be unwell. Perhaps I should lie down.

Because I am in agreement with the Vatican on something.

Specifically, the Vatican’s newspaper and radio station have apparently criticised the James Cameron Avatar blockbuster for being a simplistic and sappy tale, and for there being little behind the images.

It happens that I saw Avatar last night. It was actually the first film I’ve been to in three years (I kid you not – but it’s hard to get babysitters for the little ones), so it is fresh in my mind.

Is it worth going to? Absolutely. Was it a masterpiece? Visually, yes. The special effects are stunning and bring life to a bizarre fantasy world.

But the storyline was the weak point. It was indeed sappy. I’ve also heard it described as Dances with Wolves in Space. That pretty much sums it up. In any Hollywood flick where a bunch of bad guys are doing bad stuff to the poor simple and lovable natives, you expect the hero to give the baddies a good butt-kicking. And there will be a girl, a romance, a falling out and a reconciliation.

There is also a faintly racist odour about the film. I don’t want to overplay this, because after all the natives in the movie are an alien species. But it is hard not to see parallels between the aliens and the tribesmen of Borneo or the Amazon rainforests. If a film was made about a white guy coming to save the Amazonians, would we be comfortable with that? I’m not sure this is really an issue – just a lingering unease that was left with me, I guess.

But generally the film is all good stuff, even if it is a bit hokum. People are saying Avatar is Oscar material, though I’m not sure. Certainly it ought to win a bucketload of technical awards. But best picture?

On the other hand, my ability to get to the movies triennially doesn’t qualify me to pick award winners.

Back to the Vatican. Thankfully, some of the other things said by the Vatican about Avatar return me to my usual disdain for things emanating from that place. Such as the concern expressed that the worship of nature in the film and within the environmental movement generally threatens a return to paganism.

That’s a bit rich coming from a religion whose many symbols and practices evolved from the paganism of the Romans and other religious groups (especially Mithraism and the Cult of Cybele).

And if we have to worship something then isn't Nature a more likeable god than the one in Leviticus?

Is This A Death Sentence For US Abortion Doctors?

The trial of the man accused of killing US abortion doctor George Tiller last year has taken a nasty twist.

The accused, Scott Roeder, has admitted shooting Tiller, but claims the act was justifiable, because it prevented the deaths of unborn children.

Incredibly, the trial judge has allowed Roeder’s defence team to put that partial defence to the jury.

Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." According to the AP article on the Herald, if convicted of the lesser charge Roeder may face only five years imprisonment, rather than life behind bars.

If the jury buys this defence (and there seems a good chance they will – abortion is a topic that divides many people), a message will be sent to abortion activists throughout the US. Put yourselves in the shoes of a rabid and militant anti-abortion activist. Would you go to jail for a few years to defend the lives of the unborn? Perhaps you would.

So then, why not find an abortion doctor and gun them down? What have you to lose, other than five years? The payoff is immediate celebrity, and when you get out your fellow nutcase activists will treat you like a hero.

Do We Really Need To Tighten Company Incorporation Laws?

According to the Stuff website, Parliament's commerce select committee chairperson, Lianne Dalziel, has questioned whether New Zealand’s company incorporation rules need to be tightened.

There are fears that criminals and money launderers could be exploiting the ease with which people are able to incorporate companies in New Zealand.

New Zealand’s company incorporation regime is one of the easiest to deal with in the world. Anyone can set up a company in just a few minutes if they know what they are doing. Additionally, the Companies Office website is easy to navigate, and, unlike in most other countries, you can access online just about all of the information held by the Companies Office about a company, without having to pay a fee.

There are many reasons why ease of use and openness are good things. Firstly, setting up a company is often the first step in starting a business. If we want people to start new businesses we need to make sure the rules are not too complicated. Secondly, the ability to check in seconds the details of a company and who is behind it may enable better decision-making. In my commercial IP practice the first thing I do whenever I’m dealing with a company (whether a client or the other party) is to check the Companies Office. Doing so will tell me who owns the company, how long it has been around, and whether there are any unusual transactions on the register that might ring alarm bells.

The Companies Office does not verify the names or identities of directors and shareholders during the incorporation process. That is one of the reasons why incorporation is so easy. Each prospective director and shareholder merely signs a one-page consent form. The only official check ever done is to ensure that the directors named in the incorporation application do not appear on a list of persons banned from holding directorships. There are no checks to ensure persons claiming to be directors or shareholders actually exist.

This ease of use may allow fraudsters and criminals to set up New Zealand companies under false names. On the other hand, we need to consider the scale of the problem. Because it would be a shame to see the rules tightened merely to stop a handful of bad people.

