Authors: U-Z
Constructing "Co-Ordinate Structure" in the Contract of Technology Transfer by Hayyan ul Haq, Mataram Law School.
Hayyan ul Haq is a lecturer in intellectual property, Mataram Law School, Indonesia. He is involved in various academic activities in private law, particularly in intellectual property, investment, corporate and contract law in Indonesia. He holds a first law degree (Sarjana Hukum) in private law from Law School, Mataram University, Indonesia, and Master of Law (LL.M.) in intellectual property from the University of Technology Sydney. Currently, he is a Ph.D. candidate and researcher in the Centre for Intellectual Property Law (CIER), Molengraaff Institute for Private Law, Utrecht University. His research is concerned with the legal protection in optimising information and technology under the intellectual property regime.
Abstract
This work aims to visualise the importance of A 'co-ordinated structure' in the contract for the transfer of technology that may accommodate the different interests among contractual parties and society to access information, knowledge and technology (patent products) based on the principle of equity and justice. This work shows two core problems which stem from: (i) the insufficiency of the patent regime, as the main legal framework of the patent license in transferring technology, for providing an ideal legal framework for technology transfer; (ii) the failure of the doctrine of freedom of contract as a legal basis for technology transfer, to facilitate public interest in accessing information, knowledge, and technology (INT), particularly in essential fields. For that reason, this work elaborates some constitutive elements of fundamental rights, public interest and social functions, which refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia as a legal basis and guidelines for 'constitutionalising' the contract for the transfer of technology for the sake of the sustainability of collective life.
(Top of Page)

Negotiating Liability under Biosafety protocol by Yog Upadhyay. University of Sheffield.




Yog is a Research Assistant at the Sheffield Institute for Biotechnological Law ad Ethics (SIBLE), University of Sheffield working in EU FP6 funded project Co-ExTra. The project is being carried out in association with 50 working partners from various EU Member States. The project aims to develop a most effective traceability system for genetically modified organism (GMO) materials and derived products. Yog was also involved in EU funded project FASTER. The main objective of FASTER was to study feasibility for an advanced systematic documentation, information and communication tool in the field of ethical issues in science, research and technology. Prior to coming to Sheffield, he was practicing lawyer in the area of International Commercial Law in Nepal. He has also served the ICC and the International Court of Arbitration (2001-2002) as a Court Member.
Abstract
Article 19 (3) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) directs the Parties to develop a Biosafety Protocol. However, the issue of redress and liability under the Biosafety Protocol remained one of the contentious and unresolved issues from the onset of the negotiations. During the negotiation of the Protocol, the issue of liability and redress gave rise to considerable debate and disagreement. Developed and developing countries in general , advanced opposing views. The options on dealing with this issue under the Protocol ranged from no article, to consideration at the first meeting of the Parties, to the inclusion of an article on liability and redress. Eventually, Article 27 was incorporated in the Biosafety Protocol with a mandate to adopt a process with respect to the appropriate elaboration of international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for damage adopted at the first meeting of the Parties. Against this background, this paper will analyse the conflicts in the issue of liability and Redress under the biosafety protocol in the context of the ongoing work of the open-ended Ad-hoc group of legal and technical experts. This paper will look into other existing international laws and treaties with regards to the matter of liability and redress on similar issues and the work of the international law commission on the matter of environmental damage, especially in relation to Transboundary harm from the hazardous activities for the purpose of guidelines in the matter of liability under biosafety protocol. The paper will also consider the voice of the concerned parties and activists and finally propose a framework of liability regime under Biosafety Protocol for wider discussion.
(Top of Page)

