technology

I've just added a modified version of the Bluebook style to suit Australian legal formatting conventions to the repository (install link: http://www.zotero.org/styles/australian-legal/dev?install=1).

It's similar to, but not identical to the Australian Guide to Legal Citation 2 style, which is just too finicky for me. If enough people are interested, it could be developed towards this goal.

I'll be using it for my PhD thesis, and have tested it on my library - it seems consistent so far. Please feel free to try it out, and if you have any problems, or want to give any feedback, either do so here, on the Zotero forum thread (http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4841/new-australian-legal-citation-style/) or send me an email to anton dot hughes at utas dot edu dot au.

Note I did find an issue with volume number handling (see http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4831/bug-with-csl-matchnone-handling/) but for an interim fix just delete and re-type the volume number.

The text of this article by Schar is pro-software patent, and attacks the Kolle test of technology. But the counter-punch delivered by FFII in its analysis is a great source of informative dialogue.

This FFII page sets out a test for invention based on the Kolle article and German Federal Court jurisprudence. I've quoted it a couple of times so far in my Grant v Commissioner for Patents case note.

This article (only available in German at present) sets out the classic 'controllable forces of nature test' and it's justification (separating the realm of the freely accessible human intellectual activity on the one hand against the patentable material invention).

I should see if it is possible to get this article translated into English.

I'm looking at German jurisprudence on technology as the way of differentiating between patentable inventions and ideas. Interesting stuff. Anyway, here are the links for today:

• http://wiki.ffii.org/NFAdvocacyEn: Talks about whether 'natural forces' are a good way to go for the patentable subject matter approach
• FFII press release on the 'controllable forces of nature' approach suggested by Rocard
• Another article on the Rocard report, detailing other responses to the issue
• Here is a list of the controllable forces of nature
• The amended swpat directive featuring the cfn approach
• Article 52 of the EPC
• The Dispositionsprogramm case from the German Federal Patent Court (great text on mental process stuff)
  

Taken from: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/washington/trtdocs_wo011.html

Article 6
The Scope of the Protection

(1) [Acts Requiring the Authorization of the Holder of the Right]

(a) Any Contracting Party shall consider unlawful the following acts if performed without the authorization of the holder of the right:

(i) the act of reproducing, whether by incorporation in an integrated circuit or otherwise, a protected layout-design (topography) in its entirety or any part thereof, except the act of reproducing any part that does not comply with the requirement of originality referred to in Article 3(2),

(ii) the act of importing, selling or otherwise distributing for commercial purposes a protected layout-design (topography) or an integrated circuit in which a protected layout-design (topography) is incorporated.

(b) Any Contracting Party shall be free to consider unlawful also acts other than those specified in subparagraph (a) if performed without the authorization of the holder of the right.

(2) [Acts Not Requiring the Authorization of the Holder of the Right]

(a) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no Contracting Party shall consider unlawful the performance, without the authorization of the holder of the right, of the act of reproduction referred to in paragraph (1)(a)(i) where that act is performed by a third party for private purposes or for the sole purpose of evaluation, analysis, research or teaching.

(b) Where the third party referred to in subparagraph (a), on the basis of evaluation or analysis of the protected layout-design (topography) (“the first layout-design (topography)”), creates a layout-design (topography) complying with the requirement of originality referred to in Article 3(2) (“the second layout-design (topography)”), that third party may incorporate the second layout-design (topography) in an integrated circuit or perform any of the acts referred to in paragraph (1) in respect of the second layout-design (topography) without being regarded as infringing the rights of the holder of the right in the first layout-design (topography).

(c) The holder of the right may not exercise his right in respect of an identical original layout-design (topography) that was independently created by a third party.

(3) [Measures Concerning Use Without the Consent of the Holder of the Right]

(a) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any Contracting Party may, in its legislation, provide for the possibility of its executive or judicial authority granting a non-exclusive license, in circumstances that are not ordinary, for the performance of any of the acts referred to in paragraph (1) by a third party without the authorization of the holder of the right (“non-voluntary license”), after unsuccessful efforts, made by the said third party in line with normal commercial practices, to obtain such authorization, where the granting of the non-voluntary license is found, by the granting authority, to be necessary to safeguard a national purpose deemed to be vital by that authority; the non-voluntary license shall be available for exploitation only in the territory of that country and shall be subject to the payment of an equitable remuneration by the third party to the holder of the right.

(b) The provisions of this Treaty shall not affect the freedom of any Contracting Party to apply measures, including the granting, after a formal proceeding by its executive or judicial authority, of a non-voluntary license, in application of its laws in order to secure free competition and to prevent abuses by the holder of the right.

(c) The granting of any non-voluntary license referred to in subparagraph (a) or subparagraph (b) shall be subject to judicial review. Any non-voluntary license referred to in subparagraph (a) shall be revoked when the conditions referred to in that subparagraph cease to exist.

(4) [Sale and Distribution of Infringing Integrated Circuits Acquired Innocently] Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(a)(ii), no Contracting Party shall be obliged to consider unlawful the performance of any of the acts referred to in that paragraph in respect of an integrated circuit incorporating an unlawfully reproduced layout-design (topography) where the person performing or ordering such acts did not know and had no reasonable ground to know, when acquiring the said integrated circuit, that it incorporates an unlawfully reproduced layout-design (topography).

(5) [Exhaustion of Rights] Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(a)(ii), any Contracting Party may consider lawful the performance, without the authorization of the holder of the right, of any of the acts referred to in that paragraph where the act is performed in respect of a protected layout-design (topography), or in respect of an integrated circuit in which such a layout-design (topography) is incorporated, that has been put on the market by, or with the consent of, the holder of the right.

Article 7
Exploitation; Registration, Disclosure

(1) [Faculty to Require Exploitation] Any Contracting Party shall be free not to protect a layout-design (topography) until it has been ordinarily commercially exploited, separately or as incorporated in an integrated circuit, somewhere in the world.

(2) [Faculty to Require Registration; Disclosure]

(a) Any Contracting Party shall be free not to protect a layout-design (topography) until the layout-design (topography) has been the subject of an application for registration, filed in due form with the competent public authority, or of a registration with that authority; it may be required that the application be accompanied by the filing of a copy or drawing of the layout-design (topography) and, where the integrated circuit has been commercially exploited, of a sample of that integrated circuit, along with information defining the electronic function which the integrated circuit is intended to perform; however, the applicant may exclude such parts of the copy or drawing that relate to the manner of manufacture of the integrated circuit, provided that the parts submitted are sufficient to allow the identification of the layout-design (topography).

(b) Where the filing of an application for registration according to subparagraph (a) is required, the Contracting Party may require that such filing be effected within a certain period of time from the date on which the holder of the right first exploits ordinarily commercially anywhere in the world the layout-design (topography) of an integrated circuit; such period shall not be less than two years counted from the said date.

(c) Registration under subparagraph (a) may be subject to the payment of a fee.

Article 8
The Duration of the Protection

Protection shall last at least eight years.

The Australian implementation of this Treaty is found in the  Circuit Layouts Act 1989 (Cth) - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cla1989203/