United States still no closer to database legislation

Last year European Intellectual Property Review published an article comparing the latest version of the proposed US database legislation, the Collections of Information Antipiracy Bill with the UK's Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997. Subsequently a new US Bill, the Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act has emerged, the Antipiracy Bill has been amended and much debate has occurred, but the US seems no closer to enacting database legislation. This article briefly outlines the background to the US legislative efforts, examines the two Bills and draws some comparisons with the UK Regulations. A study of the US Bills clearly demonstrates the starkly divided opinion on database protection held by the Bills' proponents and the principal lobby groups driving the legislative efforts: the Antipiracy Bill is very protective of database producers' interests, whereas the Access Bill is heavily user-oriented. If the US experience is any indication there will be a long horizon involved in achieving any consensus on international harmonisation of this difficult area.

Artful determination : "state of the art" and PCME Ltd v. Goyen COntrols Co. UK Ltd

In a recent decision by Mr Justice Laddie, a patent was held anticipated by, inter alia, prior use of a device which fell within the claims of the patent in suit, even though its circuitry was enclosed in resin. The anticipating invention had been "made available to the public" within the terms of section 2 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 because its essential integers would have been revealed by an interesting character, the "skilled forensic engineer".

Locking away the mysteries of fair basis : Lockwood v Doric in the High Court

This article updates a previous article on the Lockwood v Doric fair basing case in the Full Court of the Federal Court which was recently appealed to the High Court. The High Court's decision provides a new and welcome level of clarity in this difficult area of patent law. With this new clarity we can finally lock away some of the mysteries that have plagued the area for some time. Already, indications are that Lockwood's guidelines are being usefully applied in the Patent Office and Federal Court.

Does the fair basing "problem child" escape Lockwood?

In an earlier article the concept of fair basing in Australian patent law was described as a "problem child", often unruly and unpredictable in practice, but nevertheless understandable and useful in policy terms. The article traced the development of several different branches of patent law that were swept under the nomenclature of "fair basing" in Britain in 1949. It then went on to examine the adoption of fair basis into Australian law, the modern interpretation of the requirement, and its problems. This article provides an update. After briefly recapping on the relevant historical issues, it examines the recent Lockwood "internal" fair basing case in the Federal and High Courts.

Australia experiments with 'experimental use' exemption

Lawmakers are asking whether Australian researchers need an express 'experimental use' defense against patent infringement. The overriding policy for establishing a patent system is indisputably the promotion of innovation. According to traditional intellectual property pedagogy, the incentive to innovate flows from the reward afforded to the inventor. A balancing policy is that the patentee must fully disclose the invention to help minimize the risks of duplication and provides a basis for improvements by further research.Where there is uncertainty as to how these competing policy limbs are balanced and whether a patentee can exclude others from experimenting on a patented invention, the uncertain legal environment disadvantages both the patentee and researcher. Different jurisdictions have treated the experimental use question quite differently with varied results for the researcher. The biotechnology industry is evolving at an unprecedented pace and the law will as is always the case, lag behind in its usual cautious fashion. The Australian law may finally catch up to researchers' concerns.

Licensing technology : negotiating and drafting technology transfer agreements [3rd ed.]

Part I of this book covers the commercial and contractual background to technology licensing agreements. Part II discusses the European Community's new regime on the application and enforcement of Article 81 to technology licensing agreements. EC Council Regulation 1/2003 replaced the Council Regulation 17/1962 and repealed the system under which restrictive agreements and practices could be notified to the EC Commission. A new Commission regulation on technology transfer agreements, Regulation 772/2004. These two enactments required consequential amendments to the chapters in Part III where the usual terms of technology licensing agreements are analysed and exemplified by reference to decided cases.

An integrated information management model for ecologically sustainable development

Ecologically sustainable development has become a major feature of legal systems at the international, national and local levels throughout the world. In Australia, governments have responded to environmental crises by enacting legislation imposing obligations and restrictions over privately-owned land. Whilst these obligations and restrictions may well be necessary to achieve sustainability, the approach to management of information concerning these instruments is problematic. For example, management of information concerning obligations and restrictions in Queensland is fragmented, with some instruments registered or recorded on the land title register, some on external registers, and some information only available in the legislation itself. This approach is used in most Australian jurisdictions. This fragmented approach has led to two separate but interconnected problems. First, the Torrens system is no longer meeting its goal of providing a complete and accurate picture of title. Second, this uncoordinated approach to the management of land titles, and obligations and restrictions on land use, has created a barrier to sustainable management of natural resources. This is because compliance with environmental laws is impaired in the absence of easily accessible and accurate information. These problems demonstrate a clear need for reform in this area. To determine how information concerning these obligations and restrictions may be most effectively managed, this thesis will apply a comparative methodology and consider three case studies, which each utilise different models for management of this information. These jurisdictions will be assessed according to a set of guidelines for comparison to identify which features of their systems provide for effective management of information concerning obligations and restrictions on title and use. Based on this comparison, this thesis will devise a series of recommendations for an effective system for the management of information concerning obligations and restrictions on land title and use, taking into account any potential legal issues and barriers to implementation. This series of recommendations for reform will be supplemented by suggested draft legislative provisions.

