Joint tenancies and English commorientes:a question of survivorship or severance?

The aim of this article is to provide a critical appraisal of the English law in relation to the doctrine of commorientes with particular reference to its implications in respect of property held on a joint tenancy. The article suggests a measure of reform which would produce a fairer dsitribution of joint property in circusmtances where all joint tenants have died in a common disaster and it cannot be ascertained which joint tenant died first.

Les brevets conjoints : panacée pour l’innovation ou boîte de Pandore juridique?

La mondialisation a favorisé l’essor de l’innovation collaborative entraînant une augmentation du nombre de partenariats entre différents acteurs. Grâce à leurs avantages multiples, les projets conjoints jouent un rôle fondamental dans le développement économique et industriel des secteurs à forte valeur ajoutée. Dans cette optique, la création ou la quantification de valeur par l’innovation collaborative repose en grande partie sur la capacité à commercialiser des innovations encadrées par une protection intellectuelle adéquate. Ainsi, la tendance mondiale témoigne d’une augmentation accrue des dépôts conjoints de brevets entre diverses entités. Ces co-dépôts soulèvent une variété de questions juridiques puisque les régimes statutaires ne sont pas nécessairement adaptés à la réalité des partenariats. D’abord, les régimes lacunaires proposés par les lois n’anticipent pas les conséquences juridiques de l’interaction entre divers acteurs. La variété de configurations d’intervenants et la typologie des partenariats entraînent une confusion entre les inventeurs et les propriétaires lors du dépôt d’une demande de brevet. Cette situation peut également induire de facto la copropriété d’un brevet pouvant causer des litiges et miner l’énorme valeur des brevets conjoints. Ensuite, les régimes statutaires sont également déficients à l’étape de l’exploitation d’un brevet conjoint. En comparant les régimes juridiques canadiens et américains, il devient possible de mieux cerner les enjeux juridiques associés aux questionnements présents lors de l’élaboration d’un partenariat. Afin d’obtenir des retombées fructueuses des brevets conjoints, une mise en forme contractuelle est proposée pour pallier ces lacunes statutaires. Grâce à des outils contractuels et à une planification pré-contractuelle, les copropriétaires pourront réaliser l’énorme potentiel de cette institution.

RECONHECENDO-SE SEM-RELIGIÃO NAS PERIFERIAS DA CIDADE: LIBERDADE COMPARTILHADA COMO RESISTÊNCIA

Reconhecendo, a partir da constatação empírica, a multiplicidade de escolhas de crenças no Mundo e em particular na periferia urbana paulistana, reconhecemos, também, a emergência criativa de novas possibilidades de crer e não crer. Tal amplitude não apenas aponta para o crer (segundo as ofertas de um sem número de religiões) e o não crer (ateu e agnóstico), mas para uma escolha que poderia vir a ser silenciada e esquecida, neste binômio arcaico e obsoleto, quando alguém se dá à liberdade crer sem ter religião. Reconhecer interessadamente os sem-religião nas periferias urbanas paulistanas é dar-se conta das violências a que estes indivíduos estão submetidos: violência econômica, violência da cidadania (vulnerabilidade) e proveniente da armas (grupos x Estado). Tanto quanto a violência do esquecimento e silenciamento. A concomitância espaço-temporal dos sem-religião nas periferias, levou-nos buscar referências em teorias de secularização e de laicidade, e, a partir destas, traçar uma história do poder violento, cuja pretensão é a inelutabilidade, enquanto suas fissuras são abertas em espaços de resistências. A história da legitimação do poder que se quer único, soberano, de caráter universal, enquanto fragmenta a sociedade em indivíduos atomizados, fragilizando vínculos horizontais, e a dos surgimentos de resistências não violentas questionadoras da totalidade trágica, ao reconhecer a liberdade de ser com autonomia, enquanto se volta para a produção de partilha de bens comuns. Propomos reconhecer a igual liberdade de ser (expressa na crença da filiação divina) e de partilhar o bem comum em reconhecimentos mútuos (expressa pela ação social), uma expressão de resistência não violenta ao poder que requer a igual abdicação da liberdade pela via da fragmentação individualizante e submissão inquestionável à ordem totalizante. Os sem-religião nas periferias urbanas, nossos contemporâneos, partilhariam uma tal resistência, ao longo da história, com as melissas gregas, os profetas messiânicos hebreus, os hereges cristãos e os ateus modernos, cuja pretensão não é o poder, mas a partilha igual da liberdade e dos bens comuns. Estes laicos, de fato, seriam agentes de resistências de reconhecimento mútuos, em espaços de multiplicidade crescente, ao poder violento real na história.

