A pragmatic approach to intellectual property and development : a case study of the Jordanian copyright law in the internet age

On October 4, 2004, Brazil and Argentina requested that WIPO adopt a development-oriented approach to IP and to reconsider its work in relation to developing countries. In October, 2007, WIPO member States adopted a historic decision for the benefit of developing countries, to establish a WIPO Development Agenda. Although there have been several studies related to IP and development that call for IP laws in developing countries to be development-friendly, there is little research that attempts to provide developing countries with practical measures to achieve that goal. This article takes the copyright law in Jordan as a case study and shows how, in practical terms, a pro-development-oriented approach could be implemented in the copyright laws of developing countries. It provides specific recommendations for developing countries to ensure that their IP laws are aligned with and serve their social and economic development objectives.

Intellectual property and development : theory and practice

Since the 1960s, many developing countries have introduced IP laws to help them in their social and economic development. Introducing these laws was considered as a civilised act and a precondition of developing countries‘ progress from being =under-developed‘ to becoming =developed‘. In 2004, Brazil and Argentina presented a comprehensive proposal on behalf of developing countries to establish the Development Agenda in the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). They put forward a view that IP laws in their current form are not helping those countries in their development, as is constantly being suggested by developed countries, and that there is a need to rethink the international IP system and the work of WIPO. The research undertaken examines the correlation between IP and social and economic development. It investigates how IP systems in developing countries could work to advance their development, especially in the context of the internet. The research considers the theory and practice of IP and development, and proposes a new IP framework which developing countries could employ to further their social and economic development.

Intellectual Property and Joint Ventures

Following upon the success of the 2nd edition published in 2005, this new edition not only updates its predecessor but also adds considerable new material in consequences of changes in the law generally and commercial approaches to financing joint ventures in particular. Of special note are the following: Financing of Joint Ventures has been completely re-written with considerable additions to take account of the new legislative regimes such as the Personal Property Securities, the impact of climate change legislation, specifically carbon pricing with additional material on structuring generally and particularly in relation to large joint ventures with governments through Public Private Partnerships. A new Chapter called Resources Joint Ventures undertakes a thorough analysis of a typical resources joint venture and is heavily cross referenced into the chapter on Default which has also been updated. International Joint Ventures now includes additional material on structuring and dispute resolution. Joint Ventures and the Competition and Consumer Act has been substantially re-written to take account of 2009 legislative amendments on cartel conduct, and the impact of changes wrought by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. All other chapters and material has been updated to accommodate other legislative changes and new case law over the seven years since the last edition.

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.

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).

Electrical property and characterization of nano-SnO2/wollastonite composite materials

Nano-tin oxide was deposited on the surface of wollastonite using the mixed solution including stannic chloride pentahydrate precursor and wollastonite by a hydrolysis precipitation process. The antistatic properties of the wollastonite materials under different calcined conditions and composite materials (nano-SnO2/wollastonite, SW) were measured by rubber sheeter and four-point probe (FPP) sheet resistance measurement. Effects of hydrolysis temperature and time, calcination temperature and time, pH value and nano-SnO2 coating amount on the resistivity of SW powders were studied, and the optimum experimental conditions were obtained. The microstructure and surface properties of wollastonite, precipitate and SW were characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS), specific surface area analyzer (BET), thermogravimetry (TG), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and Fourier translation infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) respectively. The results showed that the nano-SnO2/wollastonite composite materials under optimum preparation conditions showed better antistatic properties, the resistivity of which was reduced from 1.068 × 104 Ω cm to 2.533 × 103 Ω cm. From TG and XRD analysis, the possible mechanism for coating of SnO2 nanoparticles on the surface of wollastonite was proposed. The infrared spectrum indicated that there were a large number of the hydroxyl groups on the surface of wollastonite. This is beneficial to the heterogeneous nucleation reaction. Through morphology, EDS and XPS analysis, the surface of wollastonite fiber was coated with a layer of 10–15 nm thickness of tin oxide grains the distribution of which was uniform.

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.

