Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Journal of Law, Information and Science

Gogarty, Brendan --- "Editorial" [2015] JlLawInfoSci 1; (2014/2015) 23(2) Journal of Law, Information and Science vi

Editorial

This general issue spans articles published from late 2014 through to early 2015; reflecting our production of a separate special issue in the latter part of 2014. This issue is also the first to be produced in cooperation with a Student Editorial Board. We have, unfortunately lost a funding stream that allowed us to employ a permanent Managing Editor. Bruce Newey, who previously held this role, has thankfully found equivalent employment with the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute – although he has generously agreed to continue in an advisory role with the JLIS. Whilst we are very sad to see him go, we know he will make an equally invaluable contribution to law reform in Tasmania. We are sincerely grateful for Bruce's hard work and dedication to the JLIS over many years.

Under the new production arrangements editorial decisions and oversight will remain the responsibility of the (academic and professional) Editorial Board. Similarly, all papers will continue to be double-blind peer reviewed by leading scholars in the field. The Student Editorial Board will manage this process and assist in copy editing and author communications. Thus far the authors who have participated in the student managed editorial process have provided very positive feedback. We are buoyed by this and the overwhelming positivity of the student editors themselves. We welcome Will, Caitlin and Adrian to the JLIS team.

As a general edition, the articles in this issue cover a range of novel and emergent issues in law, science and technology. In his work Market Disclosure and Governance Challenges When Floating University Research on the Stock Market John Selby analyses the very live issue of the commercialisation of university research and innovation in the context of the float of Melbourne IT Ltd by the University of Melbourne. The article provides an insightful scrutiny of that process and sets out lessons for other universities intending to privatise previously publically funded activities.

Amanda Scardamaglia on the other hand, examines a much more emergent technology, with no less important legal and commercial implications; 3d printing. Her work, Flashpoints in 3D Printing and Trade Mark Law, examines the largely unexplored questions about how the technology will impact on trade mark law, in light of the projected uses and responses to the new technology.

Jowa Chan, also discusses the intersection of intellectual property law, science and technology, in respect of pharmaceutical patents. In her work Patent Law and Community Interest in Public Health Chan considers whether a one-size-fits-all system to regulate the pharmaceutical industry is justified in light of the modern research and development environment. She argues that there is a need for a national Health Impact Fund to complement (rather than compete with) the existing patent system in light of the recent focus on pharmaceutical patent reform.

Stephanie Crosbie also discusses the regulation of pharmaceuticals in The Limited Impact Of Evergreening Practices In Australia. 'Evergreening' refers to the strategic use of the patent system to extent the time and length that patents protect high-earning pharmaceuticals. Crosbie concludes that the concerns about evergreening practices are not as detrimental as some critics have suggested and may, in fact, be beneficial for follow-on and cumulative innovation in the field.

Moving from domestic to international intellectual property law, Olasupo Owoeye discusses Data Exclusivity and Public Health under the TRIPS Agreement. As he notes, that agreement has created a sui generis regime over test data submitted to national drug regulatory authorities. He argues that data exclusivity should not be a barrier to the use of compulsory licenses and that it may be possible to rely on the grounds for compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement to satisfy the exceptions to TRIPS data exclusivity requirements.

Peter Lawrence and I also examine the intersection of science and international law in The ICJ Whaling Case: science, transparency and the rule of law. While that decision has undoubtedly moved international law forward in respect of legal-scientific state obligations we argue that it did not go as far as some may believe it did. As a side note I thank Professor Dianne Nicol for overseeing the double-blind peer review of that article to ensure the process was at arms length given my role on the Editorial Board of the JLIS.

Finally I recognise the exceptionally valuable work of the JLIS Editorial Board and peer reviewers for this issue. The peer review process is a vital cornerstone of the academic enterprise, but can be a largely thankless task. While those who have worked behind the scenes to improve the scholarly work in this journal cannot be identified, we thank them for their contribution to the journal, and the field more generally.

Brendan Gogarty, Chief Editor, 2015