The Virtual Shareholders' Meeting: How to Make it Work by Anatoli van der Krans. Utrecht University.
Mr. Anatoli van der Krans ( LL.M) is an Associate Professor Corporate Law at the Utrecht University. He researches in the areas of Corporate Law, Corporate Governance, Securities Law and Financial Supervision. Mr. Van der Krans finished Law School in 2001 at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and received his LL.M. from the European Programme of Law and Economics in 2002. In 2003 he began his present legal research at the Molengraaff Institute for Private Law at the Utrecht University. He writes his Ph.D. about the legal possibilities and consequences of the virtual general meeting of shareholders and lectures in Securities Law, Corporate Law and Insurance Law. He has published various articles and presented a number of papers at law conferences, workshops and seminars.
Abstract
A Virtual General Meeting ("VGM") of Shareholders allows shareholders to communicate quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively with each other and the Board. Shareholders receive a code that enables them to log on to a heavily secured VGM platform where they can observe the agenda, reports, proposals and other discussion papers. Furthermore, a VGM- platform can retain a bulletin board, which allows shareholders to set up a constructive dialogue with each other and the Board and hereby increase their information supply. Although most jurisdictions require a physical shareholders' meeting, since 2000 Delaware (USA) allows corporations to hold their meeting solely online. Even though several corporations have held their shareholders meetings solely online, is has not been a resounding success. The author attributes the limited success to three factors: (1) The rights of shareholders are not sufficiently safeguarded, (2) negative publicity and (3) cold feet. The introduction of a new corporate figure, the Shareholders Rights Manager, could help to solve these problems so that the VGM will become the future of the corporate decision making process.
(Top of Page)

Reconciling Privacy and Justice in Tax Appeals after Artic Systems? by Tim Vollans, Coventry University.
Tim Vollans is Principal Lecturer at Coventry Law School, Coventry University, England. He obtained his qualifying LLB law degree (with Honors) from Leeds University (UK), and subsequently qualified and practiced as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, specializing in high value commercial and fiscal legal matters. Retirement from practice enabled him to join Coventry University as a Senior Lecturer and to pursue his research interests at Birmingham University (UK) where he was awarded a LLM (by Research). Tim is a Register Practitioner in Higher Education (UK) and currently teaches on professionally accredited law and accountancy programs, and is leading Coventry Law School's new LLM program in International Business Law. In addition, he undertakes advisory, moderation, and examining activities with a number of major organizations. His current research focus is upon legal systemic change, the resolution of fiscal disputes, and taxation generally; and over the last 25 years he has published extensively in the professional and academic press principally on tax and commercial law.
Abstract
In R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, Lord Hewart C.J. famously observed that " justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." However, this simplistic aphorism obscures a complex myriad of competing interests over "justice" which continues to challenge the courts and judicial administrators. Much of the extensive scholarship and research on these issues has focused upon the administration of justice in the area of family law; but the issues, and approaches, have valid application to many other areas - and none more commercially sensitive than matters concerning business taxation. The recent Artic Systems case evidenced the HM Revenue and Customs challenge of small and medium sized IT corporate consultancies, and in the litigious process laid bare their financial affairs. Its outcome has been said to affect over 200,000 SMEs. Most disputes over liability (or quantification of liability) to taxation involve sensitive corporate information, but only the corporation and the state are parties. The first section of this paper outlines the current system of fiscal justice; reviews the theoretical basis of open justice in the English Courts, and the developing general principles as evidenced through their interpretation and application; and illustrates the conflicting and competing demands thereby caused. In the context of this tension between the administrative and judicial nature of tax appeals, consideration will be given to judicial acceptance of techniques deployed to address specific problems.The second section looks to the international dimension, the relevance of Human Rights, before extending consideration to overview common practices within OECD members, and, through specific examples, demonstrates attractive alternatives to the English system. The third section draws on the author's experience in practice, and outlines his empirical research amongst stakeholders to assert that many taxpayers are unaware of the risk of publicity through proceedings and when so aware, are discouraged from challenging HM Revenue and Customs. Finally, the paper concludes that the Artic Systems case merely illustrates the existing problems and the extreme vulnerability of such SMEs.
(Top of Page)

