LunaRoo: A Proposal for the Google Lunar XPrize Payload Opportunity with the Part Time Scientists team

This proposal describes the innovative and competitive lunar payload solution developed at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT)–the LunaRoo: a hopping robot designed to exploit the Moon's lower gravity to leap up to 20m above the surface. It is compact enough to fit within a 10cm cube, whilst providing unique observation and mission capabilities by creating imagery during the hop. This first section is deliberately kept short and concise for web submission; additional information can be found in the second chapter.

External influence as an indicator of scholarly importance

Although the external influence of scholars has usually been approximated by publication and citation count, the array of scholarly activities is far more extensive. Today, new technologies, in particular Internet search engines, allow more accurate measurement of scholars' influence on societal discourse. Hence, in this article, we analyse the relation between the internal and external influence of 723 top economists using the number of pages indexed by Google and Bing as a measure of external influence. We not only identify a small association between these scholars’ internal and external influence but also a correlation between internal influence, as captured by receipt of such major academic awards as the Nobel Prize and John Bates Clark Medal, and the external prominence of the top 100 researchers (JEL Code: A11, A13, Z18).

The influence of technology-mediated environments on international business experience for internationalisation: Does international experience matter?

This paper examines the role and importance of international business experience for firms operating in technologically-mediated environments. Although the key success factors of international expansion have been subject to extensive research in the international business literature, the analysis of technology-mediated environments on international business experience remains limited. This finding is unexpected given that the Internet and the technologies that have enabled it have profoundly transformed the ways in which international business is conducted. This is especially so for firms in the Australian region where the Internet has allowed business to access the scale of markets they need to grow and operate globally (Google and PWC, 2015). Given that businesses of the future will need to innovate quicker and more effectively in online settings to remain competitive, it seems appropriate that we re-visit the more traditional facets of internationalisation; such as the necessity of international business experience for firm performance. In doing so, the empirical section of this paper focuses on twelve Australian international entrepreneurial firms, who in varying degrees utilise technology to leverage their internationalisation activities. The findings suggest that international entrepreneurs with lower levels of international business experience still achieve international performance outcomes. The findings indicate that firms are recognising that the ability to adapt and evolve quickly in technologically-advanced settings is imperative. The findings also suggest that international entrepreneurs are relying less on traditional facets of international business experience, and are learning in self-taught or autodidactic ways. This is because businesses in the current global climate are now operating in complex and highly dynamic environments, characterised by rapid change; thus, the findings suggest that international business experience is becoming less important due to the evolving nature of international business environments.

Breakfast at Tiffany's': eBay Inc., trade mark law, and counterfeiting

In an exploration of intellectual property and fashion, this article examines the question of the intermediary liability of online auction-houses for counterfeiting. In the United States, the illustrious jewellery store, Tiffany & Co, brought a legal action against eBay Inc, alleging direct trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and trademark dilution. The luxury store depicted the online auction-house as a pirate bazaar, a flea-market and a haven for counterfeiting. During epic litigation, eBay Inc successfully defended itself against these allegations in a United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Tiffany & Co made a desperate, unsuccessful effort to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States. The matter featured a number of interventions from amicus curiae — Tiffany was supported by Coty, the Fashion Designer's Guild, and the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition, while eBay was defended by publicly-spirited civil society groups such as Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, and Public Knowledge as well as Yahoo!, Google Inc, Amazon.com, and associations representing telecommunications carriers and internet service providers. The litigation in the United States can be counterpointed with the fusillade of legal action against eBay in the European Union. In contrast to Tiffany & Co, Louis Vuitton triumphed over eBay in the French courts — claiming its victory as vindication of the need to protect the commercial interests and cultural heritage of France. However, eBay has fared somewhat better in a dispute with L’Oréal in Great Britain and the European Court of Justice. It is argued that, in a time of flux and uncertainty, Australia should follow the position of the United States courts in Tiffany & Co v eBay Inc. The final part examines the ramifications of this litigation over online auction-houses for trade mark law reform and consumer rights; parallel disputes over intermediary liability and safe harbours in the field of copyright law and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2010. The conclusion calls for a revision of trade mark law, animated by a respect for consumers’ rights and interests in the electronic marketplace.

