Show Summary Details
This content is available to you


This article does not contain an abstract

Full Text

It is with absolute pleasure that I write this editorial as the Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property celebrates its 3rd anniversary with this issue. It has been an exciting journey which could not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of Professor Johanna Gibson, Lord Hoffmann and the General Editor Marc Mimler. I thank them for inviting me to act as Guest Editor for this issue.

In this first issue of the year 2013, Robin Callender Smith looks at how the fundamental right protecting personal data has lately been challenged by the regulatory and litigation issues relating to intellectual property rights. He notes that issues relating to one's individual personal data are only rarely identified and articulated. Even when this happens, they are being analysed only by reference to the right of privacy, reducing Article 8 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights to a mere Article 8 ECHR privacy remedy.

Enrico Bonadio looks at the relationship between intellectual property and competition in relation to standardization. He explores the meaning and different forms of standardization and analyses the Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to standardization agreements. Bonadio's piece then turns to the question of whether intellectual property right ownership on standardized technologies can really create market dominance capable of triggering anti-competitive behaviours and proceeds to highlight the solutions proposed by various legal scholars.

Ted Shapiro and Brigitte Linder provide an analysis of the CJEU Premier League cases (Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08) focusing on the generally less debated copyright aspect of the cases. The piece argues that the decisions do shed some light over the scope of the rights of reproduction and communication to the public, as well as the potential meaning of ‘appropriate remuneration’.

Katie Eckett and Florian Koempel's piece on cloud computing looks at the various forms of cloud services and concludes that the current copyright framework is well equipped to answer the challenges posed by cloud computing. They claim that licensing addresses possible questions on the liability of cloud computing services, thus creating legal clarity for rightholders and services providers, as well as consumers.

I hope you enjoy it.


Dr Dimita, Gaetano - Microsoft-IPI Lecturer in Intellectual Property, Innovation and Strategy, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London