Online Child Protection in China by Yue Wang. Xi'an Jiaotong University.
Yue Wang (PHD student, Xi'an Jiaotong University, China) . She finished law and a postgraduate degree in Economics Law. She specializes in intellectual property law, information & technology law, cyber-security law and the issues of information securities. She is a member of the national committee dealing with the revisions and recommendations concerning anti-spam legislation.
Abstract
A popular Chinese buzzword to highlight the importance of the youth in the growth and development of Chinese economy in the cyber-era is "children are the hopes of the state", under the cyber era. While society aims to ensure that children and young people, who are taking advantage of the changing technologies, understand the possible risks they face and how to minimize them. This paper discusses the importance of online child protection, which is an oblivious topic in China. Current legislation is analyzed and recommendations are provided to improve the current legislation.
(Top of Page)

Risk Management in Information Infrastructures by Rolf Weber. University of Zürich.
Dr. Rolf Weber, Professor of Private, Business and European Law, is the Director of the European Law Institute and of the Centre for Information and Communication Law, Faculty of Law, University of Zürich. He is also a judge in Swiss and International Arbitral tribunals in commercial matters. Dr.Weber obtained his Dr.Iur degree from the University of Zürich. He was visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, visiting professor at the University of Hongkong and a partner in a law firm.



Abstract
Risk management has become an important issue in the infrastructure context. At the bottom, obviously, risk management is a technical task. However, since human beings are dealing with risks, the establishment of a legal framework providing for an appropriate risk management environment is an increasing need in modern societies. In addition, information-sharing and long-term risk management programs are of importance and require some basic regulatory provisions (Homeland Security, 2006). The subsequent considerations discuss the major legal aspects of the risk management in infrastructures; apart from normative regulations, an effective and efficient protection program also needs to take into account other mechanisms on the long term.
(Top of Page)

State Ownership of Large Companies in China and the Protection of the Rights of Capital Suppliers by Guanghua Yu, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong
Guanghua Yu (BA, JD, LLM, SJD (Toronto) ) is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law of University of Hong Kong

Read more
Abstract
There is a growing literature on the correlation between financial development and economic growth. King and Levine (1993) show that various measures of the level of financial development are strongly associated with the real per capita growth of Gross National Product (GDP), the rate of physical capital accumulation, and improvements in the efficiency with which economics employ physical capital. With respect to the stock market, Levine and Zervos (1998) have established that stock market liquidity - as measured both by the value of stock trading relative to the size of the market and by the value of trading relative to the size of the economy - is positively and significantly correlated with current and future rates of economic growth, capital accumulation, and productivity growth. As for the banking sector, they have also established that the level of banking development - as measured by bank loans to private enterprises divided by GDP - also predicts economic growth, capital accumulation, and productivity (Ibid). The correlation between financial development and economic growth raises a very interesting question of how a country's financial sector is developed. Among some possible explanations, the theory of legal determinants has gradually gained ground. According to that theory, the legal environment - as described by both legal rules and their enforcement - matters for the size and extent of a country's capital markets (Porta et.al, 1997). The theory of legal determinants further raises the issue of the factors affecting the protection of the rights of capital suppliers. In this article, I suggest that state ownership of large companies in China is a significant contributing factor of the poor protection of the rights of both creditors and minority shareholders. I leave to another article the explanation that China's high growth rate of the GDP is mainly contributed by non state-owned companies and foreign invested enterprises. In Section II, I examine how state ownership affects the protection of minority shareholders. I discuss in Section III the protection of creditors' right. Conclusions follow in Section IV.
(Top of Page)

What Copyright Is: Putting the Pieces Together by Lior Zemer, Lecturer in Law, University of Leicester; Visiting Scholar, Boston University School of Law




