AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Journal of Law, Information and Science

Journal of Law, Information and Science (JLIS)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Journal of Law, Information and Science >> 1999 >> [1999] JlLawInfoSci 1

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Stokes, Michael --- "Editorial" [1999] JlLawInfoSci 1; (1999) 10(1) Journal of Law, Information and Science 5

Editorial

In this and the next issue of the Journal we are proud to publish the entries in the JLIS Research or Scholarly Article Competition. We would like to thank all who helped make the competition a success, including referees, the judges, Prof Eugene Clark, Pro Vice-Chancellor Research, University of Canberra, Associate Professor George Cho and Mr Arthur Hoyle of the University of Canberra and Ms Anne Fitzgerald, Member Advisory Council on Industrial Property and the Expert Advisory Group assisting the Copyright Law Review Committee, and especially the competitors. The high standard of their papers augurs well for the future discussion of law and information technology issues in Australia.

The winner of the competition is Alex Jones, whose paper, ‘The protection of Computer Programs under TRIPS’ is the first paper in this issue. In this paper, Jones examines the legal protection given to computer programs, arguing first that hard wired programs and code implemented programs are functionally equivalent and should be given the same intellectual property protection and secondly that, although computer programs as a whole ought to be given intellectual property protection, their underlying conceptual and functional elements should not be protected. The paper examines the treatment of computer programs under TRIPS, along with the steps taken to implement the agreement in Australia and argues that in order to avoid giving indirect protection to the underlying elements of computer programs, the law should recognise a general right of reverse engineering. By not recognising that general right, the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act hinders rather than encourages the development of the Australian software industry.

The second paper in this issue Gaye Middleton’s ‘Copyright Beyond the Digital Frontier’ compares Australia’s proposed Copyright Law reforms in the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European Commission’s proposed directive on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society.

The development of platform-independent languages such as Java allows software to be reused but software developers have been slow to embrace reuse. Annelies Moens, in her paper ‘Streamlining the Software Development Process Through Reuse and Patents’ considers which intellectual property regimes most encourage the reuse of software components. She concludes that a patent regime is most suited to software reuse as it encourages the mass-marketing of reusable software components. This will encourage the growth of a global software industry and lead the way towards uniform standards in the on-line world. The paper addresses the requirements for patenting software components in Australia and argues that strong intellectual property protection should be given to reusable software components.

‘E-Commerce: Global or Local? An Australian Case Study’ by Aaron Upcroft, examines the proposed Australian implementation of the UNCITRAL Model Law relating to electronic commerce by the Electronic Transactions Bill (Comm) and the Electronic Commerce Framework Bill (Vic). The paper argues that global uniformity is important in this area because of the global nature of the subject matter and of the disputes to which it will give rise. The UNCITRAL Model Law is designed to facilitate electronic commerce by providing a set of internationally agreed rules. The paper examines Australia’s proposed legislation and concludes that it adheres closely to the UNCITRAL Model Law, but that the decision to adopt a cooperative scheme of uniform State and Territory laws based on the Commonwealth scheme may cause problems and disadvantage Australia in global markets.

The issue ends with a review by the Honourable Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald, Cifuentes and Cook Going Digital 2000.

Michael Stokes

Editor


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/1999/1.html