For posterity, this is what it said as of 15 May 2008:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from Federal Magistrates Court – whether error in finding employer applied duress to employee in connection with an Australian Workplace Agreement

EVIDENCE – proper application of Briginshaw principle – isn’t there something in the Evidence Act about this?

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adequate reasons for judgment

*laughs*

Hermes Spring Summer 2006 with Gemma Ward

Personal thoughts:

• The more I learn about fashion the more I realise that a lot of products are really very close copies of something original but extremely expensive. Stigma attaches to fakes. Ignorance no dispelled, I am now annoyed that I am now precluded from purchasing designs that I like. Which is probably good since I’m broke huh?
• Money can be better spent. Investments, property, food, travel. How about charity? Can you justify a Birkin against the health and education of a child in Ethiopia?
• Contrary to the tone of my arguments above, I do love my designer goods. I love the quality of craftsmanship and materials, the innovativeness of design. It’s really art isn’t it? And like art it can’t be quantified in dollars and cents, only warm and fuzzies.
• What I’ll probably do is what I’ve vowed to do elsewhere in my life, which is simply to cut down on consumerism. It’s a sick cancer contracted by every child in the developed world. It’s caused by the carcinogens of marketing departments worldwide, consumed through the potato chips of TV and magazines. They whisper: “you’re not cool if you don’t own an iPod”. Or more subtly, “your quality of life will be so much better because you can carry xxx thousand songs in you pocket!!” And it works. And I dislike that. My wardrobe is overflowing, and I still can’t find anything to wear. I can’t avoid consuming but I’m going to try.

(See other posts in this series here)

Dolce & Gabbana Donna Fall Winter 2007 by Steven Meisel

Other thoughts on consumerist mentality:

• Are we going about this the wrong way? Should we really be demanding to fill our already overfilling wardrobes with new clothes each season in the neverending pressure that is consumerist society to stay current, trendy, fashionable? Do we have a right to stay trendy such that the moral, if not legal, sin of copying can be ignored?
• Why can’t we be satisfied with a few choice designer pieces that are timeless and can be worn again and again for decades? Surely your money can be put towards more worthwhile things than throw-away fashion that lasts for a season.
• Fashion is a business after all. Amongst all their lofty goals of creativity and art and all that, they still have to make money. They market to consumers.

  Look at the glossy gushing editorials in Vogue. How about product placements in movies and hip and sexy TV series (think Sex and the City). If we weren’t already pining for Birkins (starting price USD7000) or Manolo Blahniks it wouldn’t be any wonder why we would be now. Oh, gullible, lemming-like consumers we are!

  If demand cannot be met through inadequate supply (waiting lists for Birkins can last for several years. There is in fact a waiting list to get on the waiting list) or a price that a consumer is unwilling to pay, who steps in? Counterfeiters and high street shops. Is it any wonder?

• Designers and fashion houses create the demand and envy that is causing the copying. Then they complain about it. Hmm. Frankly, it reminds me of the RIAA (I understand there are marked differences between copying music and fashion though don’t email me about it)

So what can fill the gap?

• Alright so in this Nazi fashion market where no copying is allowed, you have retailers selling basics that are okay and doable and that no one is interested in, really. Then you have fashion houses that make fashion, make the trends, really innovate and push fashion forward. Gorgeous clothing of impeccable quality. That 99.99% of the world cannot or will not pay for.
• That’s because prices are really expensive. Why? Because:
  1. They are inflated because that creates demand and prestige. In fact their whole business model is based on getting people to spend large amounts because no one else has it.
  2. Value. The finest of materials. Impeccable craftsmanship. Lasts a century. The question is, does that add value to Joe Smith such that he is willing to pay such a high price? Maybe the average customer is satisfied with synthetic leather and something that won’t fall apart after a year. Would he pay $100 for a no-name briefcase or USD 1450 for a LV Laguito Taiga briefcase (which is extremely drool-worthy, I have to say.)
• And thus, I propose -drumroll-

fashion!Ikea

1. Designers create collections for each season with the average consumer in mind. No haute couture, no extremely exotic skins. They are prominently acknowledged so customers can easily follow and repurchase clothing from designers they like. Fashion!Ikea aims to attract young up-and-coming designers or old hands that are sick of fashion industry pretentiousness. Designers retain copyright over their designs and earn royalties which will be a percentage of sales.
2. Everything else including sales, marketing, manufacturing will be handled by fashion!Ikea who will have the market power to source good deals on materials and labour and so on to decrease actual costs of production.
3. ??
4. Profit!!