Lior H. Zemer joined the Faculty of Law in 2003 following his work as an Adjunct Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Canada. He was awarded his Ph.D at Osgoode Hall Law School in 2005. His research was supervised by Professor Leslie Green and develops a social approach to copyright. As an undergraduate student in Sheffield, Lior was awarded the David Hoath Memorial Prize. He holds two Masters’ degrees, one from the Hebrew University, magna cum laude, and one from the University of Oxford for which he was awarded a distinction. While studying in Oxford he was a member of Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre at St. Peter’s College and the founder of Oxford Intellectual Property Graduate Reading Group.
Before joining our Faculty of Law, Lior taught in Israel and Canada. During 2001 he served as the assistant lawyer to Judge J.D. Cooke at the European Court of First Instance and Judge S. von Bahr at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. In 2005 Lior was appointed Visiting Scholar at Boston University School of Law.
Abstract
‘I have a copyright’ is a challenge to the world. It denotes a property right against all other conflicting rights and interests.[1] It is superior to all non-rights. Like property, the strength of the copyright title secures excessive rights of use and exclusion. Lessons gleaned from what the right to property is, are important to the future development and understanding of copyright. In land law, for example, the extent of an owner’s right is captured by the principle that he who owns the land owns everything ‘up to the sky and down to the centre of the earth’.[2] This means that the owner also enjoys an exclusive right to the mines and minerals contained underground. Although conceptual equivalents to mines and minerals are not necessarily part of the bundle of rights in copyright, where the terms ‘exclusion’ and ‘use’ have different connotations, the law constantly designing policies which enable the rightholder in copyright to claim a robust right in his creative efforts. This tendency requires us to rethink the wisdom behind, and remind ourselves the real meaning of the statement ‘I have a copyright’.
In order to properly analyse the entitlement structure in copyright, conceptual reorganisation is required. In particular, in the age of vast creative productivity and technological changes, it of prime importance to ask from time to time what copyright comprises, and remind ourselves that every allocation of a claim-right imposes duties on certain portions of society, which sometimes implies far-reaching consequences that can directly affect society as a whole.[3] Copyright requires us to first understand the nature of the right, then study its implications in order to ascertain what copyright is and what it should be. One may argue that since copyright is a powerful, bounded, and protected right, and is deeply ingrained and enduring one, the question ‘what copyright is?’ can be simply answered.[4] In this article I argue that although the entitlement structure reflected in copyright law almost perfectly mimics that of traditional property, its social nature should render it a lesser form of property. In practice, however, copyright is a strong form of property, enough to destabilise its delicate balance.
(Top of Page)

A Study on Jurisdiction of Spam Infringement in China by Le Zhang and Yue Wang. Xi'an Jiaotong University.
Le Zhang is a law graduate student of Xi'an Jiaotong University, China . She is a postgraduate, major in economics law . She specializes in intellectual property law, information and technology law, cyber-security law and the issues of information securities. She is now taking part in the drafting of anti-spam legislation in China.
Yue Wang (PHD student, Xi'an Jiaotong University, China) . She finished law and a postgraduate degree in Economics Law. She specializes in intellectual property law, information & technology law, cyber-security law and the issues of information securities. She is a member of the national committee dealing with the revisions and recommendations concerning anti-spam legislation.
Abstract
The Internet fosters economic activity and globalisation . At the same time, it has a huge impact on traditional morality and legal order. In the judicial practice of civil procedure, issues arise as to whether the traditional rules of territorial jurisdiction for infringements apply to the cyberspace.There are several new theories put forward internationally, most of which advocate the establishment of new regulations and the replacement of the traditional legal order.This paper deals with the impact of Spam infringements on the traditional jurisdiction, and analyzes fully the above mentioned rules and practice in the context of Chinese judicial practice. The paper discussses the two newly issued judicial interpretations and has detailed comments on it. The author opines that traditional territorial jurisdiction, with some adjustments, can still apply to the cyberspace until there are uniform regulations. Based on this perspective, the paper tries to construct integral regulations of territorial jurisdiction of Spam infringements for China.
(Top of Page)