Buyer's hardship precludes specific performance

The case is noteworthy for its consideration of the relevance of circumstances arising after formation of the contract of sale in a summary judgment context...

Australian patent enforcement : a proposal for an expert panel opinion

The Australian Government has been concerned “to find ways of making patent enforcement less of an issue” and to make it “cheaper, simpler and quicker to get fair and appropriate resolution for any dispute”. Major problems relating to patent enforcement in Australia have been identified as: the cost of legal proceedings; the lack of patent owners’ financial capacity to fund enforcement proceedings; delay; and uncertainty as to the outcome and lack of knowledge about the processes of enforcement. This paper considers some of the problems associated with patent enforcement in Australia and proposes an approach to patent litigation which is directed at alleviating some of the difficulties which have been identified. Specifically, it proposes a strategy designed to identify the parties’ risks at an early stage of patent litigation proceeding and facilitate an early resolution of the dispute.

Review of penalties and additional damages : Trade Marks Act 1995

Effective enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights has become a significant issue due to concerns about the effects of IP infringement, including trade mark counterfeiting. It is an important issue for the Australian Government as IP rights underpin a strong, modern economy. Criminal offences and civil remedies can be an important element of an enforcement regime. This review of penalties and additional damages in the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (Trade Marks Act) has been prompted by a recommendation made by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP), recent changes to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act) and concerns raised by stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to elicit comments on options which IP Australia is considering recommending to Government.

Online Copyright Infringement Discussion Paper July 2014

The Paper, by consideration of the issue of authorisation, addresses a very practical development in commerce. Online copyright infringement is now not only about unauthorised uses of cinematograph films but has filtered down to become more prevalent amongst small to medium enterprises (SME), as some competitors embrace online trading by aggressively and often unlawfully, seeking market share. It is understandable that internet service providers (ISPs), as gatekeepers of internet traffic, may be considered as being more than a conduit of contravening conduct but not a joint tortfeasor involved in a common design. In between those extremes lies the concept of authorisation in copyright which has a long history in Australia since the Copyright Act 1905 (Cth). The text of s 101(1A) of the Copyright Act, in particular s 101(1A)(a) and (c), derived from statements of Gibbs J in Moorhouse.

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.

The game of clones and the Australia tax : divergent views about copyright business models and the willingness of Australian consumers to infringe

It is often said that Australia is a world leader in rates of copyright infringement for entertainment goods. In 2012, the hit television show, Game of Thrones, was the most downloaded television show over bitorrent, and estimates suggest that Australians accounted for a plurality of nearly 10% of the 3-4 million downloads each week. The season finale of 2013 was downloaded over a million times within 24 hours of its release, and again Australians were the largest block of illicit downloaders over BitTorrent, despite our relatively small population. This trend has led the former US Ambassador to Australia to implore Australians to stop 'stealing' digital content, and rightsholders to push for increasing sanctions on copyright infringers. The Australian Government is looking to respond by requiring Internet Service Providers to issue warnings and potentially punish consumers who are alleged by industry groups to have infringed copyright. This is the logical next step in deterring infringement, given that the operators of infringing networks (like The Pirate Bay, for example) are out of regulatory reach. This steady ratcheting up of the strength of copyright, however, comes at a significant cost to user privacy and autonomy, and while the decentralisation of enforcement reduces costs, it also reduces the due process safeguards provided by the judicial process. This article presents qualitative evidence that substantiates a common intuition: one of the major reasons that Australians seek out illicit downloads of content like Game of Thrones in such numbers is that it is more difficult to access legitimately in Australia. The geographically segmented way in which copyright is exploited at an international level has given rise to a ‘tyranny of digital distance’, where Australians have less access to copyright goods than consumers in other countries. Compared to consumers in the US and the EU, Australians pay more for digital goods, have less choice in distribution channels, are exposed to substantial delays in access, and are sometimes denied access completely. In this article we focus our analysis on premium film and television offerings, like Game of Thrones, and through semi-structured interviews, explore how choices in distribution impact on the willingness of Australian consumers to seek out infringing copies of copyright material. Game of Thrones provides an excellent case study through which to frame this analysis: it is both one of the least legally accessible television offerings and one of the most downloaded through filesharing networks of recent times. Our analysis shows that at the same time as rightsholder groups, particularly in the film and television industries, are lobbying for stronger laws to counter illicit distribution, the business practices of their member organisations are counter-productively increasing incentives for consumers to infringe. The lack of accessibility and high prices of copyright goods in Australia leads to substantial economic waste. The unmet consumer demand means that Australian consumers are harmed by lower access to information and entertainment goods than consumers in other jurisdictions. The higher rates of infringement that fulfils some of this unmet demand increases enforcement costs for copyright owners and imposes burdens either on our judicial system or on private entities – like ISPs – who may be tasked with enforcing the rights of third parties. Most worryingly, the lack of convenient and cheap legitimate digital distribution channels risks undermining public support for copyright law. Our research shows that consumers blame rightsholders for failing to meet market demand, and this encourages a social norm that infringing copyright, while illegal, is not morally wrongful. The implications are as simple as they are profound: Australia should not take steps to increase the strength of copyright law at this time. The interests of the public and those of rightsholders align better when there is effective competition in distribution channels and consumers can legitimately get access to content. While foreign rightsholders are seeking enhanced protection for their interests, increasing enforcement is likely to increase their ability to engage in lucrative geographical price-discrimination, particularly for premium content. This is only likely to increase the degree to which Australian consumers feel that their interests are not being met and, consequently, to further undermine the legitimacy of copyright law. If consumers are to respect copyright law, increasing sanctions for infringement without enhancing access and competition in legitimate distribution channels could be dangerously counter-productive. We suggest that rightsholders’ best strategy for addressing infringement in Australia at this time is to ensure that Australians can access copyright goods in a timely, affordable, convenient, and fair lawful manner.

