- Gillian Nuttall (PR & Marketing Manager)
“Nipping out for a loaf” will probably become one of the phrases remembered in connection with the 2010 election. Poor Gillian, had she known the furore that was about to occur, I’m sure she would have carried on to the shops, grabbed her loaf and made her way home.
Only last week I was accosted in St Anne’s Square here in Manchester and asked if I would speak to some reporters. Never one to be shy at coming forward, I agreed and started to perform for the cameras. I think they got more than they bargained for, as I basically gave my very own, word perfect, Party Political Broadcast! After I had finished they asked me what I did for a living and the penny dropped when I explained I was head of PR & Marketing at Ralli. I realise that they really wanted the genuine “man on the street” but they just happened upon me! Read more »
- Phil Hitchen (Intellectual Property Solicitor)
“Most people regard tangible assets, such as premises and plant, and staff as material to business operation and success or failure. Of equal if not greater importance is knowing what intellectual property your business owns or licences and your rights.
Whether it be the name or logo you use; the design and supply details of your products or services or the software that records orders and delivery all involve intellectual property. You need to know what you have and protect it and exploit it or lose it. Read more »
Mark Briegal (Partner)
Corporate Partner and Head of Ralli Partnership Law, Mark Briegal, took part in a Concept 2 Rowing Marathon on Friday 23 April to raise money for Children with Leukaemia.
Mark is a part-time rowing coach at the Grange School in Hartford, Cheshire, and the school had 8 teams each rowing 42,165 metres as part of a marathon themed day. Read more »
Phil Hitchen - Associate
Ben Hoyle, Arts Correspondent at The Times reported yesterday that EON Productions, the producer of the James Bond films, has announced that the 23rd installment in the series has been postponed indefinitely because of the financial woes of its distributor, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM).
If you are a corporate buyer or investor you are only going to buy or invest in MGM if it makes commercial sense and you will get a return.
If a major factor in MGM income stream is the rights from the “Bond” films a buyer or investor will want to know that those rights and income stream are in place.
If there were few potential buyers or investors in the current climate the possibility of buying or investing in an MGM which doesn’t have the rights or the income from them in terms of new content is going to be a major put off.
I would be saddened if it causes any further delay with “The Hobbit” which has already been delayed due to contract/IPR disputes. Read more »
Phil Hitchen - Associate
Marmite is today launching legal action against the British National Party after an image of the spread was used in a political broadcast without the company’s permission.
The famous jar appeared in the top left hand corner of the screen while party leader Nick Griffin was addressing viewers in a BNP general election broadcast on the web. Read more »
David Potts (Partner)
A simple click on a computer has the ability to send a defamatory statement to a huge audience across the world – instantly. Whilst the internet has many fine uses, it can also pose a huge threat to any one’s reputation, particularly those in business.
To be defamatory, a statement must tend to lower someone in the estimation of right – thinking members of society generally. The party aggrieved has to show that the words are defamatory (in the sense above); refer to or identify him; and are published to someone other than him. Having established that, the person making the statement has to prove it is true; amounts to fair comment; is privileged; published with consent; or was innocently disseminated (of which more later). Read more »
Andrew Cowan (Solicitor)
Following on from Stuart’s comments, it is right that the public and David Cameron should feel outraged at this particular decision on legal aid.
However what people must realise is that to be fair, one system must apply to all – and financial means testing in the Crown Court is presently being phased in across the country. It has been in place in magistrates’ courts since 2007. Read more »
Stuart Page (Associate)
Although the MP’s have been granted legal aid, and this may be distasteful in the eyes of the public, it has to be remembered that should they be found guilty an assessment will be made by the judge of their ability to pay legal costs, and the judge can make a defendant cost order for them to pay some or all of their legal fees.
The granting of legal aid will also ensure a swift trial for the defendants as one must remember that if they were unrepresented a trial would obviously take a lot longer, with the judge having to explain to unrepresented defendants every step of the legal process. Read more »
Stuart Page (Associate)
Four men were recently convicted of a £1.75m robbery at Heathrow airport – in Britain’s first serious criminal trial without a jury.
With three previous abortive attempts to try the case, new laws were introduced meaning the trial could be heard by a judge alone after the Court of Appeal ruled there was a serious danger a jury could be tampered with.
It is very worrying on a number of fronts that a trial such as this is conducted without a jury, whilst jury tampering is a real concern, in most cases a jury will still be used as there will be no evidence or allegation of such behaviour.
A number of factors have to be considered here:
1. What is the evidence that a jury has been interfered with? Read more »
Rob Illidge (Marketing Execuitve)
I read in the Times this morning that Viacom have now alleged that the use of copyrighted material was central to YouTube’s website business model.
This of course is in relation to the argument that the content-sharing website had hosted more than 60,000 copyrighted videos without authorisation, including versions of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and South Park.
The figure of the lawsuit? $1bn! Surely plucked out of American lawsuit heaven.
It could be sadi that perhaps back in 2005 YouTube had a visitor’s first/worry about copyright infringement later attitude. Something I’m sure many young inspiring online entrepreneurs do.
I’m not in any way condoning the breach of copyright; although I do have my trusty Intellectual Property Solicitor here at the ready, should the Viacom heavies come knocking at my door. Not tonight though, I’ll be out!
There is no doubt that these videos are property of Viacom, but surely YouTube is simply giving shows like South Park the product extension that it needs? Read more »
Uncategorized | Ralli | 
April 29, 2010 9:41 am | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe