Australian Intellectual Property Journal (AIPJ)
Discourse on the interplay of intellectual property, markets and technology
About the Journal
The Australian Intellectual Property Journal (ISSN: 1038-1635) examines important intellectual property law issues and developments within Australia and around the globe.
Articles cover the whole range of intellectual property law issues including copyright, trade marks, patent law, industrial design and unfair competition, as well as legal issues implicated in the new computing, telecommunications, multi-media, and internet technologies.
Contributors are acknowledged experts in the fields of intellectual property and technology law.
Dr David J Brennan is a Visiting Academic at the University of Technology Sydney and currently teaches copyright law at Monash University. Formerly a professor of patent law at Oxford University, he specialises in the fields of patent and copyright law, with a particular focus on their connections with contracts, property, restitution, international and trade law. David served as General Editor from 2007 to 2012, prior to the current General Editor Professor David Lindsay taking on the role.
David received his law degree from University of Melbourne in 1992 and completed his PhD from the same university in 2003. He has been involved in Australian copyright law reform activities for decades and is a consultant for Screenrights, a rights management organisation in Australia.
Dr David Lindsay is an Associate Professor at Monash University, where he teaches copyright, intellectual property, cyberlaw and trusts. He is an expert in technology, copyright and privacy law and has written extensively on these topics, including his 2007 book, International Domain Name Law: ICANN and the UDRP (Hart, 2007). From 2007-2010 he was a co-author of the legal service, Lahore and Rothnie, Copyright and Designs (LexisNexis/Butterworths, 1996- ).
Since 2008 he has been a member of the Media and Communications Committee of the Law Council of Australia and in 2011-2012 was a member of the Copyright Council Expert Group. He is currently a board member of the Australian Privacy Foundation and a member of the expert Advisory Committee for the ALRC reference on Copyright and the Digital Economy.
His current research interests include digital copyright, privacy and social networking sites and intermediary liability.
Professor Dianne Nicol is a professor of law at the University of Tasmania in Australia and director of the Centre for Law and Genetics (CLG), which is housed in the Law Faculty. The broad theme of the CLG’s research is the regulation of biotechnology, human genetics and genomics and stem cell technology. Dianne’s research at the CLG particularly focuses on the legal and social issues associated with the commercialisation of genetic knowledge and patenting of genetic inventions. She is also more broadly interested in a range of aspects of intellectual property law in her teaching and research.
She has held a number of Australian Research Council (ARC) discovery grants and currently leads two ARC funded projects, one on the legal, research ethics and social issues associated with genomic data sharing and the other on the regulation of innovative health technologies. Dianne also holds the role of Chair of Academic Senate at the University of Tasmania. In 2012 Dianne was appointed to a three-member expert panel to review pharmaceutical patenting in Australia. She has also been a member of two principal committees of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Health Ethics Committee and the Embryo Research Licensing Committee in the triennium from 2015 to 2018 and the Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultative Committee of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator from 2017 to 2018. She is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law.
Hon W M C Gummow AC QC, Former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia
Ann Dufty, Solicitor, Melbourne
David Llewelyn, Professor of IP Law, King’s College London; Professor (Practice), School of Law, Singapore Management University
Michael D Pendleton, Professor,School of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong; Emeritus Professor, Murdoch University, Perth
Warwick A Rothnie, Barrister
Hon Peter C Heerey AM QC, Barrister, Chairperson, Australian Electoral Commission
Dr Damian Slizys, Partner, F B Rice & Co, Melbourne
Dr Melissa DeZwart, Associate Professor, University of Adelaide
Janice Luck, Honorary Senior Fellow, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne
The following websites contain details of material published in the Journal:
http://legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/australian-legal-journals-index-online/productdetail/85643 (Australian Legal Journals Index)
https://clarivate.com/products/web-of-science/ (Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index)
The Australian Legal Journals Index is an online legal database prepared by the Lionel Murphy Library of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. It is produced by Thomson Reuters and is available via subscription.
The ESCI (Emerging Sources Citation Index) is an online database formerly produced by Thomson Reuters and now maintained by Clarivate Analytics. It is part of the Web of Science Core Collection and is available via subscription.
Subscribe or Purchase
To subscribe to this Journal or purchase individual articles, please visit our “Subscribe or Purchase” page.
For the individual contents pages for each Part, click here.
The second Part for Volume 22 of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal includes articles by Sarah Bennett regarding the compatibility of plain packaging with TRIPs and an article by Jani McCutcheon critically considering the originality threshold in two important cases for IP law. This Part also includes a Topic of Interest from Mark Sumptor discussing IP and competition law.
If you were planning on submitting an essay for the Australian Intellectual Property Journal essay competition, you better hurry!
Today is the last day for entries!
The closing date for entries to the Australian Intellectual Property Journal Essay Competition is fast approaching.
Entries are due by close of business on Wednesday 30 November, which is less than 2 weeks away!
The first part of Volume 22 of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal includes articles on monetary remedies for patent infringement and copyright in computer-generated work in Australia. There is also a book review and a Topic of Interest about E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd.
Thomson Reuters and the General Editor of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal would like to announce a NEW Intellectual Property Law Graduate Essay Competition.
In a surprising, but welcome, move, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, has announced the scrapping of the prescriptive quality indicators for journals.
The grading of journals as A*, A, B or C will no longer be applied and these gradings will no longer be the indicators of research excellence.
Over 2009 and 2010, the Australian Research Council undertook to rank journals in the Arts & Humanities Sector as part of the “Excellence in Research for Australia” initiative. Law journals were included in the ranking. Now the rankings that were assigned are being reviewed and new rankings will be released in 2012. Thomson Reuters has observed there may be some unintended long-term consequences of the ERA methodology and outcomes. To communicate these concerns, we have released a position statement.
Is the accessibility of information on the WWW disrupting the foundation and rationale of the patent system of disclosure in exchange for grant of a patent?
By Eliza Jane Saunders. This article considers the reliability of information sourced through the internet and looks at how some of the major patent offices around the world use information disclosed on the World Wide Web (WWW) as a source of prior art information in the examination of patent applications.
By Dr Charles Lawson* The purpose of this article is to review the meaning of “human beings” as it is used in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The analysis demonstrates that the meaning remains uncertain and that appeals to essential characters and taxonomic conceptions of “human beings” are not satisfactory.