Legal Institutions and Collective Memories

In recent decades the debate among scholars, lawyers, politicians and others about how societies deal with their past has been constant and intensive. 'Legal Institutions and Collective Memories' situates the processes of transitional justice at the intersection between legal procedures and the production of collective and shared meanings of the past. Building upon the work of Maurice Halbwachs, this collection of essays emphasises the extended role and active involvement of contemporary law and legal institutions in public discourse about the past, and explores their impact on the shape that collective memories take in the course of time. The authors uncover a complex pattern of searching for truth, negotiating the past and cultivating the art of forgetting. Their contributions explore the ambiguous and intricate links between the production of justice, truth and memory. The essays cover a broad range of legal institutions, countries and topics. These include transitional trials as 'monumental spectacles' as well as constitutional courts, and the restitution of property rights in Central and Eastern Europe and Australia. The authors explore the biographies of victims and how their voices were repressed, as in the case of Korean Comfort Women. They explore the role of law and legal institutions in linking individual and collective memories in the transitional period through processes of lustration, and they analyse divided memories about the past and their impact on future reconciliation in South Africa. The collection offers a genuinely comparative approach, allied to cutting-edge theory.

UK Design as a Global Industry : International Trade and Intellectual Property

The importance of design to the UK economy is widely recognised. It is one of the key pillars of the knowledge economy, it plays an important role in the innovation process, and it is one of a number of specialisms that help to set the UK apart from global competition. But despite this importance, the nature of design-intensive industries – the businesses that practice and sell design – is remarkably hard to pin down. This uncertainty renders it hard to analyse, and makes it difficult to develop clear, consistent policies to support the designers. The Hargreaves Review recommended that more research was needed to develop a clear evidence base for improving the intellectual property system for design. This report forms part of that evidence base. It examines how UK design figures in the global economy, and considers how the intellectual property system can best support its growth.

UK Design as a global industry : international trade and intellectual property Executive Summary

This is an independent report comissioned by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and supported by the Design Council.

Enabling access to research data in developing countries : designing a policy and practice framework for Malaysia’s Public Research Universities

Members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are obliged to implement the Agreement on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) which establishes minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Almost two decades after TRIPS was adopted at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, it is widely accepted that intellectual property systems in developing and least-developed countries must be consistent with, and serve, their development needs and objectives. In adopting the Development Agenda in 2007, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) emphasised the importance to developing and least-developed countries of being able to obtain access to knowledge and technology and to participate in collaborations and exchanges with research and scientific institutions in other countries. Access to knowledge, information and technology is crucial if creativity and innovation is to be fostered in developing and least-developed countries. It is particularly important that developing and least-developed countries give effect to their TRIPS obligations by implementing intellectual property systems and adopting intellectual property management practices that enable them to benefit from knowledge flows and support their engagement in international research and science collaborations. However, developing and least-developed countries did not participate in the deliberations leading to the adoption in 2004 by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries of the Ministerial Declaration on Access to Research Data from Public Funding, nor have they formulated policies on access to publicly funded research outputs such as those developed by the National Institutes of Health in the United States, the United Kingdom Research Councils or the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. These issues are considered from the viewpoint of Malaysia, a developing country whose economy has grown strongly in recent years. Lacking an established policy covering access to the outputs of publicly funded research, data sharing and licensing practices continue to be fragmented. Obtaining access to research data requires arrangements to be negotiated with individual data owners and custodians. Given the potential for restrictions on access to impact negatively on scientific progress and development in Malaysia, measures are required to ensure that access to knowledge and research results is facilitated. This paper proposes a policy framework for Malaysia‘s public research universities that recognises intellectual property rights while enabling the open access to research data that is essential for innovation and development. It also considers how intellectual property rights in research data can be managed in order to give effect to the policy‘s open access objectives.

