Friday, 29 May 2009

 

OUT-LAW.COM: IT & e-commerce legal help from international law firm Pinsent Masons

Hi, here is your weekly round-up of highlights from OUT-LAW News. As always, there are plenty of other stories from this week. You can also access our archive of weekly emails.

This week's news on OUT-LAW.COM

Police retention of photos of innocent man breached his right to privacy, says Court of Appeal

Police should not have kept photos taken of an arms trade protester, the Court of Appeal has ruled. The retention of the photos long after the peaceful protest was a breach of the man's right to privacy, the Court ruled.
27/05/2009

Patients win right to delete records on controversial health database

Patients will be able to demand that their health records are deleted from the massive database being built by the NHS, privacy regulator the Information Commissioner's Office has said. Previously, patients could only have details 'masked', not deleted.
27/05/2009

HMRC says low tax take is indicator of success

A body representing IT contractors has claimed that a law clamping down on individuals' use of companies to avoid tax is a failure because it has generated so little in tax income. The Government has said that the small tax take means it is a success.
27/05/2009

EBay has 'no legal duty' to protect others' trade marks, says High Court

Online auction site eBay has "no legal duty" to protect other companies' trade marks or stop its sellers from infringing them, the High Court has said.
26/05/2009

ECJ rulings on Google keywords might not resolve controversy, warns High Court

A widely-requested European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on keyword advertising may fail to give businesses in the UK and Ireland the legal clarity it would give to the rest of Europe, a High Court judge has warned.
26/05/2009

Court refuses 'futile' reporting restriction on paternity story

Banning the further reporting of a story which has already gained the attention of millions of people around the world would be ludicrous, absurd and unenforceable, the High Court has said.
26/05/2009