(2006) 3:2 SCRIPTed 86–173

Issue DOI: 10.2966/scrip.030206

Volume 3, Issue 2, June 2006


Special Feature

Peer-reviewed articles

  •  Patent Remedies: Online Management of IP Services
    Allan Gordon, Jim Adams, Alexis Barlow, Peter Duncan, John Huntley, Martin Jones, pp.109-131
    This paper was inspired by work currently in progress under a DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) funded KTP (Knowledge Transfer Partnership) Project between Kennedy’s Patent and Glasgow Caledonian University. The project offers a unique opportunity to study the interplay between the firm’s business exigencies, and the constantly evolving legal and procedural framework within which the firm operates. The particular focus of the paper is the issues raised by the provision of online legal/quasi-legal services in an ‘e-government’ context.
  • Copyright Failure and the Protection for Tables and Compilation (Appendix)
    Dennis K W Khong, pp.132-153
    Current copyright laws in all jurisdictions are lacking explicit provisions for protecting many types of contemporary art. It remains unclear to what extent ideas should be copyrightable as art, if at all; or whether an artwork’s commercial nature provides a decisive factor regarding appropriation. Certain situations seem plainly inappropriate, such as artists needing to seek legal counsel in conjunction with creating their artwork: inappropriate in its financial extravagance and in its inevitable curb on creativity. As such, it is incumbent upon courts and legislatures to analyze the issue and to provide guidance. It is the author’s finding that strong moral rights and a vibrant public domain are not necessarily at odds with each other, especially when parties are open to communication. Laws operate to provide structure when parties do not make other arrangements amongst themselves; contracts between artists and galleries, artists and publishers, even artists and other artists may provide the highest degree of satisfaction for specific parties to a specific situation. Not surprisingly, parties with legal or business interests in art and parties with artistic interests in art would communicate better if they understood each other’s situations. Hopefully the issues will continue to be the focus of some thought on all platforms such that informed legal decisions can be made and artists can pursue and protect their creative productions, no matter their format.


  • GNU General Public License v3: A Legal Analysis
    Andrés Guadamuz González, pp.154-163
    This paper offers a first-look legal analysis of the draft version 3 of the GNU General Public License, and will also look at the debate that it has generated in the Free and Open Source community. The paper will answer the following vital questions: Is the GPL v3 different in any fundamental way from GPL v2? What are the main differences? What will be the impact of the new GPL to the problem of software patents? Is there an incompatibility problem with previous versions of the licence? How does it compare with other existing licences?
  • The Mystery of Intellectual Capital: A Prospectus
    David R Koepsell, pp.164-169
    This article analyses the application of data protection legislation to sensitive personal data, particularly to genetic data, and asks whether the present framework may be adequate to respond to the very sensitive issues involved.

Book Reviews