I should also add that just because it is easy to incorporate a company, it may be unwise just to go ahead and do it yourself. If you’re in business with another person and the company will have multiple shareholders, you should think about putting a shareholders agreement in place, and establishing a constitution for the company. It is a sad fact that most new ventures fail. If you haven’t recorded in writing how to deal with issues and problems between business partners, you can look forward to a long and expensive trip through the legal system. I have seen numerous examples of shareholders falling out and then squabbling over the corpse of their failed business. You can spend a few thousand sorting it at the start, or you can give $50K+ to a litigation lawyer later on.

Usual disclaimer: this is not legal advice. If you want that then I want your money.

The Great Whale Hunt

It seems appropriate that it is the whale hunting season.

However, whales of the blogging variety appear to be even more endangered than cetacean ones.

I don't have sympathy for Cameron Slater, because basically that well is dry, but the reaction in the media and internet to his latest activities is interesting.

I have also written a little about some of those activities, though I have tried to steer clear of any assessment of whether Slater is guilty or innocent. The same cannot be said for a large section of the blogosphere, particularly on the left. Slater's past disregard for nuance and civil discourse makes him a target for many. There is currently a thread up on the Standard on Slater (no, I won't link to it) that would make most people ill, and which is as bad as anything you'll find on Kiwiblog.

Now the story has moved into the mainstream media, and various "experts" are opining as to what can be done to stop Slater. I posted an article last night on the potentially inadequate penalties for breaching name suppression laws, but I am not pre-supposing Slater is guilty and must be stopped. Although I am still happy to state that should Slater be deliberately engaging in breaking the law, he may have a few challenges ahead of him.

But some of these "experts" are pulling out the statute books to find things to pin on Slater, and they seem to have already determined his guilt. Maybe they should leave well alone. I'm by no means an expert on the doctrine of sub judice (it doesn't come up a lot in my commercial IP practice!), but this just feels like we're getting into dangerous territory.

Name Suppression Laws - Is The Penalty Right?

Cameron Slater has been in the news a lot recently.

Now it appears he is under investigation for another alleged breach of name suppression laws.

Slater will get his day in court - perhaps more than one. I won't speculate on the potential outcome of any criminal trial, as it isn't appropriate to do so.

But it is interesting to speculate just what the system can do if someone decides to flout the law on an ongoing basis. The maximum penalty for a breach of section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 is a fine of $1000. Bear in mind that is the maximum. In most cases a person found guilty will not face anything like that amount of fine. The court will assess the seriousness of the offence and the offender's ability to pay.

But people who give the system the one-finger salute don't tend to come out of it well.  The example I have previously cited is of Vince Siemer, who tried to flout defamation laws but ended up spending time in prison. On the other hand, a breach of section 139 can at worst lead to a fine. If a person was determined to disregard the law, and had no means to pay a fine, it might be difficult for the system to stop that person. Although an approach to the person's ISP might reap rewards.

Interestingly, as at the time of writing this post, Slater's website is offline.

So is the penalty for breaching section 139 too light? That depends, I suppose, on what importance we place on name suppression laws. If we accept that name suppression laws serve an important purpose, then we should arguably do everything we can to ensure effective deterrents to illegal publication exist. It could be argued that a relatively paltry fine is not a deterrent.

I have written previously that our name suppression laws are in need of a shake-up, and the Law Commission has proposed a number of mostly sensible recommendations to clarify when a judge may grant name suppression. If those recommendations are to be acted on, then it may be worth also looking at the penalties for failure to comply with a suppression order.

The Evil Wiggles Masterplan

Since there’s not much else going on in the land, let me share with you a shocking conclusion I came to during my holiday.

The Wiggles are infant crack. When given to a small child complaining and playing up in the back seat of a car during a long trip, the effect is immediate and frightening.

A couple of verses of Fruit Salad, Yummy Yummy, or Big Red Car and they become pliant creatures, willing to do anything their parents tell them – so long as you don’t turn the music off. And if you do push the stop button, may God preserve you from the wrath of your children!

But even worse is when those tunes get into your own head. I should be unmoved by the various adventures of Captain Feathersword and his friends Wags and Dorothy. And yet so insidious is the stuff the Wiggles put in their tunes that the music soon dominates your thinking. You could be in an important meeting with a client and suddenly find yourself on the table chanting “quack quack cocka-doodle doo!”.

