Justice Charlesworth is a newly appointed Federal Court Judge in South Australia. She young and is very highly regarded in the legal industry. I'm not surprised that she gave such a well-reasoned and correct decision.
I'm assuming the 'preservation of rights' has more to do with the time within which to file an opposition.
If it had not filed an opposition in time, it would lose any right to oppose the trade mark (except in a Courtroom).
It is possible that it may not even actually press the opposition, but it was legally necessary to preserve its position in the event that discussions ultimately failed, and it made then considered the matter and decided at that point to oppose it.
Preserving time limits in this manner is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual.
I think it is worth noting that, in Australia, ALL ISPs have data caps.
The fact that iiNet was willing to do a deal to allow unmetered data with Netflix actually shows a diversion from what we are used to down here (that being, ridiculously slow internet speeds, and data caps).
I am in no way in favour of a ‘3 strikes’ rule, nor do I have any reservations that the Australian Liberal government is setting our country back decades in their short time in office. However, this article:
from the Australian Financial Review seems to suggest that the result of the warnings will not be a ban from internet, and that there is a lot to do before anything is implemented (such as getting through a tough Parliament). Anyone have any thoughts or comments?
Although I completely agree with the idea behind this (infringement is not theft), this is not a very transferable comparison.
Money obtains its value by the way in which it is accepted by society i.e. it can be exchanged for goods and services, and has value. There is no value in a copy (especially a digital copy), as it cannot enjoy the same use as the original.
There is, however, some value in a digital copy of a song or movie. I'm not specifically talking about dollar value, but in the use of the original vs the use of the copy. People are able to enjoy the same content and use as the original.
Not a very good comparison in my opinion, and I think this weakens the argument against the ridiculous claims which are made by the MPAA & RIAA.