ACE Research Vignette 043: Can academic entrepreneurship research identify and explain the next Apple, Google, or (even) Halfbrick studios?

This series of research vignettes is aimed at sharing current and interesting research findings from our team of international entrepreneurship researchers. This vignette, written by Professor Per Davidsson, reports findings on the extremely skewed distributions of entrepreneurship outcomes and other key variables of interest to entrepreneurship research and practice, as well as what this means for what and how we can learn through academic research.

The case for the plain packaging of tobacco products

AIMS: The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) requires nations that have ratified the convention to ban all tobacco advertising and promotion. In the face of these restrictions, tobacco packaging has become the key promotional vehicle for the tobacco industry to interest smokers and potential smokers in tobacco products. This paper reviews available research into the probable impact of mandatory plain packaging and internal tobacco industry statements about the importance of packs as promotional vehicles. It critiques legal objections raised by the industry about plain packaging violating laws and international trade agreements. METHODS: Searches for available evidence were conducted within the internal tobacco industry documents through the online document archives; tobacco industry trade publications; research literature through the Medline and Business Source Premier databases; and grey literature including government documents, research reports and non-governmental organization papers via the Google internet search engine. RESULTS: Plain packaging of all tobacco products would remove a key remaining means for the industry to promote its products to billions of the world's smokers and future smokers. Governments have required large surface areas of tobacco packs to be used exclusively for health warnings without legal impediment or need to compensate tobacco companies. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring plain packaging is consistent with the intention to ban all tobacco promotions. There is no impediment in the FCTC to interpreting tobacco advertising and promotion to include tobacco packs.

Virtual countries: Internet domain names and geographical terms

This paper examines the dispute between the Seattle company Virtual Countries Inc. and the Republic of South Africa over the ownership of the domain name address southafrica.com. The first part of the paper deals with the pre-emptive litigation taken by Virtual Countries Inc. in a District Court of the United States. The second part considers the possible arbitration of the dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and examines the wider implications of this dispute for the jurisdiction and the governance of ICANN. The final section of the paper evaluates the Final Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.

Media futures: A review essay on'The Future of Reputation','TV Futures', and'The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'

In his 1987 book, The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT, Stewart Brand provides an insight into the visions of the future of the media in the 1970s and 1980s. 1 He notes that Nicolas Negroponte made a compelling case for the foundation of a media laboratory at MIT with diagrams detailing the convergence of three sectors of the media—the broadcast and motion picture industry; the print and publishing industry; and the computer industry. Stewart Brand commented: ‘If Negroponte was right and communications technologies really are converging, you would look for signs that technological homogenisation was dissolving old boundaries out of existence, and you would expect an explosion of new media where those boundaries used to be’. Two decades later, technology developers, media analysts and lawyers have become excited about the latest phase of media convergence. In 2006, the faddish Time Magazine heralded the arrival of various Web 2.0 social networking services: You can learn more about how Americans live just by looking at the backgrounds of YouTube videos—those rumpled bedrooms and toy‐strewn basement rec rooms—than you could from 1,000 hours of network television. And we didn’t just watch, we also worked. Like crazy. We made Facebook profiles and Second Life avatars and reviewed books at Amazon and recorded podcasts. We blogged about our candidates losing and wrote songs about getting dumped. We camcordered bombing runs and built open‐source software. America loves its solitary geniuses—its Einsteins, its Edisons, its Jobses—but those lonely dreamers may have to learn to play with others. Car companies are running open design contests. Reuters is carrying blog postings alongside its regular news feed. Microsoft is working overtime to fend off user‐created Linux. We’re looking at an explosion of productivity and innovation, and it’s just getting started, as millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity get backhauled into the global intellectual economy. The magazine announced that Time’s Person of the Year was ‘You’, the everyman and everywoman consumer ‘for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game’. This review essay considers three recent books, which have explored the legal dimensions of new media. In contrast to the unbridled exuberance of Time Magazine, this series of legal works displays an anxious trepidation about the legal ramifications associated with the rise of social networking services. In his tour de force, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet, Daniel Solove considers the implications of social networking services, such as Facebook and YouTube, for the legal protection of reputation under privacy law and defamation law. Andrew Kenyon’s edited collection, TV Futures: Digital Television Policy in Australia, explores the intersection between media law and copyright law in the regulation of digital television and Internet videos. In The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, Jonathan Zittrain explores the impact of ‘generative’ technologies and ‘tethered applications’—considering everything from the Apple Mac and the iPhone to the One Laptop per Child programme.