Threshold concepts in property education : a case study

First year Property Economics students enrolled in the Bachelor of Urban Development at QUT are required to undertake a number of compulsory subjects, alongside students undertaking studies in other disciplines. One such common unit is ‘Stewardship of Land’, an interdisciplinary unit that introduces students to the characteristics of land and land tenure with a focus on land use and property rights. It covers a range of issues including: native title, land contamination, heritage values, alternative uses, the property development process, impact of environmental and social factors, and the management of land, both urban and regional. Teaching such a diverse content to a diverse audience has in previous years proved difficult, from the perspectives of relevance, engagement and content overload. In 2011 a project was undertake to redevelop this unit to reflect ‘threshold concepts’, concepts that are “transformative, probably irreversible, integrative, often troublesome and probably bounded” (Meyer & Land, 2003) . This project involved the development of a new set of underlying concepts students should draw from the unit, application of these to the unit curriculum, and a survey of the student response to these changes. This paper reports on the threshold concepts developed for this unit, the changes this made to the unit curriculum, and a preliminary report on survey responses. Recommendations for other educators seeking to incorporate threshold concepts into their curricula are provided.

Intellectual property and joint ventures

This chapter outlines the most important ways in which intellectual property is protected in Australia, and also the factors which affect the rights of joint venture participants in the absence of specific agreement between such participants. It then examines particular issues which may be considered in preparing appropriate documentation for any joint venture which involves the utilisation or generation of intellectual property to ensure that the joint venture participants achieve their desired result in terms of the allocation of ownership and control of such rights. The analysis includes and explanation of the special considerations which affect co-operation in research between industry and a university or government research institution. Finally, the rights of the joint venturers to intellectual property upon termination of the joint ventures are considered.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r150 : orders relating to "property" – whether sperm extracted and stored may be characterised as “property”

In Bazley v Wesley Monash IVF Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 118 an order was made under r 250 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”) requiring the respondent to continue to hold and maintain straws of semen belonging to the applicant’s deceased husband. The decision includes a useful analysis of the development of the common law regarding property rights in human bodies and body parts.

Intellectual Property and Development : Theory and Practice

The book examines the correlation between Intellectual Property Law – notably copyright – on the one hand and social and economic development on the other. The main focus of the initial overview is on historical, legal, economic and cultural aspects. Building on that, the work subsequently investigates how intellectual property systems have to be designed in order to foster social and economic growth in developing countries and puts forward theoretical and practical solutions that should be considered and implemented by policy makers, legal experts and the Word Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Intellectual property, TRIPS and development

Intellectual property is crucial to the promotion of innovation. It provides an incentive to innovate as well as security for investment in innovation. The industries of the 21st century-information technology, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, communications, education and entertainment – are all knowledge-based. The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), adopted in 1994 at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, requires all WTO member countries to provide for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Having forged a link for the first time between intellectual property rights and the international trading system, the adoption of TRIPS means that any country that aims to participate fully in the global economy needs to understand the role of intellectual property and align its intellectual property laws and practices with the international minimum standards prescribed by TRIPS. However, for developing and least-developed countries, the implementation of intellectual property systems and enforcement mechanisms raises questions and challenges. Does recognition and enforcement of intellectual property serve their development needs and objectives? Does TRIPS encourage or hinder the transfer of technologies to developing and least-developed countries, particularly those that meet urgent needs in areas such as public health, food security, water and energy? What is the effect of TRIPS on developing countries’ access to knowledge and information? Is there scope for flexibility in implementation of TRIPS in pursuit of development strategies?

Intellectual Property and Joint Ventures

As in the first edition of the book, this chapter outlines the most important ways in which intellectual property is protected in Australia, and also the factors which affect the rights of joint venture participants in the absence of specific agreement between such participants. It then examines particular issues which may be considered in preparing appropriate documentation for any joint venture which involves the utilisation or generation of intellectual property to ensure that the joint venture participants achieve their desired result in terms of the allocation of ownership and control of such rights. The analysis includes and explanation of the special considerations which affect co-operation in research between industry and a university or government research institution. Finally, the rights of the joint venturers to intellectual property upon termination of the joint ventures are considered. The chapter incorporates the legislative changes and new cases in the field since the publication of the first edition.

