Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Hector MacQueen |
| Date: |
Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:59:50 |
| Re: |
Shayler case |
Just a footnote
to this: surely one of the points of copyright is that generally, and the
ECJ case of Magill (1995) always excepted, you don't have to sell; you can
normally keep your exclusivity if you wish, and this is one of the reasons
why copyright systems generally make the infringer liable to disgorge her
profits.
Hector MacQueen
----------
From: Charles Mitchell The problem with arguing that secret information should
be regarded as Crown copyright is obviously that by its nature the information
is not something which the Crown would wish to sell. This reminds me
of the argument which is sometimes made about A-G for Hong Kong v Reid,
that the Hong Kong government must be taken to have lost something at
least as valuable as the bribes Reid was paid, an argument which chooses
to ignore the fact that the HK government was not in the business of
selling immunities from prosecution. __________________________________ tel: 020 7848 2290
To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Subject: RDG: Shayler case
Date: 28 February 2000 11:48
Dr Charles Mitchell
Lecturer in Law
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
LONDON WC2R 2LS
fax: 020 7848 2465
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