(See other posts in this series here)

Louis Vuitton Fall Winter 2007-2008 by Annie Leibovitz with Mikhail Gorbachev

I won’t address all the issues but here’s a summary of what I have swirling in my head:

Why designs should be copyrightable:

• Encouraging innovation and creativity, all very warm and fuzzy goals. Larger job market for designers.
• Quality. Designers have a reputation to keep and are more likely to use better materials, better workmanship etc.
• Warm and fuzzy feelings over owning a genuine article which is limited and coveted by many. To have the feeling of having ‘made it’. To feel that you can appreciate art and fashion more than anyone else around you. To have a sense of superiority. To say, ‘Har, har, I have more money than you.’
• Slave labour. As citizens of the world we are under an obligation not to support the slave-like conditions garment workers work in.
• Price. Just because all original designs have been pricey in the past doesn’t mean they have to be pricey into the glorious future where creativity and design is embraced!

Why things should stay the way they are:

• Price. Average consumer has better things to spend money on, doesn’t care that much about fashion.
• Investment. Sure the quality may not be as good (and this is making an assumption, modern production methods can be rather good) but is it really worth it? Take a $2000 LV handbag with a $200 inspired design for example. The quality of the LV would only be worth it if the inspired design would have to be replaced more than 10 times during the LV’s lifetime.
• ‘Conspiracy’ to keep prices up. You can’t convince me that a designer t-shirt is really worth and $80+ pricetag. It doesn’t cost that much to produce and screen print a t-shirt, no matter what kind of special materials you use. Well, I suppose it’s just business. Who wouldn’t want to create brand prestige? With demand, desirability and envy one can charge a price far in excess of cost prices (including humongous marketing budgets I’d bet) and consumers would still be falling over themselves to buy. One could be cynical and say that in fact inflating prices and cutting supply creates that very same desirability and demand…
• Modern technology. We have nice big machines now. Shouldn’t we use them? Behold the wonder of modern efficiency! While quality is often equated with extended human involvment, a certain level of “handmadeness”, if you will, there are many instances when it just doesn’t matter or where machines just do a better job as they are always consistent, don’t get distracted etcetc. Like t-shirts.
• Class divide. Is it fair that only the very rich can buy new clothes with any regularity? On the other hand thise doesn’t excuse counterfeiting. Like mp3s, just because you can’t afford it doesn’t mean you can steal it. If the design piracy bill is enacted inspired designs would be pushed into this area. I wonder what would the real consequences of the act be?
• Economy. If the extreme doomsday scenario discussed above comes about and spending on clothes drops, doesn’t that mean shops sell less and make less money and won’t be able to hire as many staff? Well they can still sell standard non-copyrightable stuff like basic t-shirts, knits etc but I would have thought one of the main drivers of demand were seasonal trends and our lemming-like need to stay fashionable. And these seasonal clothes are in turn mostly copied from the runway…

  I don’t actually think if will get that bad though. High street shops will just have to find more creative ways to dance on the border (misdirected creativity? Hmm). New lines will be drawn; and copiers will produce clothing that are intentionally only different enough to avoid a suit. A longer hemline, perhaps 3/4 sleeves instead of long sleeves. A round neck instead of v-neck. Pleats where there was lace. Is that enough? Wait, is that a different garment already? Man I’m creative!

P.S. I know my doomsday fashion scenario is really impossible, as in even cheap outlets have their own designers with original-but-perhaps-not-entirely-innovative-products, but I was wondering what would happen if things were brought to that extreme.

P.P.S. Yes that really is Gorbachev! The ad features him sittin in the back seat of a Khrushchev-era Soviet limousine. The particular section of the Berlin Wall in the background was chosen by Mr Gorbachev himself - it was a section that Reagan once challenged Gorbachev to tear down. Love the political overtones.
(See other posts in this series here)

Burberry with Kate Moss

On the one hand, designers say that their creative efforts are being for all intents and purposes wholesale copied and sold on. It’s not fair they say. Consider not only the big fashion houses who may be able to afford it - isn’t imitation the sincerest form of flattery? However there are many smaller fledgling designers out there. After scoring a big hit they may suddenly find themselves edged out of the market altogether by cheap inspired designs sold by large trendy chain stores.

