Addressing the impediments copyright imposes on the use of patent specifications and prior art documents to improve patent quality

This article considers from an Australian perspective the impediments that copyright law places in the path of those who seek to use patent specifications and non-patent prior art documents in ways that are necessary to the proper functioning of the patent system. Until recently, copyright law in Australia had limited the uses to which members of the public could put patent specifications in that country. Those impediments have been removed as a result of an important legislative change to the way in which copyright in patent specifications can be enforced. The change gives the public a greater freedom to make use of patent specifications than it enjoyed before, and removes unwarranted restrictions upon the ways in which the public can reuse valuable information. However, what the amendment does not address is the impediments copyright imposes on using non-patent prior art documents in ways that advance the public interest.

Copyright in patent specifications and prior art documents: Addressing legitimate rights of user

One of the recent Raising the Bar amendments has removed impediments imposed by copyright law that may have limited the uses to which IP Australia and members of the public could have lawfully put patent specifications without seeking permission from the copyright owner. What the amendment does not do, however, is extend the same protections to those who wish to use prior art documents in ways that benefit the patent system and further the public interest.

A matter of time

The Queensland Court of Appeal recently handed down its decision in Caprice Property Holdings Pty Ltd v McLeay [2013] QCA 120. The decision considers the operation of the standard REIQ contract for the sale of land as it impacts on the time for settlement and the respective obligations of the buyer and the seller. The decision highlights both practical and legal issues arising from a failure to render performance at the stipulated time...

Parties legally bound to unsigned put and call option

The point at which the parties to a negotiation for the sale of land are legally bound can often be difficult to judge. This is particularly so where the parties have agreed a lawyer is to formalise the agreement between them. When the parties have not agreed all matters relating to the transaction, interesting questions arise as to what terms regulate the relationship. In Moffatt Property Development Group Pty Ltd v Hebron Park Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 60 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered first, whether there was a binding agreement to sell and secondly, how the relationship would be regulated in the absence of express agreement in relation to many of the terms.

Court finds solicitor in breach of fiduciary duty owed to client but loss not caused by the breach

A solicitor owes fiduciary obligations to his or her client including the obligations of loyalty and disclosure. The Court of Appeal in Mantonella Pty Ltd v Thompson (2009) 255 ALR 367; [2009] QCA 80; BC200902311 recently considered when the fiduciary duty owed by a solicitor to a client is breached and the consequent liability of the solicitor...

Google Books wins ‘fair use’ but Australian copyright lags

Australia wants to foster innovation in a digital economy, but our copyright laws discourage businesses from investing in new technologies and make it harder for individuals to access the knowledge upon which innovation is based. Yesterday’s US decision in the Google Books case shows why US copyright law is much more supportive of innovation than ours. This article argues that if the government is serious about encouraging private innovation, introducing fair use is crucially important.

Implementing open licensing in government open data initiatives : a review of Australian government practice

As support grows for greater access to information and data held by governments, so does awareness of the need for appropriate policy, technical and legal frameworks to achieve the desired economic and societal outcomes. Since the late 2000s numerous international organizations, inter-governmental bodies and governments have issued open government data policies, which set out key principles underpinning access to, and the release and reuse of data. These policies reiterate the value of government data and establish the default position that it should be openly accessible to the public under transparent and non-discriminatory conditions, which are conducive to innovative reuse of the data. A key principle stated in open government data policies is that legal rights in government information must be exercised in a manner that is consistent with and supports the open accessibility and reusability of the data. In particular, where government information and data is protected by copyright, access should be provided under licensing terms which clearly permit its reuse and dissemination. This principle has been further developed in the policies issued by Australian Governments into a specific requirement that Government agencies are to apply the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY) as the default licensing position when releasing government information and data. A wide-ranging survey of the practices of Australian Government agencies in managing their information and data, commissioned by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in 2012, provides valuable insights into progress towards the achievement of open government policy objectives and the adoption of open licensing practices. The survey results indicate that Australian Government agencies are embracing open access and a proactive disclosure culture and that open licensing under Creative Commons licences is increasingly prevalent. However, the finding that ‘[t]he default position of open access licensing is not clearly or robustly stated, nor properly reflected in the practice of Government agencies’ points to the need to further develop the policy framework and the principles governing information access and reuse, and to provide practical guidance tools on open licensing if the broadest range of government information and data is to be made available for innovative reuse.

Copyright and computer generated materials : is it time to reboot the discussion about authorship?

Computer generated materials are ubiquitous and we encounter them on a daily basis, even though most people are unaware that this is the case. Blockbuster movies, television weather reports and telephone directories all include material that is produced by utilising computer technologies. Copyright protection for materials generated by a programmed computer was considered by the Federal Court and Full Court of the Federal Court in Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd. The court held that the White and Yellow pages telephone directories produced by Telstra and its subsidiary, Sensis, were not protected by copyright because they were computer-generated works which lacked the requisite human authorship. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) does not contain specific provisions on the subsistence of copyright in computer-generated materials. Although the issue of copyright protection for computer-generated materials has been examined in Australia on two separate occasions by independently-constituted Copyright Law Review Committees over a period of 10 years (1988 to 1998), the Committees’ recommendations for legislative clarification by the enactment of specific amendments to the Copyright Act have not yet been implemented and the legal position remains unclear. In the light of the decision of the Full Federal Court in Telstra v Phone Directories it is timely to consider whether specific provisions should be enacted to clarify the position of computer-generated works under copyright law and, in particular, whether the requirement of human authorship for original works protected under Part III of the Copyright Act should now be reconceptualised to align with the realities of how copyright materials are created in the digital era.