The Proposed Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Act 2008

Inspired by similar reforms introduced in New Zealand, Canada and the United States, the Commonwealth, with the co-operation of the States, seeks in the Personal Property Securities Bill 2008 (the Bill) to introduce a central repository of recorded information reflecting particular security interests in personal property in Australia. Specifically, the interest recorded is an interest in personal property provided for by a transaction that in substance secures the payment or the performance of an obligation. In addition to providing a notification of the use of the personal property as collateral to secure the payment of monies or the performance of an obligation, the Bill proposes to introduce a regime of prioritising interests in the same collateral. Central to this prioritisation are the concepts of a ‘perfected security interests’and ‘unperfected security interests’. Relevantly, a perfected security interest in collateral has priority over an unperfected security interest in the same collateral. The proposed mechanisms rely on the fundamental integer of personal property, which is defined as any property other than land. Recognising that property may take a tangible as well as an intangible form, the Bill reflects an appreciation of the fact that some property may have a tangible form which may act as collateral, and simultaneously the same property may involve other property, intangible property in the form of intellectual property rights, which in their own right may be the subject of a‘security agreement’. An example set out in the Commentary on the Consultation Draft of the Bill (the Commentary), indicates the practical implications involving certain property which have multiple profiles for the purposes of the Bill. This submission is concerned with the presumptions made in relation to the interphase between tangible property and intangible property arising from the same personal property, as set out in s 30 of the Bill.

Submission: Towards a Stronger and More Efficient IP Rights System : Getting the Balance Right

1. In March 2009, the Australian Government, through IP Australia its administrator of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) acquired by registration or grant, issued two consultation papers for comment by interested stakeholders. 2. The Consultation Papers have invited written submissions directed towards the object of the paper, namely encouraging discussion on certain proposed changes and their impact on business and innovation. 3. I understand the invitation to make written submissions is predominantly in the areas raised by the Consultation Papers and the questions posed. However, I have made a brief reference to several other areas of concern with the current Australian patent law, which in my opinion inhibit innovation and therefore come under the wider agenda of the government to work toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system. 4. In this regard, the Consultation Papers indicate that if the IPR are less likely to be invalidated and more likely to be enforced, this confidence will reflect in a greater investment in research leading to innovation. 5. This submission relates to the Balance Paper.

A Submission to the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property in Relation to the Issues Paper Relating to the Enforcement of Trade Marks - February 2002

With respect to “shape” marks, there would appear to be a “break”, imposed by the Australian Courts, in the logical conclusion that registration of a shape, which performs a functional purpose, or even further, is indistinguishable from the shape of the item or product, creates a perpetual monopoly in the manufacture of that product.

