17 November, 2009

Microsoft violated IP rights: Court

A Chinese court has ruled Microsoft Corp. infringed a Chinese company's intellectual property rights by including certain fonts in its operating systems, the companies confirmed Tuesday.
Beijing's No.1 Intermediate People's Court found Microsoft had exceeded the scope of a previous agreement to use and sell fonts owned by Zhongyi Electronic Ltd, Lan Fei, a spokeswoman of Beijing-based company told AFP.
The decision came during US President Barack Obama's visit to China and at a sensitive time in the trade relationship between the two countries. The US has been pressing China for tougher intellectual property law enforcement.
However, Microsoft said in a statement that it disagreed with the Monday-dated court ruling.
"We plan to appeal the decision for the Zhongyi fonts case," Microsoft said.
"Microsoft respects intellectual property rights... We believe our license agreements with the plaintiff cover our use of the fonts."
Zhongyi said the court agreed Microsoft installed and used the fonts in eight of its operating systems without its express permission and had ordered the US company to stop selling those operating systems in China.
The spokeswoman said the company was studying the ruling and could seek compensation from Microsoft for damages.
"The case dragged on for a long time and the scale and impact of the case was very large. It involves a large figure. We are still checking and studying the form and amount (of the compensation)," Lan said.
The case, which was filed in April 2007, does not appear to affect Microsoft's latest operating systems, including Windows 7, which went on sale last month.
The court rejected Zhongyi's claim that Microsoft's use of Zhengma software, which enables computer users to type Chinese characters using Western keyboards, also violated its intellectual property rights.
Source:-http://infotech.indiatimes.com/news/software-services/Microsoft-violated-IP-rights-Court-/articleshow/5239636.cms

04 November, 2009

Most SC judges bank on shares as investment

Justice Raveendran Holds 19,773 Shares In 57 Firms

Justice R V Raveendran, who had offered to recuse himself from hearing the RIL-RNRL dispute saying he held equal number of shares in each, appears to be among Supreme Court judges who favour the stock market as an investment option. He could also be among judges with the maximum number of shares, 19,773 to be precise, in as many as 57 companies. Though he does not specify the market value of these shares which seem to have been purchased long back given the ancient names of the companies he has mentioned, it appears that he would be neck and neck with Justice S H Kapadia who estimated the market value of shares held by him at Rs 20 lakh.
Their spouses also appear to have invested in the stock market in equal measure. While Justice Kapadia’s wife holds shares worth Rs 19 lakh, Justice Raveendran’s wife holds as many as 10,616 shares in 43 companies. Of the 19,773 shares held by Justice Raveendran, 772 were in Mukesh Ambani’s RIL and 783 in Anil Ambani’s RNRL. He also holds shares in Reliance Communication Ventures Ltd (783), Reliance Energy Ltd, now bifurcated to Reliance Infrastructure and Reliance Power Ltd, (840) and Reliance Capital Ltd (821).
Interestingly, Justice Raveendran’s wife holds 314 shares each in RIL and RNRL in addition to shares in Reliance Capital (15), Reliance Energy (22) and Reliance Communication Ventures Ltd (314). While Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan, Justice B Sudershan Reddy, Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice H L Dattu have not invested in shares, others have done so. Justice Markandey Katju even stated that some of his shares in different companies were not traceable. Almost all judges bought these shares as lawyers, before their appointment as judges. Justice D K Jain also holds a large number of shares — 6,812 in 37 companies. His wife holds 3,333 shares in 31 companies. Justice V S Sirpurkar holds 3,693 shares in 20 companies while his wife holds 1,617 shares in eight companies.
Justice G S Singhvi has stated that his investment in mutual funds was to the tune of Rs 7.2 lakh, while that of his wife was Rs 8.5 lakh. CJI owns 12 Ares of land: Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan owns a little more than 12 Ares of land, which is less than one acre. It was inadvertently referred to as 12 acres on Tuesday. Justice Tarun Chatterjee does not own an entire building in Kolkata but a 2/3rd share in it, which is an ancestral property used fully as dwelling house, the SC Registry clarified.