Information interoperability, government and open standards

The activities of governments, by their very nature, involve interactions with a broad array of public and private sector entities, from other governments, to business, academia and individual citizens. In the current era, there is a growing expectation that government programs and services will be delivered in a ‘simple, seamless and connected’ manner,1 leading to increased efficiency in government operations and improved service delivery.2 Achieving ‘collaborative, effective and efficient government and the delivery of seamless government services’ requires the implementation of interoperable technologies and procedures.3 Standards, which aim to enable organisations, platforms and systems to work with each other, are fundamental to interoperability.

Unlocking the potential through Creative Commons

In November 2006, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCi), in conjunction with the Queensland University of Technology, hosted the CCau Industry Forum, a research-focused industry engagement event. The event was run by the CCi ccClinic and CC + OCL Research projects, and aimed to evaluate understanding of and attitudes towards copyright, OCL and CC in Australia. The Forum focused on the government, education and the creative industries sectors. Unlocking the Potential Through Creative Commons: An Industry Engagement and Action Agenda evaluates and responds to the outcomes of this Forum and presents a strategy for continued research into Creative Commons in Australia.

The use of Creative Commons licensing to enable open access to public sector information and publicly funded research results : an overview of recent Australian developments

This chapter provides an account of the use of Creative Commons (CC) licensing as a legally and operationally effective means by which governments can implement systems to enable open access to and reuse of their public sector information (PSI). It describes the experience of governments in Australia in applying CC licences to PSI in a context where a vast range of material and information produced, collected, commissioned of funded by government is subject to copyright. By applying CC licences, governments can give effect to their open access policies and create a public domain of PSI which is available for resue by other governmental agencies and the community at large.

Play a role in the patent puzzle

Discusses the contentious issues surrounding computer software patents and patenting in connection with the Peer-to-Patent Australia project, a joint initiative of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and New York Law School (NYLS) that operates with the support and endorsement of IP Australia, the government body housing Australia's patent office. Explains that the project is based on the successful Peer-to-Patent pilots run recently in the USA and Japan that are designed to improve the quality of issued patents and the patent examination process by facilitating community participation in that process. Describes how members of the public are allowed to put forward prior art references that will be considered by IP Australia's patent examiners when determining whether participating applications are novel and inventive, and therefore deserving of a patent. Concludes that, while Peer-to-Patent Australia is not a complete solution to the problems besetting patent law, the model has considerable advantages over the traditional model of patent examination

The patentability of non-physical inventions : lessons from the United States

Patent systems around the world are being pressed to recognise and protect challengingly new and exciting subject matter in order to keep pace with the rapid technological advancement of our age and the fact we are moving into the era of the ‘knowledge economy’. This rapid development and pressure to expand the bounds of what has traditionally been recognised as patentable subject matter has created uncertainty regarding what it is that the patent system is actually supposed to protect. Among other things, the patent system has had to contend with uncertainty surrounding claims to horticultural and agricultural methods, artificial living micro-organisms, methods of treating the human body, computer software and business methods. The contentious issue of the moment is one at whose heart lies the important distinction between what is a mere abstract idea and what is properly an invention deserving of the monopoly protection afforded by a patent. That question is whether purely intangible inventions, being methods that do not involve a physical aspect or effect or cause a physical transformation of matter, constitute patentable subject matter. This paper goes some way to addressing these uncertainties by considering how the Australian approach to the question can be informed by developments arising in the United States of America, and canvassing some of the possible lessons we in Australia might learn from the approaches taken thus far in the United States.

The peer-to-patent initiative : revitalizing patent examination with peer review

Every day we hear someone complain that this or that patent should not have been granted. People complain that the patent system is now a threat to existing business and innovation be- cause the patent office grants with alarming regularity patents for inventions that are neither novel nor non-obvious. People argue that the patent office cannot keep up with the job of examining the backlog of hundreds of thousands of patents and that, even if it could, the large volumes of prior art literature that need to be considered each time a patent application is received make the decision as to whether a patent should be granted or not a treacherous one.

Faculty and employee ownership of inventions in Australia

A recent decision by the Australian High Court means that, unless faculty are bound by an assignment or intellectual property (IP) policy, they may own inventions resulting from their research. Thirty years after its introduction, the US Bayh-Dole Act, which vests ownership of employee inventions in the employer university or research organization, has become a model for commercialization around the world. In Australia, despite recommendations that a Bayh-Dole style regime be adopted, the recent decision in University of Western Australia (UWA) v Gray1 has moved the default legal position in a diametrically opposite direction. A key focus of the debate was whether faculty’s duty to carry out research also encompasses a duty to invent. Late last year, the Full Federal Court confirmed a lower court ruling that it does not, and this year the High Court refused leave to appeal (denied certiorari). Thus, Gray stands as Australia’s most faculty-friendly authority to date.

Show us your mess!

Epilogue for the edited book "Nexus: New Intersections in Internet Research"