The issue which arises from the discussion above is how to characterise the Summary contained in Gateway. Does it contain only a general idea or plot such as is outside the scope of copyright or is it a replication of the substance of such a detailed pattern of ideas as to take it outside the scope of the exclusion in section 2? In my considered view, the brief summary of the novel of 106 pages represents only the essence or the general idea underlying the novel. It does not constitute such a detailed pattern of its ideas that that pattern is in itself an expression of the ideas embodied in the novel. To my mind, therefore, the general idea summarised in Gateway comes within the exclusion in section 2 of the Copyright Act 2005 and is outside the zone of protection. Therefore the reproduction of that general idea in Gateway cannot constitute an infringement of copyright. If one takes a detached look at this issue from the point of view of policy, it cannot be desirable or practical that, each time a novel is being subjected to literary criticism or discussion and the general idea it embodies is summarised, the author of the criticism has to seek the leave of the author of the novel before he or she can undertake such summary. That would stultify literary criticism and the study of literature. Accordingly, it is important that the concept of “general idea” outlined above is not defined or calibrated too narrowly. To this end, it is legitimate to interpret purposively section 2 of the Copyright Act 2005 to take account of the policy consideration identified above. With my decision that what the Summary does is to replicate the unprotected general idea of Woes, all the remaining issues in this case fall away. This decision, however, is on a question of law and the respondent was incorrect to argue otherwise. In the first paragraph of the respondent’s Statement of Case (which he erroneously calls “Written Submission”), he states that: 17