Source:- Source:- The Times of India 4 November 2009 P. 15 Delhi

‘Battered’ child’s parents face charges

Four years after Delhi High Court ordered an investigation into the role of an exarmy major and his second wife in allegedly beating his four-yearold child from his earlier marriage — which is said to have led to several physical and mental deformities in the kid — the police have filed a chargesheet against the duo for ‘‘attempt to murder’’. They have, however, failed to arrest the two.
Getting justice for Shaurya (10) has been a long battle for his maternal grandparents. In 2005, Shaurya’s grandparents had moved HC seeking custody of the child, alleging that his father, Lalit Balhara, and his wife, Preeti, were beating the child after his mother expired. The child was produced before the court on February 20, 2005. The court was taken aback to see the physical and mental condition of Shaurya.
The HC then asked doctors to file a medical report. The report disclosed that a psychiatric consultation for Major Lalit Balhara and Preeti Balhara was done at the Base Hospital, Delhi Cantontment. It stated that the ‘‘parents were not able to give a convincing explanation about the incident in which the child sustained injuries’’ and concluded that the child was suffering from ‘‘battered baby syndrome’’. After going through the reports, a division bench on February 28, 2005, handed over custody of the child to the maternal grandfather and said, ‘‘investigation is required to be carried out to ascertain the manner in which injuries have been caused to Shaurya and the treatment meted out at him’’ by his parents.
After a gap of four years, the police on October 31 this year filed a chargesheet against Balhara and his wife before a trial court under Section 307 (attempt to murder), 34 (common intention) of the IPC and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act 2000. Filing the chargesheet, the investigating officer submitted before metropolitan magistrate Sumit Dass that the accused could not be arrested during the course of the investigation and he had to file the final report without arresting them. According to the chargesheet, the accused have changed their addresses often and were untraceable.
The court then sought Shaurya’s maternal uncle, Lt Col Devender Kumar’s help in tracing the victims. At the last hearing, Kumar submitted that he had managed to trace the present address of the accused and also expressed his apprehension that the couple would run away if not summoned immediately.
After hearing his plea, MM Dass issued summons against Balhara and his wife for November 4, saying that ‘‘Considering the facts, IO is directed to take action in accordance with law....SHO Delhi Cantt is directed to comply with the order and take steps as per law in the case.’’ Shaurya, who now lives with his maternal grandparents in Jaipur, is yet to record his statement before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Speaking to Timescity, Devender Kumar said, ‘‘The child’s statement has been recorded with the police. The police has managed to find the couple on the address given provided by me and they are required to appear before the court on Wednesday.’’
Doctor who was the real healer
It has been seven years but Shaurya’s case still stands out in the memory of Colonel (retd) R G Holla. Now retired from the Army, he has vivid memories of how when Shaurya was brought to him for the second time with an intracranial injury — the first just some time earlier when he had been brought to the Army Research and Referral Hospital for poisoning — he went out of his way to get a full body X-ray done. ‘‘The X-rays showed perfectly normal bones and I extensively counselled the parents thinking that it was some help at home who was battering him. They heard me out and did not come back for about a year. When they did, Shaurya had some 16 fractures all over his body. Bones that were perfect a year back had suffered injuries of all kinds. And his parents could not give any credible explanation,’’ Col (retd) Holla recollected while talking to Times City.
His whistleblower’s act notwithstanding — he had at one point refused to let the child go from the Army hospital with his parents — his diagnosis had to stand the test of an AIIMS medical board but was upheld. Holla was instrumental in the ‘‘rehabilitation’’ of Shaurya, going to the extent of setting pre-conditions like he should not be allowed to go back to live with his parents which he says resulted in his staying with his stepmother’s family for some time. ‘‘His health improved there. But after a while he was back with his parents. ‘‘All this while I had been trying desperately to get in touch with his grandparents in Jaipur but it happened after a long time,’’ he added. '
Even as the case drags on, Holla has the satisfaction of seeing Shaurya as a happy healthy child. ‘‘I talk to him often, wish him on his birthdays and recently his maternal uncle had mailed me some of his pictures where he looked perfect,’’ he said.

Source:- The Times of India 4 November 2009 P. 4 Delhi
For any query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com