Real-time and interactive attacks on DNP3 critical infrastructure using Scapy

The Distributed Network Protocol v3.0 (DNP3) is one of the most widely used protocols, to control national infrastructure. Widely used interactive packet manipulation tools, such as Scapy, have not yet been augmented to parse and create DNP3 frames (Biondi 2014). In this paper we extend Scapy to include DNP3, thus allowing us to perform attacks on DNP3 in real-time. Our contribution builds on East et al. (2009), who proposed a range of possible attacks on DNP3. We implement several of these attacks to validate our DNP3 extension to Scapy, then executed the attacks on real world equipment. We present our results, showing that many of these theoretical attacks would be unsuccessful in an Ethernet-based network.

Inventing life: Intellectual property and the new biology

In 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a report on A New Biology for the 21st Century. The council preferred the term ‘New Biology’ to capture the convergence and integration of the various disciplines of biology. The National Research Council stressed: ‘The essence of the New Biology, as defined by the committee, is integration—re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology, and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle a broad range of scientific and societal problems.’ They define the ‘New Biology’ as ‘integrating life science research with physical science, engineering, computational science, and mathematics’. The National Research Council reflected: 'Biology is at a point of inflection. Years of research have generated detailed information about the components of the complex systems that characterize life––genes, cells, organisms, ecosystems––and this knowledge has begun to fuse into greater understanding of how all those components work together as systems. Powerful tools are allowing biologists to probe complex systems in ever greater detail, from molecular events in individual cells to global biogeochemical cycles. Integration within biology and increasingly fruitful collaboration with physical, earth, and computational scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are making it possible to predict and control the activities of biological systems in ever greater detail.' The National Research Council contended that the New Biology could address a number of pressing challenges. First, it stressed that the New Biology could ‘generate food plants to adapt and grow sustainably in changing environments’. Second, the New Biology could ‘understand and sustain ecosystem function and biodiversity in the face of rapid change’. Third, the New Biology could ‘expand sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels’. Moreover, it was hoped that the New Biology could lead to a better understanding of individual health: ‘The New Biology can accelerate fundamental understanding of the systems that underlie health and the development of the tools and technologies that will in turn lead to more efficient approaches to developing therapeutics and enabling individualized, predictive medicine.’ Biological research has certainly been changing direction in response to changing societal problems. Over the last decade, increasing awareness of the impacts of climate change and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels can be seen to have generated investment in fields such as biofuels, climate-ready crops and storage of agricultural genetic resources. In considering biotechnology’s role in the twenty-first century, biological future-predictor Carlson’s firm Biodesic states: ‘The problems the world faces today – ecosystem responses to global warming, geriatric care in the developed world or infectious diseases in the developing world, the efficient production of more goods using less energy and fewer raw materials – all depend on understanding and then applying biology as a technology.’ This collection considers the roles of intellectual property law in regulating emerging technologies in the biological sciences. Stephen Hilgartner comments that patent law plays a significant part in social negotiations about the shape of emerging technological systems or artefacts: 'Emerging technology – especially in such hotbeds of change as the life sciences, information technology, biomedicine, and nanotechnology – became a site of contention where competing groups pursued incompatible normative visions. Indeed, as people recognized that questions about the shape of technological systems were nothing less than questions about the future shape of societies, science and technology achieved central significance in contemporary democracies. In this context, states face ongoing difficulties trying to mediate these tensions and establish mechanisms for addressing problems of representation and participation in the sociopolitical process that shapes emerging technology.' The introduction to the collection will provide a thumbnail, comparative overview of recent developments in intellectual property and biotechnology – as a foundation to the collection. Section I of this introduction considers recent developments in United States patent law, policy and practice with respect to biotechnology – in particular, highlighting the Myriad Genetics dispute and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bilski v. Kappos. Section II considers the cross-currents in Canadian jurisprudence in intellectual property and biotechnology. Section III surveys developments in the European Union – and the interpretation of the European Biotechnology Directive. Section IV focuses upon Australia and New Zealand, and considers the policy responses to the controversy of Genetic Technologies Limited’s patents in respect of non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. Section V outlines the parts of the collection and the contents of the chapters.