Wikipedia, collective authorship, and the politics of knowledge

This chapter considers the legal ramifications of Wikipedia, and other online media, such as the Encyclopedia of Life. Nathaniel Tkacz (2007) has observed: 'Wikipedia is an ideal entry-point from which to approach the shifting character of knowledge in contemporary society.' He observes: 'Scholarship on Wikipedia from computer science, history, philosophy, pedagogy and media studies has moved beyond speculation regarding its considerable potential, to the task of interpreting - and potentially intervening in - the significance of Wikipedia's impact' (Tkacz 2007). After an introduction, Part II considers the evolution and development of Wikipedia, and the legal troubles that have attended it. It also considers the establishment of rival online encyclopedia - such as Citizendium set up by Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia; and Knol, the mysterious new project of Google. Part III explores the use of mass, collaborative authorship in the field of science. In particular, it looks at the development of the Encyclopedia of Life, which seeks to document the world's biodiversity. This chapter expresses concern that Wiki-based software had to develop in a largely hostile and inimical legal environment. It contends that copyright law and related fields of intellectual property need to be reformed in order better to accommodate users of copyright material (Rimmer 2007). This chapter makes a number of recommendations. First, there is a need to acknowledge and recognize forms of mass, collaborative production and consumption - not just individual authorship. Second, the view of a copyright 'work' and other subject matter as a complete and closed piece of cultural production also should be reconceptualised. Third, the defense of fair use should be expanded to accommodate a wide range of amateur, peer-to-peer production activities - not only in the United States, but in other jurisdictions as well. Fourth, the safe harbor protections accorded to Internet intermediaries, such as Wikipedia, should be strengthened. Fifth, there should be a defense in respect of the use of 'orphan works' - especially in cases of large-scale digitization. Sixth, the innovations of open source licensing should be expressly incorporated and entrenched within the formal framework of copyright laws. Finally, courts should craft judicial remedies to take into account concerns about political censorship and freedom of speech.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Book reviews: Kathy Bowrey.Law & Internet Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

What role does Australia play in debates over the regulation and governance of the Internet? Is it a hub? A node in the information grid? Or is it a mere cul–de–sac? Or are we mere road–kill, bush junk, on the information autobahn?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Copyright Law, the Creative Industries, and Internet Freedom

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a highly secretive trade agreement being negotiated between the US and eleven Pacific Rim countries, including Australia. Having obtained a fast-track authority from the United States Congress, US President Barack Obama is keen to finalise the deal. However, he was unable to achieve a resolution of the deal at recent talks in Hawaii on the TPP. A number of chapters of the TPP will affect the creative artists, cultural industries and internet freedom — including the intellectual property chapter, the investment chapter, and the electronic commerce chapter. Legacy copyright industries have pushed for longer and stronger copyright protection throughout the Pacific Rim. In the wake of the Hawaii talks, Knowledge Ecology International leaked the latest version of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP. Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International commented upon the leaked text about copyright law: ‘In many sections of the text, the TPP would change global norms, restrict access to knowledge, create significant financial risks for persons using and sharing information, and, in some cases, impose new costs on persons producing new knowledge goods.’ The recent leaked text reveals a philosophical debate about the nature of intellectual property law. There are mixed messages in respect of the treatment of the public domain under copyright law. In one part of the agreement on internet service providers, there is text that says that the parties recognise the need for ‘promoting innovation and creativity,’ ‘facilitating the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, culture, and the arts’, and ‘foster competition and open and efficient markets.’ A number of countries suggested ‘acknowledging the importance of the public domain.’ The United States and Japan opposed the recognition of the public domain in this text.

