University of Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series最新文献_第3页

A Proposal for Simplifying United Kingdom Copyright Law 简化英国版权法的建议

University of Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 2001-04-02 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.263226

A. Christie

{"title":"A Proposal for Simplifying United Kingdom Copyright Law","authors":"A. Christie","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.263226","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.263226","url":null,"abstract":"The copyright legislation of most common law countries is, in all respects, complex. How might such legislation be simplified? Is simplification necessary or even desirable? This article considers and answers these questions, using the United Kingdom copyright legislation as an example. The article begins by noting that the UK legislation is not only unnecessarily complex in its conceptual structure, but also is unjustifiably discriminatory and \"technologically challenged\" (ie found wanting in its response to digital technology). It then postulates that a simplification of the UK copyright legislation, along lines similar to that proposed for Australia's copyright law, is both a possible and a desirable way to remedy these shortcomings. The article identifies a set of principles on which a simplified copyright law should be modelled. These principles are the use of broad and inclusively defined categories of protected subject matters, the adoption of innovation thresholds based on degree of creativity, and the removal of the distinction between tangible and intangible embodiments of copyright material. The article then illustrates how these principles could be implemented in practice; this being the proposed approach. The article concludes that the proposed approach is not radical. Rather, it is argued that the proposed approach is fully consistent with the UK's obligations under the Berne Convention, and is the logical and desirable continuation of an international trend which began in 1996 with the adoption of the World Intellectual Property Organization copyright and neighbouring rights Treaties.","PeriodicalId":368661,"journal":{"name":"University of Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114486747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

'Unconscionability' and the Case Against Lumping: Three Case Studies “不合理”和反对集中:三个案例研究

University of Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3741186

Y. Liew

引用次数: 0

An Empirical Investigation into Patent Enforcement in Australian Courts 澳大利亚法院专利执法的实证调查

University of Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1177/0067205x0503300203

Kimberlee Weatherall, P. Jensen

{"title":"An Empirical Investigation into Patent Enforcement in Australian Courts","authors":"Kimberlee Weatherall, P. Jensen","doi":"10.1177/0067205x0503300203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x0503300203","url":null,"abstract":"The effectiveness of patent protection depends not only on the existence of patent laws on the books, but also on the ability to enforce the rights granted by those laws. In recent years, there has been concern expressed in Australia that courts are providing inadequate protection for patent owners: that they are anti-patent. We argue that there are two fundamental problems with this line of argument. The first is that although it is essentially an empirical issue, the debate has largely been based on anecdotal evidence provided by vested interest groups. Second, many existing studies are critical of the observed low levels of success in patent litigation disputes without properly recognizing that a patent does not provide any guarantee of validity if challenged in a court of law. Given the selection bias, only those cases where validity is highly questionable may actually make it to court. To incorporate these issues into the debate, we have created and analysed a database of all patent enforcement decisions (on both validity and infringement) of Australian courts for the period 1997-2003. We report descriptive statistics on patent litigation including detailed information on the duration of such litigation. Our analysis indicates that, in line with theoretical predictions, patent owners are more likely to have at least some of their claims upheld in both validity and infringement determinations than they are to lose all of their claims.","PeriodicalId":368661,"journal":{"name":"University of Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116331152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 18

Litigation by Shareholders and Directors: An Empirical Study of the Statutory Derivative Action 股东与董事诉讼:法定派生诉讼的实证研究

University of Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.914465

I. Ramsay, Benjamin B. Saunders

引用次数: 13

Constructive Trusts and Limitation Periods in Malaysia 马来西亚的建设性信托和时效期

University of Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.5040/9781509934829.ch-005

Y. Liew

{"title":"Constructive Trusts and Limitation Periods in Malaysia","authors":"Y. Liew","doi":"10.5040/9781509934829.ch-005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509934829.ch-005","url":null,"abstract":"Malaysia, as a former British colony, has inherited much of its trusts law from the English. One notoriously difficult area of law is constructive trusts. Precisely when and why constructive trusts arise are fundamental but imperfectly understood matters. This is unfortunate, because the lack of understanding might, in practice, be critically relevant for the determination of liability. To illustrate, consider the ongoing infamous ‘1MDB’ saga. 1MDB was a government-run strategic development company (allegedly) utilized by the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, and many others (including his aide, Jho Low) to siphon money to their personal and company accounts. The key events of the highly complex fraudulent scheme took place over a six-year period, leaving behind a long money trail which crossed multiple jurisdictional borders and involved numerous shell companies, international banks, investment companies, and even Hollywood celebrities. While the Malaysian government has focused its efforts on the criminal liability of those allegedly involved, little attention has thus far been paid to the potential private law liabilities, either of those directly breaching trusts or fiduciary duties, or those receiving proceeds of those breaches. These claims would likely be pursued as a matter of course, for example by the liquidators or new directors of 1MDB. At that stage the law of constructive trusts would be crucial for the determination of liability.<br><br>One of the first practical hurdles would be the question of limitation: are the constructive trust claims time-barred? As with the law of constructive trusts, the law of limitation in Malaysia is closely modelled on English law. Here, again, the interactions between Malaysian and English law throw up interest but difficult issues of law. This article considers those interactions in the particular context of the applicable limitation periods to constructive trusts claims in Malaysia, to evaluate and assess how English jurisprudence and local developments have shaped the law.","PeriodicalId":368661,"journal":{"name":"University of Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133545450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0