Gogarty, Brendan --- "Editorial" [2013] JlLawInfoSci 1; (2013) 22(2) Journal of Law, Information and Science i

• Editorial

---

Editorial

We are pleased to introduce the 2013 general edition of the Journal of Law Information and Science (JLIS). While general editions of the journal have no specific topic, the role of ethics and law in guiding the social and legal changes arising from emergent technology is a strong theme throughout this edition.

That intersection is discussed in the broadest context by Peter G Kirchschlaeger, in his paper “Human Rights as an Ethical Basis for Science” (p 1), in which he argues that human rights should serve as an ethical point of reference for scientific principles, priorities and values. Human rights can, according to Kirchschlaeger, significantly contribute to scientific debate, progress and regulation.

Matthew Rimmer is also concerned with the ethical advancement of science and technology in the public interest. In “The Empire of Cancer: Gene Patents and Cancer Voices” (p 18) he reviews recent litigation on breast and ovarian cancer gene patents (BRCA1 and BRCA2) in Australia. Drawing from that review Rimmer argues that the law — specifically intellectual property law — must play a constructive role in public health and the battle against cancer. He further emphasises the need for greater engagement with patients, researchers and inventors in patent law and practice.

Gary Meyers and Olasupo Owoeye also discuss the interface of intellectual property law, society and ethics. Their paper, “Intellectual Property Law and the Protection of Indigenous Australian Traditional Knowledge in Natural Resources” (p 56) examines the expropriation of traditional knowledge in natural or biological resources within the context of contemporary domestic and international law. They argue that a sui generis regime in Australia is necessary to protect indigenous intellectual property rights.

Moving from Australia to the US, but continuing to consider ownership, attribution and intellectual property rights is Jennifer Chandler’s paper “The Right to Attribution: Benefitting Authors and Sharing Accurate Content in the Public Domain” (p 75). Chandler suggests the current US copyright regime is unable to adequately protect the attribution rights of authors. She argues that the US Copyright Act must be reformed to better reflect and represent contemporary social standards in the reputation based electronic, creative marketplace.

Crossing the Atlantic once more, Matt Vitins considers the law might be improved to better reflect advances in social interaction and investment in the digital economy. In his paper “Crowdfunding and Securities Laws: What the Americans Are Doing and the Case for an Australian Crowdfunding Exemption” (p 92), Vitins argues that the current security law regime in Australia is unduly restricting cultural and economic promises of crowdfunding in that jurisdiction. He suggests that, whilst US laws are not perfect, they represent some ‘well-developed thinking on how crowdfunding should be regulated’ and concludes that it is time Australia began working on a crowdfunding exemption within its security law.

John Liddicoat and Dianne Nicol also draw upon the US experience to inform the regulatory debate in Australia. Their article, “Re-evaluating False Patent Marking in Australia” (p 128), discusses false patent marking, which has been argued to negatively affect competitive markets and consumers in Australia. Drawing on US evidence the author’s argue that such claims may be exaggerated and any regulatory reform should be minor and focused on simplifying the patent system in Australia rather than make it more complex and stringent. They conclude that a ‘watching brief’ is kept on false patent marking in Australia.

Sara Smyth also considers how, or if, Australian law should be reformed by examining the US approach to technology regulation. In “Does Australia Really Need Mandatory Data Breach Notification Laws – And If So, What Kind?” (p 159), Smyth reviews arguments for and against data breach notification laws within the context of the US law. Based on that evidence and experience, she argues that reliance upon a single form of regulation is not likely to be effective at achieving modern policy goals in today’s complex global information society. Instead, she suggests a holistic ‘graded approach’ that incorporates a range of legislative and self-regulation measures.

Daniel Burda and Frank Teuteberg are similarly concerned with the law and data storage. Their article, “Why Discard When You Can Keep Them? A Case Study on the E-Mail Retention Behaviour in Firms” (p 183), reviews their quantitative and qualitative research about the retention of emails by corporate employees. Their significant research indicates that employees tend to ‘horde vast amounts of email’. That evidence will be of interest to both corporations, lawyers and regulators and the authors elaborate a set of propositions, highlight the organisational implications and suggest opportunities for future research.

Finally, George Cho concludes with “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Emerging Policy and Regulatory Issues” (p 201). He argues the law must be developed to take into account the use of such vehicles on the sharing of domestic airspace, air navigation rules, public safety and national security. He also emphasises trans-jurisdictional problems arising from the technology, including its export and the transmission of geospatial data across borders recommending international cooperation and law reform.

As usual these articles have been subject to a rigorous double-blind peer review process by relevant academic experts. These are noteworthy and important works and we are proud to publish them in the 22^nd volume of the JLIS.