RECONHECENDO-SE SEM-RELIGIÃO NAS PERIFERIAS DA CIDADE: LIBERDADE COMPARTILHADA COMO RESISTÊNCIA

Reconhecendo, a partir da constatação empírica, a multiplicidade de escolhas de crenças no Mundo e em particular na periferia urbana paulistana, reconhecemos, também, a emergência criativa de novas possibilidades de crer e não crer. Tal amplitude não apenas aponta para o crer (segundo as ofertas de um sem número de religiões) e o não crer (ateu e agnóstico), mas para uma escolha que poderia vir a ser silenciada e esquecida, neste binômio arcaico e obsoleto, quando alguém se dá à liberdade crer sem ter religião. Reconhecer interessadamente os sem-religião nas periferias urbanas paulistanas é dar-se conta das violências a que estes indivíduos estão submetidos: violência econômica, violência da cidadania (vulnerabilidade) e proveniente da armas (grupos x Estado). Tanto quanto a violência do esquecimento e silenciamento. A concomitância espaço-temporal dos sem-religião nas periferias, levou-nos buscar referências em teorias de secularização e de laicidade, e, a partir destas, traçar uma história do poder violento, cuja pretensão é a inelutabilidade, enquanto suas fissuras são abertas em espaços de resistências. A história da legitimação do poder que se quer único, soberano, de caráter universal, enquanto fragmenta a sociedade em indivíduos atomizados, fragilizando vínculos horizontais, e a dos surgimentos de resistências não violentas questionadoras da totalidade trágica, ao reconhecer a liberdade de ser com autonomia, enquanto se volta para a produção de partilha de bens comuns. Propomos reconhecer a igual liberdade de ser (expressa na crença da filiação divina) e de partilhar o bem comum em reconhecimentos mútuos (expressa pela ação social), uma expressão de resistência não violenta ao poder que requer a igual abdicação da liberdade pela via da fragmentação individualizante e submissão inquestionável à ordem totalizante. Os sem-religião nas periferias urbanas, nossos contemporâneos, partilhariam uma tal resistência, ao longo da história, com as melissas gregas, os profetas messiânicos hebreus, os hereges cristãos e os ateus modernos, cuja pretensão não é o poder, mas a partilha igual da liberdade e dos bens comuns. Estes laicos, de fato, seriam agentes de resistências de reconhecimento mútuos, em espaços de multiplicidade crescente, ao poder violento real na história.

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 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 Australia-Chile free trade agreement 2008: Intellectual property and development. A submission to the Joint Standing Committee on treaties

A submission to the Joint Standing Committee on treaties

Joint Ventures Law in Australia (3rd ed.)

Following on from the 2nd edition published in 2005, this new edition updates its predecessor and adds considerable new material as a result of changes in the law generally and commercial approaches to financing joint ventures in particular. Of special note, 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 has been covered, 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 has been added called Resources Joint Ventures and 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. In addition, International Joint Ventures now includes additional material on structuring and dispute resolution and 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.

Lifting the joint venture veil : liability of related entities for misleading conduct of agents engaged by joint venture partners

At common law, a corporation may be liable vicariously for the conduct of its appointed agents, employees or directors. This generally requires the agent or employee to be acting in the course of his or her agency or employment and, in the case of representations, to have actual or implied authority to make the representations. The circumstances in which a corporation may be liable for the conduct of its agents, employees or directors is broadened under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) to where one of these parties engages in conduct “on behalf of” the corporation. As the decision in Bennett v Elysium Noosa Pty Ltd (in liq) demonstrates, this may extend to liability for the misleading conduct of a salesperson for the joint venture to parties who are not formal members of the joint venture, but where the joint venture activities are within the course of the entity’s “business, affairs or activities”.

Assignment of lease between lessees as joint tenants-is lessor’s consent required?

The decision of Lockrey v Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 654 raises an interesting issue about the necessity of seeking the consent of the lessor where there is an assignment of a lease between joint tenants who already hold the lease when one joint tenant sells the business operated on the leased premises to the other joint tenant. A secondary issue raised by the proceedings concerns whether the lessor’s consent was unreasonably withheld under the processes under Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) (“the Act”) upon the grounds of lack of provision of information as to the remaining lessee’s financial standing.

When should private property rights give way to the public interest?

Since Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 177 it has been recognised that corporations with substantial market power are subject to special responsibilities and restraints that corporations without market power are not. In NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority (2004) 219 CLR 90 McHugh A-CJ, Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ in their joint reasons stated (at [76]), that s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) can operate not only to prevent firms with substantial market power from doing prohibited things, but also compel them positively to do things they do not want to do. Their Honours also stated (at [126]) that the proposition that a private property owner who declines to permit competitors to use the property is immune from s 46 is “intrinsically unsound”. However, the circumstances in which a firm with substantial power must accommodate competitors, and private property rights give way to the public interest are uncertain. The purpose of this Note is to consider recent developments in two areas of the CCA where the law requires private property rights to give way to the public interest. The first part of the Note considers two recent cases which clarify the circumstances in which s 46 of the CCA can be used to compel a firm with substantial market power to accommodate a competitor and allow the competitor to make use of private property rights in the public interest. Secondly, on 12 February 2014 the Minister for Small Business, the Hon Bruce Billson,released the Productivity Commission’s Final Report, on the National Access Regime in Pt IIIA of the CCA (National Access Regime, Inquiry Report No 66, Canberra). Pt IIIA provides for the processes by which third parties may obtain access to infrastructure owned by others in the public interest. The Report recommends that Pt IIIA be retained but makes a number of suggestions for its reform, some of which will be briefly considered.

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.

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.