protégeable

12:32 Apr 8, 2016 

Thanks Charles and Linda !

12:07 Apr 8, 2016 

Okay dwt2, you need to enter your suggestion in the usual way.

12:04 Apr 8, 2016 

On the matter of answers and points, I think it's up to dwt2, as the first person to suggest a correct solution here, to post an answer if he/she wishes.

11:41 Apr 8, 2016 

Thanks again to everyone.

11:38 Apr 8, 2016 

I shouldn't worry. I don't think there's anything wrong with "qualify for protection".

Sir Kim Lewison in a Privy Council judgment:
"The principal issue raised by this appeal is whether a technical drawing containing details of a septic tank is capable of protection under the Copyright Act (Chapter 323)."
https://www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2013-0031-judgment.pdf

11:34 Apr 8, 2016 

Gosh yes I see that. I have to deliver so can't change everything now, I need to stick with 'qualify for protection' simply for lack of time. I think everyone's points were valid and helpful thank you. Which brings us back to awarding points...?

11:25 Apr 8, 2016 

No problem! "Capable of being protected" (or "capable of protection") is a form of words quite commonly used by judges and lawyers, but of course if you don't like it you're not obliged to use it :) However, despite what I said earlier, "protectable" is pretty common in this context in official UK English, so I think Linda might as well use that:
https://www.google.es/search?num=100&q=site:gov.uk "protecta...

11:02 Apr 8, 2016 

I am actually leaning towards 'qualify for protection' for 'protégables' in general, and indeed, as you say, sometimes 'copyright'/'copyrightable' does work. It's a process...but I think we're getting there.

10:56 Apr 8, 2016 

I think that you can go with the verb "to protect", or variations thereof.
Not mad about "capable of being protected" and prefer "that/which can be (is able to be) protected" (sorry Charles)!
Linda, you might also consider other terms than "protect" depending on how the term is used in the original. Your hands are not necessarily tied to variations upon a theme of one-size-fits-all here.

10:28 Apr 8, 2016 

Yes, again I agree. 'Copyrightable' was so much more interesting, but there you have it. Thanks everyone. Any suggestions about awarding points?

10:24 Apr 8, 2016 

This word is not in common use in the field, but "capable of being protected" is fine.

(Later: The first statement here is not true; see my further comment.)

10:22 Apr 8, 2016 

After quickly reading your document, I am inclined to agree.

10:14 Apr 8, 2016 

So it seems the issue is between IP that is automatically protected eg copyright and that for which you have to apply for protection eg patents. See https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-an-overview/what-ip...
In which case i would say the terms required are simply "protected" and "protectable"

10:03 Apr 8, 2016 

Part of the contract does deal with non-disclosure of confidential information, but that is not really my issue here. I will read this document though, it does deal with patents, there may be something in there, thanks.

09:58 Apr 8, 2016 

It sounds like this text is referring to a "non-disclosure agreement"
Seehttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-disclosure-ag...