Patenting free energy: The BlackLight litigation and the hydrogen economy

Legal Context In the wake of the Copenhagen Accord 2009 and the Cancun Agreements 2010, a number of patent offices have introduced fast-track mechanisms to encourage patent applications in relation to clean technologies - such as those pertaining to hydrogen. However, patent offices will be under increasing pressure to ensure that the granted patents satisfy the requisite patent thresholds, as well as to identify and reject cases of fraud, hoaxes, scams, and swindles. Key Points This article examines the BlackLight litigation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Patent Office, and considers how patent offices and courts deal with patent applications in respect of clean energy and perpetual motion machines. Practical Significance The capacity of patent offices to grant sound and reliable patents is critical to the credibility of the patent system, particularly in the context of the current focus upon promoting clean technologies.

Rio+ 20: Who owns the green economy?

The Rio+20 summit has raised a number of difficult questions about law and technology: what is the relationship between intellectual property and the environment? What role does intellectual property play in sustainable development? Who will own and control the Green Economy? What is the best way to encourage the transfer of environmentally sound technologies? Should intellectual property provide incentives for fossil fuels? What are the respective roles of the public sector and the private sector in green innovation? How should biodiversity, traditional knowledge and Indigenous intellectual property be protected?

Public Policy for the Creative Industries

The cultural and creative industries are closely intertwined with government. This chapter reviews key economic rationales for public policy interventions for the arts, cultural and creative industries. Market failure justifications depend on the status of arts and culture as non-rival public goods, as ‘merit goods’, or the need to moderate the effects of up-front investment costs or monopoly, and the inherent uncertainty of creative production. ‘Systems failure’ too is a regular rationale for policy intervention. Using the United Kingdom as an example, the chapter shows how emphasis on these rationales has shifted over the last three decades, first in the context of industrial policies for traditional aims such as exports and job growth, which have been joined in recent years by the need for investment in intangibles, knowledge exchange, and spillover effects in the wider economy.

Acquaintance or partner? Social economy organisations, institutional logics and regional development in Australia

The social economy as a regional development actor is gaining greater attention given its purported ability to address social and environmental problems. This growth in interest is occurring within a global environment that is calling for a more holistic understanding of development compared to traditionally economic-centric conceptions. While regional development policies and practices have long considered for-profit businesses as agents for regional growth, there is a relatively limited understanding of the role of the social economy as a development actor. The institutional environment is a large determinant of all kinds of entrepreneurial activity, and therefore understanding the relationships between the social economy and broader regional development processes is warranted. This paper moves beyond suggestions of an economic-centric focus of regional development by utilising institutional logics as a theoretical framework for understanding the role of social enterprise in regional development. A multiple case study of ten social enterprises in two regional locations in Australia suggests that social enterprise can represent competing logics to economic-centric institutional values and systems. The paper argues that dominant institutional logics can constrain or promote the inter-play between the social and the economic aspects of development, in the context of social enterprise.