An examination of the liability of a construction contract certifier who gets it wrong

Construction contracts often provide that decisions under the contract will be made by a certifier. This paper reviews the liability issues when a certifier makes a mistake. We do that in light of recent pronouncements by the High Court of Australia and the New South Wales Court of Appeal on negligence. We look at this question in the context of traditional construction contract arrangements and also consider the implications for Public Private Partnerships and the typical contract arrangements entered into to facilitate these transactions.

Reconsidering the agency of a privately appointed receiver and manager in three specific circumstances

Where a secured lender elects to appoint a receiver and manager, the appointment document standardly provides for the receiver and manager to act as the agent of the debtor. This article considers the significance of this agency in the context of three specific issues that have the potential to arise in the receivership of a corporate borrower across all Australian jurisdictions.

Copyright exceptions beyond the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)

Exceptions are an important part of the Australian copyright law landscape due to the role they play in delineating the extent of the rights held by copyright owners and, correspondingly, the permitted activities of users of copyright materials. The nature and scope of copyright exceptions has been examined in several reviews of copyright law and are again being considered by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) as part of the ‘Copyright and the Digital Economy’ review which is currently underway. The ALRC’s terms of reference require it to examine, inter alia, ‘whether the exceptions and statutory licences in the Copyright Act 1968, are adequate and appropriate in the digital environment.’ While the ALRC inquiry focuses on exceptions provided under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (“Copyright Act”), there are several copyright exceptions in other Commonwealth statutes which are of relevance and which should not be overlooked.

Agents as intermediaries : when do they compete with their suppliers?

In cases involving allegations of price fixing under the former s 45A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), it was necessary to prove that at least two parties to the arrangement or understanding at issue were “in competition with each other”. The same requirement is contained in the cartel provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) that replaced s 45A. The so-called “competition condition” is set out in s 44ZZRD (4) of the CCA. Where a supplier enters into vertical supply arrangements with agents or brokers, problems can arise if the supplier also has a downstream presence. At that functional level there may be a horizontal and therefore competitive dimension, and the competition condition may be satisfied. In such circumstances, great care will need to be taken in any discussions between the supplier and its downstream agents or distributors about the prices, discounts, allowances, rebates or credits that the agent or distributor may charge. Whether agents or brokers competed with their suppliers in vertical supply arrangements arose for consideration in two decisions handed down by the Federal Court in Brisbane...

Forrest v ASIC : a ‘perfect storm’

The policy objectives of the continuous disclosure regime augmented by the misleading or deceptive conduct provisions in the Corporations Act are to enhance the integrity and efficiency of Australian capital markets by ensuring equality of opportunity for all investors through public access to accurate and material company information to enable them to make well-informed investment decisions. This article argues that there were failures by the regulators in the performance of their roles to protect the interests of investors in Forrest v ASIC; FMG v ASIC (2012) 247 CLR 486: ASX failed to enforce timely compliance with the continuous disclosure regime and ensure that the market was properly informed by seeking immediate clarification from FMG as to the agreed fixed price and/or seeking production of a copy of the CREC agreement; and ASIC failed to succeed in the High Court because of the way it pleaded its case. The article also examines the reasoning of the High Court in Forrest v ASIC and whether it might have changed previous understandings of the Campomar test for determining whether representations directed to the public generally are misleading.

The border adjustments of the Australian clean energy package

Climate change is a global challenge. For this reason, it has been suggested that a global solution is necessary. In Australia the Clean Energy Package has been introduced with a purpose of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and responding to international obligations. This Package contains the institutional framework for an emissions trading scheme. The Package also includes amendments for other existing legal arrangements. These arrangements include a greenhouse gas emissions price on certain imported products. With this in mind the purpose of this paper is twofold. First, to consider the border adjustments and import charges of the Clean Energy Package and determine whether these comply with the rules of the World Trade Organization. Second, to analyse whether a border tax adjustment could be included in the Package for emissions intensive trade exposed (EITE) products. This paper concludes that, although the existing arrangements appear to comply with the WTO legal requirements, a border adjustment on EITE products could not be implemented in a manner that would comply with these rules.

The landlord's duty and unsafe premises

Case note on Sheehy v Hobbs [2012]. It is well established that a landlord owes a tenant a duty of care to “take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to their prospective tenants and members of their household”.1 What often arises is the question of how far the scope of that duty extends. In Sheehy v Hobbs [2012] QSC 333 the plaintiff was injured when she fell down a flight of internal stairs of the townhouse she leased from the defendants. The plaintiff claimed damages for a breach of duty owed to her in negligence, and also alleged breaches of the duties owed to her pursuant to s 103 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 (Qld) and her tenancy agreement.