The ethics, aesthetics and practical politics of ownership in co-creative media

What is ‘best practice’ when it comes to managing intellectual property rights in participatory media content? As commercial media and entertainment business models have increasingly come to rely upon the networked productivity of end-users (Banks and Humphreys 2008) this question has been framed as a problem of creative labour made all the more precarious by changing employment patterns and work cultures of knowledge-intensive societies and globalising economies (Banks, Gill and Taylor 2014). This paper considers how the problems of ownership are addressed in non-commercial, community-based arts and media contexts. Problems of labour are also manifest in these contexts (for example, reliance on volunteer labour and uncertain economic reward for creative excellence). Nonetheless, managing intellectual property rights in collaborative creative works that are created in community media and arts contexts is no less challenging or complex than in commercial contexts. This paper takes as its focus a particular participatory media practice known as ‘digital storytelling’. The digital storytelling method, formalised by the Centre for Digital Storytelling (CDS) from the mid-1990s, has been internationally adopted and adapted for use in an open-ended variety of community arts, education, health and allied services settings (Hartley and McWilliam 2009; Lambert 2013; Lundby 2008; Thumin 2012). It provides a useful point of departure for thinking about a range of collaborative media production practices that seek to address participation ‘gaps’ (Jenkins 2006). However the outputs of these activities, including digital stories, cannot be fully understood or accurately described as user-generated content. For this reason, digital storytelling is taken here to belong to a category of participatory media activity that has been described as ‘co-creative’ media (Spurgeon 2013) in order to improve understanding of the conditions of mediated and mediatized participation (Couldry 2008). This paper reports on a survey of the actual copyrighting practices of cultural institutions and community-based media arts practitioners that work with digital storytelling and similar participatory content creation methods. This survey finds that although there is a preference for Creative Commons licensing a great variety of approaches are taken to managing intellectual property rights in co-creative media. These range from the use of Creative Commons licences (for example, Lambert 2013, p.193) to retention of full copyrights by storytellers, to retention of certain rights by facilitating organisations (for example, broadcast rights by community radio stations and public service broadcasters), and a range of other shared rights arrangements between professional creative practitioners, the individual storytellers and communities with which they collaborate, media outlets, exhibitors and funders. This paper also considers how aesthetic and ethical considerations shape responses to questions of intellectual property rights in community media arts contexts. For example, embedded in the CDS digital storytelling method is ‘a critique of power and the numerous ways that rank is unconsciously expressed in engagements between classes, races and gender’ (Lambert 117). The CDS method privileges the interests of the storyteller and, through a transformative workshop process, aims to generate original individual stories that, in turn, reflect self-awareness of ‘how much the way we live is scripted by history, by social and cultural norms, by our own unique journey through a contradictory, and at times hostile, world’ (Lambert 118). Such a critical approach is characteristic of co-creative media practices. It extends to a heightened awareness of the risks of ‘story theft’ and the challenges of ownership and informs ideas of ‘best practice’ amongst creative practitioners, teaching artists and community media producers, along with commitments to achieving equitable solutions for all participants in co-creative media practice (for example, Lyons-Reid and Kuddell nd.). Yet, there is surprisingly little written about the challenges of managing intellectual property produced in co-creative media activities. A dialogic sense of ownership in stories has been identified as an indicator of successful digital storytelling practice (Hayes and Matusov 2005) and is helpful to grounding the more abstract claims of empowerment for social participation that are associated with co-creative methods. Contrary to the ‘change from below’ philosophy that underpins much thinking about co-creative media, however, discussions of intellectual property usually focus on how methods such as digital storytelling contribute to the formation of copyright law-compliant subjects, particularly when used in educational settings (for example, Ohler nd.). This also exposes the reliance of co-creative methods on the creative assets storytellers (rather than on the copyrighted materials of the media cultures of storytellers) as a pragmatic response to the constraints that intellectual property right laws impose on the entire category of participatory media. At the level of practical politics, it also becomes apparent that co-creative media practitioners and storytellers located in copyright jurisdictions governed by ‘fair use’ principles have much greater creative flexibility than those located in jurisdictions governed by ‘fair dealing’ principles.

Intellectual property, innovation, and the environment (2014) edited by Peter Menell and Sarah Tran: A review

Peter S. Menell and Sarah M. Tran (ed.), Intellectual Property, Innovation and the Environment, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar, 2014, 756 pp Hardback 978 1 78195 160 6, http://www.e-elgar.com/bookentry_main.lasso?id=15063 There has been a longstanding deadlock over intellectual property and clean technologies in international climate talks. The United States — and other developed countries such as Japan, Denmark Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand — have pushed for stronger and longer protection of intellectual property rights related to clean technologies. BASIC countries — such as Brazil, South Africa, India, and China — have pushed for greater flexibilities in respect of intellectual property for the purpose of addressing climate change and global warming. Small island states, least developed countries, and nations vulnerable to climate change have called for climate-adaptation and climate-mitigation technologies to be available in the public domain. In the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Summit in New York on the 23rd September 2014, it is timely to consider the debate over intellectual property, innovation, the environment, and climate change.