Commercial Leases in Australia [7th ed.]

Commercial Leases in Australia is a comprehensive guide to understanding and drafting commercial leases agreements in Australia and to managing disputes when they arise.

New sale and leasing requirements for owners of swimming pools and their application to strata schemes

This article considers the changes to the Swimming Pools Act 1992 (NSW)(Act) which established a State-wide online register of all private swimming pools in NSW requiring pool owners to register their pools by 19 November 2013. Amendments to the Act introduced changes to the conveyancing and residential tenancy regulations to require vendors and landlords to have a valid Compliance Certificate issued for their swimming pool before offering the property for sale or lease. This article provides a brief overview of the new sale and leasing requirements effective from 29 April 2014, focusing on its application to lot owners within strata and community title schemes and other owners of water front properties with pools on Crown Land Reserves.

New laws for off the plan contracts in Queensland

The Land Sales Act 1984 regulates “off the plan” sales in Queensland in conjunction with several provisions in the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. Together the Acts regulate sales in both unit developments and housing estates. From 2010 to 2013 the Queensland Government undertook a comprehensive review of the Land Sales Act 1984 to identify opportunities to modernise and improve the legislation. Significant changes were recommended by the Review to align the Land Sales Act 1984 (LSA) with current surveying and conveyancing practice and to overcome a number of practical issues faced by developers under the current legislation. A significant outcome of the review is the removal of provisions related to off the plan community title sales from the LSA to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (BCCMA) and the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (BUGTA). This article examines the Land Sales and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 due to commence in November 2014.

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.

Repeatability or reproducibility in Australian Patent Law

This article considers the extent to which a claimed process must be repeatable or reproducible in order to be patentable according to Australian patent law. It asks whether a process must yield identical or near-identical results each time the process is invoked, or if not, what degree of repeatability is required. The question is relevant when considering, among other things, the patentability of some methods of medical treatment and diagnosis, biotechnology inventions and business methods.

The defence of hardship to specific performance actions

The decision of Evans v Robcorp Pty Ltd[2014] QSC 26 is of interest as being an instance where the defence of hardship, in this case, financial hardship, was successfully pleaded in defence to a summary application for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. Equity has always recognised the defence of hardship in response to an action for specific performance which, as an equitable remedy, might be refused in the discretion of the Court (Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639 at 664). However, whilst the remedy is discretionary, there are certain accepted principles which have guided the courts in their application of this defence to particular facts. It is not a blanket defence to a claim for specific performance where the buyer simply does not have the funds to complete the contract at the time when settlement is called for. Occasionally, a radical change in, say for instance, the health of the defendant between contract and completion, perhaps coupled with a long delay by a seller in calling for completion not being the fault of the buyer might enliven the defence (Patel v Ali [1984]1 Ch 283)

Is there such a thing as an “irrevocable authority”?

The Queensland Court of Appeal decision of FTV Holdings Cairns Pty Ltd v Smith [2014] QCA 217 analysed many issues concerning the enforceability of an “irrevocable authority” signed by clients directed to their solicitors regarding the payment of money to a third party. The action also drew those solicitors into the litigation as they acted contrary to that “irrevocable authority” by paying the money concerned directly to their clients but upon their clients’ later instructions. The result probably confirmed what many solicitors have believed to be the case for some time but which had never been considered in legal analysis in an appellate court. The facts of the case would be common to many day to day transactions.

The paradigm shift in realising the right to read : how ebook libraries are enabling in the university sector

Millions of people with print disabilities are denied the right to read. While some important efforts have been made to convert standard books to accessible formats and create accessible repositories, these have so far only addressed this crisis in an ad hoc way. This article argues that universally designed ebook libraries have the potential of substantially enabling persons with print disabilities. As a case study of what is possible, we analyse 12 academic ebook libraries to map their levels of accessibility. The positive results from this study indicate that universally designed ebooks are more than possible; they exist. While results are positive, however, we also found that most ebook libraries have some features that frustrate full accessibility, and some ebook libraries present critical barriers for people with disabilities. Based on these findings, we consider that some combination of private pressure and public law is both possible and necessary to advance the right-to-read cause. With access improving and recent advances in international law, now is the time to push for universal design and equality.