Learning the Law

I received my marks for the semester and I was very excited at the results. I had already received a Distinction for my postgraduate course but I was on tenterhooks waiting for the results of my other courses. I received a Pass for Litigation and Dispute Management, which I was happy enough with. It was a tricky exam and it was the day after Property, another tricky compulsory course. Speaking of Property, I received a Credit for that course and I was very glad. My exam was worth 100% of my mark and the result indicates which means that I am finished above the average. A Credit is a very good result for the Property Law course, or so I'm told. And finally, I received a Distinction in Intellectual Property, where it seems I have a slight talent. I have good reason to believe that I received a High Distinction on the final exam. I also received a congratulatory e-mail from the professor informing me that I finished 3rd in the class! I must say, I do enjoy intellectual property, though I don't really know why. I have been known to get impassioned about some issues, notably the Land Down Under Case and Google Street View privacy concerns. All in all, I think this has been my 2nd best semester. All that remains is to successfully complete my final semester.

For most of the week, my time has been taken up by a course known as Becoming a Practitioner, the preliminary course for the Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice, the piece of paper that lets you be admitted. The course, which is actually a series of workshops and activities ran from Monday-Friday 09:00-17:00 virtually every day, except for Friday when we were let out at lunch. For the course, we learned how to properly draft a letter to a client (plain English), how to draft a will/legal provision (plain English), how to negotiate and how to appear in court (complicated English). The most fun was had on Friday when we were assessed on our negotiation and advocacy techniques. The negotiation exercise involved teams of individuals (we had been assigned on Tuesday) playing the part of various interest groups in a harbour construction plan. As it turned out, my group represented the unions and we did very well. We managed to secure the on of the best possible outcomes for our constituency, which gave me confidence for my advocacy assessment. The advocacy assessment was just a mock submission to a lawyer playing the part of a judge or magistrate. I did a plea in mitigation, essentially trying to get a light sentence for my client; it turned out alright. I think I've got the basics down now. I still have to submit 2 short written assessment, but I suspect they will not prove troublesome.

I mentioned earlier about my passion for the Land Down Under Case and the judgment was recently handed down. I first mentioned this matter in my post titled I'm a Noun and an Adjective dated 7/02/10. To refresh your memories, the owners of the copyright in the song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree, Larrikin Music, sued the band Men at Work for infringement. Men at Work's most famous song is a 1982 piece entitled Land Down Under and it contains a famous flute riff that Larrikin alleged was too close to the tune of their song. In February, the judge of the Federal Court hearing the matter ruled in Larrikin's favour but the actual damages judgment was only just handed down. Larrikin had been asking for 60% of all royalties, past and future, to be paid but, luckily, the judge found that that was unreasonable and excessive. He ordered that 5% of all future royalties only would be paid to Larrikin. While I think this is a fantastic result for Men at Work, I still think the whole case should have been dismissed. Thankfully, Men at Work are still contemplating appealing the original ruling which I still have trouble fathoming.

Without getting into too much detail, there is an equitable doctrine called laches (pronounced "lash") which states that if a person takes too long to bring a matter to court, it will be dismissed barring a compelling reason. The song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree was written for a Girl Guides song competition back in the 1930s. After a series of transactions, Larrikin acquired the copyright in 2000. The song Land Down Under was composed in 1979, although it only became truly popular in 1982, and it became one of the most popular songs of the decade, and not only in Australia. However, it seems that no one noticed the similarity until it was the answer to a question on the popular TV show Spicks and Specks in 2007. It was only then that Larrikin brought suit. Now, my reasoning is that it is reasonable to assume that in all that time (over 30 years now) that both songs have been in existence, the copyright holder of the earlier song would have heard Land Down Under. Furthermore, as no suit was brought until now, it can be assumed that the association was so slight as to escape notice or was made but not objected to. In an event, I think that the doctrine of laches should have stepped in to end the matter. As it turns out, apparently that wasn't even argued but I think it's a good argument. I hope it's argued in the appeal. I still think that the original judgment for Larrikin was one of the worst decisions of the Federal Court.

I'd also like to note that I saw in the news that Canada's new Governor-General will be David Johnston, an academic I've never heard of. Let's see how he does in the job.