My advice to those of you thinking of introducing your youngsters to the joy of the Wiggles is this: don’t do it. Not just because of the kids, but to protect yourself and your relationship. Do you really want to be in the throes of passion while “Lights, Camera, Action, Wiggles!” rages in your head?

I have always thought the Wiggles' outfits look like those 1960s Star Trek uniforms. But this now makes sense. Maybe they are from space, sent down here to enslave us and our children. Beware!

Back From Dial-up Hell

It must have been terrible to live in the Dark Ages: death and disease everywhere, and only dial-up internet.

Thankfully I am back in the world of broadband today. Back from the holidays and with plenty to do.

My blogging activities have been erratic of late. Let's face it, there's actually nothing much happening locally. Maybe once John Key returns from his endless holiday (is this guy ever not on holiday?) we might find a few barbs to throw.

As for New Years Resolutions, I could aspire to lift my game and produce a decent blogsite, but I think I'll just go for this crappy version. In terms of blog rankings I'm still very much on the back bench. According to Tumeke's dubious blog-rankings, this blog is somewhere between 110th and 120th most popular in the land. Never mind that the data used to calculate my ranking (especially the number of visits) is incorrect. I might be ranked higher or lower, as I'm going to assume everyone else's blog rankings are based on dubious data.

Anyway, I have work to do. Sigh...

Herald Attacks On ERA - Pro-Employer Bias?

The main news story in the Herald this morning is the case of a worker obtaining $12,000 compensation after being fired for supplying cannabis to a workmate.

The tone of the story is – as usual for the Herald – pro-employer. Most of the story relates the employer’s side of the case.

That the Herald appears to have a pro-employer bias will surprise few who read it regularly. We are used to seeing attacks on the Employment Relations Authority, and claims that it is weighted towards employees.

The starkest proof of this apparent bias is the article buried to the side of page three. In that article a sacked DOC employee was ordered by the Employment Relations Authority to pay her employer $13,500. Why was that not the front-page article?

And the other thing that becomes apparent when you read the front-page article is that the result may not be such an outrageous injustice after all. Most employment lawyers will tell you that dismissing someone who has committed a serious wrong is reasonably straightforward – provided you follow the right procedure. Most cases where employers come unstuck occur because the employer has failed to follow the right procedure.

So instead of bleating to the media and the Labour Minister, perhaps the employer ought to take a look at its own actions.

Are Minto's Protesters Bullies?

John Minto has been leading a noisy protest outside the ASB Tennis Centre.

The target of their protest is Israeli player Shahar Peer. Minto and others are outraged at the treatment of Palestine by Israel.

Protests like this one, targeting one individual, are problematic. They come across as vindictive and nasty. Minto and co probably don’t care – they will argue all Israelis are complicit in the wrongs perpetuated in Palestine. That is the nature of zealots: they fail to see that not everything is black and white.

But not a murmur is raised at the appearance in the same tournament of a player from another country with human rights “issues”. Why no protest at the appearance of Chinese player Li Na? Could it be that she comes from a communist nation? Maybe China’s excesses are justified in the name of the Peoples’ Revolution.

But lest anyone should be tempted to treat the protest seriously, it turns out that one of the protesters was the fellow who dumped a lamington on the head of Act Party’s Mt Albert candidate John Boscawen. An absurd, almost surreal, act of protest.

This protest is best ignored. When was the last time anyone took anything organised by John Minto seriously? 1981?

Dude, I Was Trying To Eat!

I think I may have to become one of those busybodies who perpetually complains to television networks about TV content.

I say this because I saw something so repulsive while watching the 6pm news that I almost threw my dinner up on my own family. And I had to throw myself on the kids to stop them viewing any more of the horror that unfolded before their eyes.

Note to TVNZ: if you’re going to have an article about Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater as your second piece, at least provide a warning.

I know I go on about Slater too much, but there’s something about his behaviour that gets to me. Such as his grandstanding and attempts to get publicity by breaking the law -allegedly of course. Or the fact that he appears not to care about the fact he effectively “outed” the identity of the alleged victim of the Olympian whose identity has been suppressed.

According to the news report tonight, Slater says most bloggers support his actions. But if he really believes that then he’s delusional. Because you either love him or hate him. Slater has at least as many detractors as supporters – in fact, perhaps more.

Slater appears to be enjoying the notoriety. The fact he is getting such attention appears, in his mind at least, to have justified his stunt. But if notoriety and fame are the only things that matter, then Slater is really little different to the father of “balloon boy”.

Anyway, I appreciate that by writing about the attention-seeking one I’m playing into his hands. But the legal system v Slater thing promises to be compelling viewing.

Just not while I’m eating, thanks.