It’s not cheap producing clothes when you’re a small time designer. You don’t get economies of scale. Perhaps everything is largely handmade. How can you compete with Guangzhou? Especially with the average teenage girl these days wanting it NOW and at a price that agrees with their allowance.

Also, merely copying does not help push fashion forward. Original designers are shouldering the entire fiscal and moral burden of creation. We should all hold hands and try to be more creative and come up with our own designs. Unfortunately how many people really care about fashion that much? For many it’s something to keep warm and be presentable, perhaps a perfunctory effort to keep up with the trends to exude an aura of stylishness without spending the money that would be better put towards old-fashioned essentials like food.

So hypothetically, if all fashion, from counterfeits down to the other end of the scale of ‘inspired’ designs were illegal and thus were not produced, where would that leave consumers? Assuming price of original designs remain at the levels they are at now, the average consumer is going to either starve or become fashion pariahs (wait wait I think those ‘high fashion’ people can already tell the difference anyhow so in that sense they already *are* considered to more unfashionable but the important thing here is that those wearing copies still think they are reasonably fashionable and isn’t that the important thing?). I am certainly not going to spend $300 on a pair of jeans just because the label can’t afford to take advantage of the grand factory of the world that is Guangzhou. I’d rather travel. I’d rather buy property. Isn’t it paternalistic for the minority to shove down their world view on people who have a life other than fashion?

P.S. This is one of my favourite fashion ads. I love the stuff Kate Moss has done for Burberry. British arrogance just oozes out of every pore. It. Is. AWSUM! Couldn’t find any more details on the ad campaign. Actually there’s another Burberry family ad I loved even more. Featured a big group having a picnic. More British aristocratic arrogance but x100!

P.P.S. Did you know Richard Branson’s son (Sam) is a model and has done ads for Burberry?

(See other posts in this series here)

Chanel Spring Summer 2007 by Karl Lagerfield with Freja Beha Erichsen.

Intellectual property law is probably one of the few areas of law I take a personal interest in, and is probably the only area that I could loosely call a “hobby” of mine.

Like many, the event that made me more aware of IP was filesharing over the internet - oh glorious days! And Napster, you were the golden age! That of course spun off into movies, TV shows, anime, and drama. Sticky issues.

Similar to history, these issues repeat themselves in other areas of life as well. Take fashion f’erinstance. And to this end I thank Counterfeit Chic for opening my eyes to these issues.

In the US, design is not something that can be copyrighted, however prints, logos, and stuff of that ilk can be. For example, the wrap dress designed and made famous by Diane von Furstenberg is not copyrightable but if you copy the exact prints on the dress then you might be infringing on copyright.

So ‘inspired’ clothing is generally not considered to be an infringement (designers, however think otherwise…) unless you copy real tangible elements of the clothing, or make outright counterfeits (eg fake LV bags - p.s. don’t do it, because it is illegal it is normally controlled by shady companies; the money gets laundered and goes into drugs, illegal weapons trading, etc).

There are pushes in the US to have design be copyrightable (google the design piracy bill).

I’m not too clear on the position in Australia but I suppose it would be similar - the free trade treaty between US and Australia would ensure that copyright law between the two countries wouldn’t be too diverse in the end.

One also has to consider that fashion houses generally copy each other to a certain extent - that’s how you get trends in a season. But it’s more, you know, feeding of each other’s creative energies or something I guess. I’d show photos for comparison but meh. Like if it’s a fall season maybe everyone would incorporate darker earthy colours and knits into their collection. But they wouldn’t very well send extremely similar cropped knit jackets down the runway. High street shops (eg Top Shop (UK), Portmans (Aust)) would have no qualms against selling extremely similar designs.

(See other posts in this series here)

Mouseover for captions

We were admitted before the Full Court. It was presided by Chief Justice Doyle along with Kelly and Anderson (or was it White? Oops) JJs. His Honour the Chief Justice did a bit of an opening speech and a closing one too. It was rather nice.