Integration of Geospatial and Built Environment - National Data Policy

Digital technology offers enormous benefits (economic, quality of design and efficiency in use) if adopted to implement integrated ways of representing the physical world in a digital form. When applied across the full extent of the built and natural world, it is referred to as the Digital Built Environment (DBE) and encompasses a wide range of approaches and technology initiatives, all aimed at the same end goal: the development of a virtual world that sufficiently mirrors the real world to form the basis for the smart cities of the present and future, enable efficient infrastructure design and programmed maintenance, and create a new foundation for economic growth and social well-being through evidence-based analysis. The creation of a National Data Policy for the DBE will facilitate the creation of additional high technology industries in Australia; provide Governments, industries and citizens with greater knowledge of the environments they occupy and plan; and offer citizen-driven innovations for the future. Australia has slipped behind other nations in the adoption and execution of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and the principal concern is that the gap is widening. Data driven innovation added $67 billion to the Australian economy in 20131. Strong open data policy equates to $16 billion in new value2. Australian Government initiatives such as the Digital Earth inspired “National Map” offer a platform and pathway to embrace the concept of a “BIM Globe”, while also leveraging unprecedented growth in open source / open data collaboration. Australia must address the challenges by learning from international experiences—most notably the UK and NZ—and mandate the use of BIM across Government, extending the Framework for Spatial Data Foundation to include the Built Environment as a theme and engaging collaboration through a “BIM globe” metaphor. This proposed DBE strategy will modernise the Australian urban planning and the construction industry. It will change the way we develop our cities by fundamentally altering the dynamics and behaviours of the supply chains and unlocking new and more efficient ways of collaborating at all stages of the project life-cycle. There are currently two major modelling approaches that contribute to the challenge of delivering the DBE. Though these collectively encompass many (often competing) approaches or proprietary software systems, all can be categorised as either: a spatial modelling approach, where the focus is generally on representing the elements that make up the world within their geographic context; and a construction modelling approach, where the focus is on models that support the life cycle management of the built environment. These two approaches have tended to evolve independently, addressing two broad industry sectors: the one concerned with understanding and managing global and regional aspects of the world that we inhabit, including disciplines concerned with climate, earth sciences, land ownership, urban and regional planning and infrastructure management; the other is concerned with planning, design, construction and operation of built facilities and includes architectural and engineering design, product manufacturing, construction, facility management and related disciplines (a process/technology commonly known as Building Information Modelling, BIM). The spatial industries have a strong voice in the development of public policy in Australia, while the construction sector, which in 2014 accounted for around 8.5% of Australia’s GDP3, has no single voice and because of its diversity, is struggling to adapt to and take advantage of the opportunity presented by these digital technologies. The experience in the UK over the past few years has demonstrated that government leadership is very effective in stimulating industry adoption of digital technologies by, on the one hand, mandating the use of BIM on public procurement projects while at the same time, providing comparatively modest funding to address the common issues that confront the industry in adopting that way of working across the supply chain. The reported result has been savings of £840m in construction costs in 2013/14 according to UK Cabinet Office figures4. There is worldwide recognition of the value of bringing these two modelling technologies together. Australia has the expertise to exercise leadership in this work, but it requires a commitment by government to recognise the importance of BIM as a companion methodology to the spatial technologies so that these two disciplinary domains can cooperate in the development of data policies and information exchange standards to smooth out common workflows. buildingSMART Australasia, SIBA and their academic partners have initiated this dialogue in Australia and wish to work collaboratively, with government support and leadership, to explore the opportunities open to us as we develop an Australasian Digital Built Environment. As part of that programme, we must develop and implement a strategy to accelerate the adoption of BIM processes across the Australian construction sector while at the same time, developing an integrated approach in concert with the spatial sector that will position Australia at the forefront of international best practice in this area. Australia and New Zealand cannot afford to be on the back foot as we face the challenges of rapid urbanisation and change in the global environment. Although we can identify some exemplary initiatives in this area, particularly in New Zealand in response to the need for more resilient urban development in the face of earthquake threats, there is still much that needs to be done. We are well situated in the Asian region to take a lead in this challenge, but we are at imminent risk of losing the initiative if we do not take action now. Strategic collaboration between Governments, Industry and Academia will create new jobs and wealth, with the potential, for example, to save around 20% on the delivery costs of new built assets, based on recent UK estimates.

A CCG virtual system for big data application communication costs analysis

Network topology and routing are two important factors in determining the communication costs of big data applications at large scale. As for a given Cluster, Cloud, or Grid system, the network topology is fixed and static or dynamic routing protocols are preinstalled to direct the network traffic. Users cannot change them once the system is deployed. Hence, it is hard for application developers to identify the optimal network topology and routing algorithm for their applications with distinct communication patterns. In this study, we design a CCG virtual system (CCGVS), which first uses container-based virtualization to allow users to create a farm of lightweight virtual machines on a single host. Then, it uses software-defined networking (SDN) technique to control the network traffic among these virtual machines. Users can change the network topology and control the network traffic programmingly, thereby enabling application developers to evaluate their applications on the same system with different network topologies and routing algorithms. The preliminary experimental results through both synthetic big data programs and NPB benchmarks have shown that CCGVS can represent application performance variations caused by network topology and routing algorithm.