Intellectual property and global warming: Climate justice

Engaging in a close analysis of legal and political discourse, this chapter considers conflicts over intellectual property and climate change in three key arenas: climate law; trade law; and intellectual property law. In this chapter, it is argued that there is a need to overcome the political stalemates and deadlocks over intellectual property and climate change. It is essential that intellectual property law engage in a substantive fashion with the matrix of issues surrounding fossil fuels, clean technologies, and climate change at an international level. First, this chapter examines the debate over intellectual property and climate change under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, and the establishment of the UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre and Network. It recommends that the technology mechanism should address and deal with matters of intellectual property management and policy. Second, the piece examines the discussion of global issues in the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO GREEN. It supports the proposal for a Global Green Patent Highway to allow for the fast-tracking of intellectual property applications in respect of green technologies. Third, the chapter investigates the dispute in the TRIPS Council at the World Trade Organization over intellectual property, climate change, and development. This section focuses upon the TRIPS Agreement 1994. This chapter calls for a Joint Declaration on Intellectual Property and Climate Change from the UNFCCC, WIPO, and the WTO. The paper concludes that intellectual property should be reformed as part of a larger effort to promote climate justice. Rather than adopt a fragmented, piecemeal approach in various international institutions, there is a need for a co-ordinated and cohesive response to intellectual property in an age of runaway, global climate change. Patent law should be fossil fuel free. Intellectual property should encourage research, development, and diffusion of renewable energy and clean technologies. It is submitted that intellectual property law reform should promote climate justice in line with Mary Robinson’s Declaration on Climate Justice 2013.

Environmental technologies, intellectual property and climate change (2013) edited by Abbe Brown

Abbe Brown from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, is one of the leading international researchers on intellectual property and climate change. She is an intellectual dynamo. Her work brings together a mastery of intellectual property, with a strong interest in innovation theory and practice, and an engagement with public policy issues surrounding human rights, competition policy, and access to knowledge. Abbe Brown has shown a particular aptitude for tackling big ideas and wicked global problems, with intelligence, gusto, insight, and formidable wisdom.

Tesla motors’ open source revolution: Intellectual property and the carbon crisis

On the 12th June 2014, Elon Musk, the chief executive officer of the electric car manufacturer, Tesla Motors, announced in a blog that ‘all our patents belong to you.’ He explained that the company would adopt an open source philosophy in respect of its intellectual property in order to encourage the development of the industry of electric cars, and address the carbon crisis. Elon Musk made the dramatic, landmark announcement: Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.

From Kafka to KAFTA: Intellectual property, and the Korea-Australia free trade agreement

This paper provides a critical examination of the intellectual property sections of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. Chapter 13 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 deals with the subject of intellectual property law. The Chapter covers such topics as the purposes and objectives of intellectual property law; copyright law; trade mark law; patent law; and intellectual property enforcement. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament highlighted the controversy surrounding this chapter of the agreement: The intellectual property rights chapter of KAFTA has drawn considerable attention from academics and stakeholders regarding the proposed need for changes to Australian intellectual property law and the inclusion of intellectual property in the definition of investment with regard to the investor-state dispute mechanism. Other concerns raised with the Committee include the prescriptive nature of the chapter, the lack of recognition of the broader public interests of intellectual property rights, and possible changes to fair use provisions. Article 13.1.1 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 provides that: ‘Each Party recognises the importance of adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights, while ensuring that measures to enforce those rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.’ This is an unsatisfactory description of the objectives and purposes of intellectual property law in both Australia and Korea. There is a failure to properly consider the range of public purposes served by intellectual property law – such as providing for access to knowledge, promoting competition and innovation, protecting consumer rights, and allowing for the protection of public health, food security, and the environment. Such a statement of principles and objectives detracts from the declaration in the TRIPS Agreement 1994 of the public interest objectives to be served by intellectual property. Chapter 11 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 is an investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement regime. This chapter is highly controversial – given the international debate over investor-state dispute settlement; the Australian context for the debate; and the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. In April 2014, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) released a report on Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The overall figures are staggering. UNCTAD reports a significant growth in investment-state dispute settlement, across a wide array of different fields of public regulation. Given the broad definition of investment, intellectual property owners will be able to use the investor-state dispute settlement regime in the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. This will have significant implications for all the various disciplines of intellectual property – including copyright law, trade mark law, and patent law.