But as there were only 17 or so of us it went by pretty quick. Couldn’t have been more than half an hour. I’m just relieved it’s finally all over =_=. The application for admission process is really annoying >_< particularly if you live interstate!!

We had arranged for counsel to move for our admission ahead of time, and also prepared a brief for them. I asked Roger to move for my admission of course!

So the process was like this: Everyone bows as Full Court enters (this is the “All rise…” bit). CJ makes a short speech, each counsel in turn stands up to move for admission of each admittee. The admittee stands up at the same time once his name is called. Then CJ says “he/she is so admitted”. After everyone goes through that process then the first half walks up to the bench and takes the oath (or affirmation), one at a time. After that each person signs his name in the practitioner’s roll, bows to judges then walks back to seat. When that was all done CJ gave a short closing speech. Then “all rise…” and bow to judges as they leave.

Whoo~~…

My niece and I moseyed around a bit till lunch time - went to watch a bit of a murder trial, examining the witnesses bit.

We had lunch at the Star of Siam, which is the local hangout for Adelaide lawyers, with one of my classmates. Forgot to take a full table photo. Oh well.

So anyway I’m finally admitted
It’s been a long road…I’ve wanted to be a lawyer ever since I was uhm…12? So it’s been 10 years o_O

I couldn’t have got here without the support and help of so many. First and foremost God, and then my parents and not least of all Roger who gave me my first real taste of the law.

Start: EST 16:50.
Challenge: print off, certify and post a statutory declaration so it gets to Adelaide by Tuesday. Not to mention how to do all of the preceding and find the locations of all relevant places…and the fact I had no map and had zero familiarity with Melbourne CBD. Bonus: find the gold express post box!!

Highlights: finding out that Melbournites are quite accomodating when “WHERE’S THE NEAREST POLICE STATION?” is screamed into their faces, being sent on a wild goose chase by shop staff who just want to get rid of the asian lunatic begging to use their computers/printers, getting ripped off by the Indian convenience store owner to use his computers/printer, sprinting all around Melbourne and nearly chucking my guts out onto the pavement.

Didn’t manage to make it in time before the main post office closed at 5:30, but then realised (saw express post advertisement in the window of this little store run by a Korean dude who was nice but refused to let me use his computer/printer - “it’s inconvenient”, he said with a little smile which is asianspeak for “you’re crazy, please get out of my shop”) could still post by using the gold express post boxes - deadline 6pm. Thus….30mins to do all of the above!!!

Managed to post at 6:04. Hung around waiting for post office van to make sure I wasn’t late. Mail collected: 6:14.

…and after all that, I still don’t feel safe. I mean I didn’t even get to check the stat dec/certification before I chucked it in the box. Plus the police seem to certify just anything - he didn’t even ask me for photo ID… probably because he saw I was desperate?

So…I’m flying back to Adelaide this Sunday early morning 6:30 (cheapest flight …$50! woohoo~).

================

The stat dec is a document I have to lodge with the Legal Practitioner’s Board, or something, in Adelaide by Tuesday. Had posted it on time before but there was a very MINOR mistake that I made due to a technicality I didn’t know about.

Since I’m not confident that the one I mailed in a rush yesterday night was 100% correct, I’m flying down to lodge a 100% certainly correct one, and if that is not correct at least I’ll be in Adelaide to wash, rinse, repeat.

I am a courier, hear me roar.

=====
UPDATE: Forgot to mention that my mobile with net access was invaluable. No one seemed to know with any certainty where it was, and they’d point off vaguely in any direction. Yesterday was wild goose chase day, I tell you! Then I remembered I had net access! I have a SE K800i (3G) and together with the Opera mini browser I could quickly find the website of the Victorian police and lookup the addresses of police stations in the city. I heart web access on my SE, I heart Opera mini!

Part of the supreme court of south australia’s historical collection. It’s in a little glass case near the front foyer of the district court. It’s actually kinda small. Pity they don’t have a proper exhibition set up, then i can go and fan girl the actual pen held by his honour justice sir samuel way, for example. What? It’s like how ‘normal’ people collect movie star memorabilia…

Anyway i thought this particular item was morbidly interesting. Death warrants.the colour is so fitting. Like, the clerk would be pulling out the black way and everyone in the room would be O_O and then if would hold the heavy seals up in the air and THUMP death warrant signed, sealed and soon to be delivered…

Oh…brain melting…full day lectures DX

Plum/cherry blossom tree,
Adelaide University

Last Saturday I rolled out of bed to get to uni at 9 am. PAIN.