Comparative studies of how living circumstances influence medication adherence in ≥ 65 year olds

Background Resources to help the older aged (≥65 year olds) manage their medicines should probably target those in greatest need. The older-aged have many different types of living circumstances. There are different locations (urban, rural), different types of housing (in the community or in retirement villages), different living arrangements (living alone or with others), and different socioeconomic status (SES) circumstances. However, there has been limited attention to whether these living circumstances affect adherence to medicines in the ≥65 year olds. Aim of the review The aim was to determine whether comparative studies, including logistic regression studies, show that living circumstances affect adherence to medicines by the ≥65 year olds. Methods A literature search of Medline, CINAHL and the Internet (Google) was undertaken. Results Four comparative studies have not shown differences in adherence to medicines between the ≥65 year olds living in rural and urban locations, but one study shows lower adherence to medicines for osteoporosis in rural areas compared to metropolitan, and another study shows greater adherence to antihypertensive medicines in rural than urban areas. There are no comparative studies of adherence to medicines in the older-aged living in indigenous communities compared to other communities. There is conflicting evidence as to whether living alone, being unmarried, or having a low income/worth is associated with nonadherence. Preliminary studies have suggested that the older-aged living in rental, low SES retirement villages or leasehold, middle SES retirement villages have a lower adherence to medicines than those living in freehold, high SES retirement villages. Conclusions The ≥65 year olds living in rural communities may need extra help with adherence to medicines for osteoporosis. The ≥65 year olds living in rental or leasehold retirement villages may require extra assistance/resources to adhere to their medicines. Further research is needed to clarify whether living under certain living circumstances (e.g. living alone, being unmarried, low income) has an effect on adherence, and to determine whether the ≥65 year olds living in indigenous communities need assistance to be adherent to prescribed medicines.

Time, place and space – student group collaboration using Google Drive

Virtual working environments are intrinsic to the contemporary workplace and collaborative skills are a vital graduate capability. To develop students’ collaborative skills, first year medical laboratory science students undertake a group poster project, based on a blended learning model. Learning is scaffolded in lectures, workshops in collaborative learning spaces, practitioner mentoring sessions, and online resources. Google Drive provides an online collaborative space for students to realise tangible outcomes from this learning. A Google Drive document is created for each group and shared with members. In this space, students assign tasks and plan workflow, share research, progressively develop poster content, reflect and comment on peer contributions and use the messaging functions to ‘talk’ to group members. This provides a readily accessible, transparent record of group work, crucial in peer assessment, and a communication channel for group members and the lecturer, who can support groups if required. This knowledge creation space also augments productivity and effectiveness of face-to-face collaboration. As members are randomly allocated to groups and are often of diverse backgrounds and unknown to each other, resilience is built as students navigate the uncertainties and complexities of group dynamics, learning to focus on the goal of the team task as they constructively and professionally engage in team dialogue. Students are responsible and accountable for individual and group work. The use of Google Drive was evaluated in a survey including Likert scale and open ended qualitative questions. Statistical analysis was carried out. Results show students (79%) valued the inclusion of online space in collaborative work and highly appreciated (78%) the flexibility provided by Google Drive, while recognising the need for improved notification functionality. Teaching staff recognised the advantages in monitoring and moderating collaborative group work, and the transformational progression in student collaborative as well as technological skill acquisition, including professional dialogue.

Australian court holds Google is responsible for linking to defamatory website

The South Australian Supreme Court this week found that Google is legally responsible when its search results link to defamatory content on the web. In this long-running case, Dr Janice Duffy has been trying for more than six years to clear her name and remove links to defamatory material when people search for her using Google. The main culprit is the US based website Ripoff Reports, where people have posted negative reviews of Dr Duffy. Under United States law, defamation is very hard to prove, and US websites are not liable for comments made by their users. Since it was not possible to get harmful or abusive comments removed from the source, Dr Duffy instead asked Google to remove the links from its search results. Google removed some of these links, but only from its Australian domain (google.com.au), and it left many of them active. This latest court decision is a big win for Dr Duffy. The court found that once Google was alerted to the defamatory material, it was then under an obligation to act to censor its search results and prevent further harm to Dr Duffy’s reputation.