But I had to go because the Law Society was holding a seminar on the new State Supreme Court Rules.
This is a huge event as evidenced by the turnout - normally seminar run by the law society are attended by a relative handful, and most of the attendees would be GDLP (Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice, the certificate one needs to become a Real Lawyer (TM) in South Australia) students who are forced to attend the equivalent of 10 hours of legal seminars to get their certificate. I say “equivalent” of 10 hours because the length of time the seminar runs over does not equate to the actual number of hours actually “counted”. For example a half day seminar that would run for about 4 hours may only count for 2 hours, whereas a mid-week seminar that would run for 2 hours would count for 1.5 hours. Much better to attend the mid-week seminars.

Anyway, this time it was attended by mainly practitioners and they actually used Elder Hall to give the talks! Elder Hall is a very distinguished-looking building, and one of the landmark heritage halls around the University of Adelaide. Somewhat comparable to the nice old hall in HKU whhere they hold all the official events and the exams, but better. HAH.

So what are these court rules you say?

Well when practicing, an important body of knowledge to have is court procedure. This isn’t what could be described as core law in that court procedure functions as a consequence of core law. For example, the law of contract is “core law” - everyone needs to make contracts, contracting is carried out whether or not you go to court or not. It’s only when something stuffs up and you need to bring it to a final legal determination in front of a court that court procedure kicks in.

So the court rules are basically the rules involved when you’re bringing matters to court. They deal with interlocutory applications (the process you go through in bringing the case to trial - eg Defendant hasn’t discovered all documents! Ping him! Or, I need an adjournment of the trial date!) and briefly with the trial process. The rules give the judge the power to deal with the applications brought before him. The rules also cover the procedure involved during the trial.

For example, when you have a dispute that you want to litigate, you have to first write a letter to the other party informing them of the claim against them, and demanding to be paid or else “I’ll sue!”. The rules list in detail the form of the letter, and time limits as to when a response has to be sent, and how long before the claim is lodged in court does the letter have to be sent. The rules also deal with discovery of documents (what to discover, when to discover, procedure involved in seeking further discovery, how to whack the other practitioner on the head if u suspect they are hiding documents from you). As you can see, the rules go into some detail on what steps have to be taken during the process of bringing the case to trial. But they are fairly necessary in that one needs some sort of order around them to be able to quickly and efficiently bring matters to final determination - trial.

Mouseover to view captions

Now the new rules are supposed to be less prescriptive and take a more common sense approach. Actually the substance of the old rules are still there, just numbered differently and maybe rephrased a bit differently, so they say. I only know that it’s a real bitch having to remember where the relevant rule is now in terms of numbering. Also, as many people have pointed out, interrogatories (a list of questions you send to the other side, and they have to answer with reasons) are now called “pre-trial examination by written questions.” >_>

Anyway so that was my very fun Saturday.

When I went back to where my car was parked though, I noticed a couple of possibly plum blossom trees near the back of the University next to the University child care centre. I love these blooms!!

Legal research

Originally uploaded by gwilmore.

Today at work I was writing some submissions on whether breach of an undertaking made to a court amounted to contempt of court. One of the issues was that the consequence of the breach was not “de minimis”, ie, it was not an insignificant matter.

The full legal expression is “de minimis non curat lex“.

De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things, which is mostly used as part of de minimis non curat praetor or de minimis non curat lex, in the sense that law is not interested in trivial matters.

De minimis, in a more formal legal sense, means something which is unworthy of the law’s attention.

- Source: Wikipedia

Anyway, there is a limerick associated with this latin phrase. I think I will never forget this phrase now XD

There was a law student called Rex,
With diminutive organs of sex,
When charged with exposure,
He replied with composure,
“de minimis non curat lex“.

P.S. As stated in the flickr description of this photo, the book is open at the decision of United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan & His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971). This is an extremely hilarious case and is only a couple of paragraphs long. I wish Australia had more wacky cases XD