Robbery under arms: Copyright law and the Australia-United States free trade agreement

TThis article considers the radical, sweeping changes to Australian copyright law wrought by the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement 2004 (AUSFTA). It contends that the agreement will result in a “piracy of the public domain”. Under this new regime, copyright owners will be able to obtain greater monopoly profits at the expense of Australian consumers, libraries and research institutions, as well as intermediaries, such as Internet service providers. Part One observes that the copyright term extension in Australia to life of the author plus 70 years for works will have a negative economic and cultural impact — with Australia’s net royalty payments estimated to be up to $88 million higher per year. Part Two argues that the adoption of stronger protection of technological protection measures modelled upon the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (U.S.) will override domestic policy–making processes, such as the Phillips Fox Digital Agenda Review, and judicial pronouncements such as the Stevens v Sony litigation. Part Three questions whether the new safe harbours protection for Internet service providers will adversely affect the sale of Telstra. This article concludes that there is a need for judicial restraint in interpreting the AUSFTA. There is an urgent call for the Federal Government to pass ameliorating reforms — such as an open–ended defence of fair use and a mechanism for orphan works. There is a need for caution in negotiating future bilateral trade agreements — lest the multinational system for the protection of copyright law be undermined.

A comparative overview of "know-how" protection in Japan and Australia

"Know How" protection varies enormously from country to country and is a complex equation of legal, political, cultural and economic factors. A contrast between Japan and Australia serves to highlight some of these factors. For the purposes of this article, a working definition of "know how" is required. In Australia and other common law systems, no statutory definition of "know how" exists, "confidential information" proving the closest comparative term in Australia ('trade secret law' in the United States).

In conversation with the Honourable Ian Callinan AC

When, in 1977, the Australian electorate provided a double majority to effect a change of section 72 of the Commonwealth Constitution requiring judges of the High Court of Australia to retire at the age of 70 years old, I doubt we understood the continuing capacity of these esteemed members of the judiciary. For the opportunity to sit and talk with Ian Callinan AC who, in compliance with that amendment, retired from the High Court in September 2007, I needed to wait until he returned from The Hague where he was sitting as a Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice. Although a native of Casino, New South Wales, Mr Callinan is regarded as a Queenslander. Indeed, he grew up in Brisbane, finished high school at Brisbane Grammar and graduated in law at The University of Queensland. Appointed in 1978 as a Queen’s Counsel, Mr Callinan enjoyed this period of his legal career and we discussed an aspect of the Christopher Skase case, which reinforced my belief that Mr Callinan is an incredibly skilful advocate. On 14 September 1998, ABC Four Corners broadcasted the views of some prominent Australians on the appointment of Mr Callinan to the High Court. In assessing the type of person Mr Callinan is, Tony Morris QC said: “Ian Callinan isn't a coward”, while former Commonwealth Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, said: “He was regarded as an absolutely outstanding criminal lawyer within the Queensland legal profession, I mean really a top-notch advocate”. I was not interested in raising any of the controversial issues that Mr Callinan has encountered as an advocate in high profile matters. I wanted to know how he felt about his time on the High Court, what his thoughts are on the operation of the High Court, the IP cases he decided, the real life issues that he feels impact on counsel who are appearing before the High Court and the people he regarded as role models. During our conversation, Mr Callinan laughed often and when he did his eyes lit up, revealing his passion for life. He is an incredibly genuine Australian who loved his time as a barrister, enjoyed his role on the High Court, enjoys his current job as mediator, loves writing novels, has a great desire for continual improvement in the quality of legal education and legal advocacy and sees a need for change in IP law. When I asked: “So, what might the future hold for you?”, he laughed and said: “Well, at my age I don’t have a long horizon time”. I said: “Just enjoy the journey?”, to which Mr Callinan responded: “Exactly”.

Intellectual Property – What Went Wrong!

In its simplest form the patent system is designed to encourage the disclosure of innovative thought in exchange for a period of exclusivity in which the grantee of the rights may profit from such knowledge. I will attempt in this paper to show that patentees seeking to enforce their patents in Australia will face great difficulty through a number of potentially fatal pitfalls. I also submit that as a result of the decisions in Australia in reported patent cases in the last ten years, legal advisers should place their clients on notice that if they are trying to enforce their patents they are unlikely to succeed...

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013

This submission relates to the proposed amendment of the Crown Use provisions in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (“the Patents Act”),which are contained in Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 (“The Bill”). Specifically, the submission relates to the method of calculation of the remuneration payable to the patent applicant/owner in circumstances where the Crown exercises its rights under Chapter 17 of the Patents Act.

A Submission to the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property in Relation to the Issues Paper Relating to the Enforcement of Trade Marks - February 2002

With respect to “shape” marks, there would appear to be a “break”, imposed by the Australian Courts, in the logical conclusion that registration of a shape, which performs a functional purpose, or even further, is indistinguishable from the shape of the item or product, creates a perpetual monopoly in the manufacture of that product.

Australian patent enforcement : a proposal for an expert panel opinion

The Australian Government has been concerned “to find ways of making patent enforcement less of an issue” and to make it “cheaper, simpler and quicker to get fair and appropriate resolution for any dispute”. Major problems relating to patent enforcement in Australia have been identified as: the cost of legal proceedings; the lack of patent owners’ financial capacity to fund enforcement proceedings; delay; and uncertainty as to the outcome and lack of knowledge about the processes of enforcement. This paper considers some of the problems associated with patent enforcement in Australia and proposes an approach to patent litigation which is directed at alleviating some of the difficulties which have been identified. Specifically, it proposes a strategy designed to identify the parties’ risks at an early stage of patent litigation proceeding and facilitate an early resolution of the dispute.

Submission: Towards a Stronger and More Efficient IP Rights System : Getting the Balance Right

1. In March 2009, the Australian Government, through IP Australia its administrator of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) acquired by registration or grant, issued two consultation papers for comment by interested stakeholders. 2. The Consultation Papers have invited written submissions directed towards the object of the paper, namely encouraging discussion on certain proposed changes and their impact on business and innovation. 3. I understand the invitation to make written submissions is predominantly in the areas raised by the Consultation Papers and the questions posed. However, I have made a brief reference to several other areas of concern with the current Australian patent law, which in my opinion inhibit innovation and therefore come under the wider agenda of the government to work toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system. 4. In this regard, the Consultation Papers indicate that if the IPR are less likely to be invalidated and more likely to be enforced, this confidence will reflect in a greater investment in research leading to innovation. 5. This submission relates to the Balance Paper.

Inventing life: Intellectual property and the new biology

In 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a report on A New Biology for the 21st Century. The council preferred the term ‘New Biology’ to capture the convergence and integration of the various disciplines of biology. The National Research Council stressed: ‘The essence of the New Biology, as defined by the committee, is integration—re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology, and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle a broad range of scientific and societal problems.’ They define the ‘New Biology’ as ‘integrating life science research with physical science, engineering, computational science, and mathematics’. The National Research Council reflected: 'Biology is at a point of inflection. Years of research have generated detailed information about the components of the complex systems that characterize life––genes, cells, organisms, ecosystems––and this knowledge has begun to fuse into greater understanding of how all those components work together as systems. Powerful tools are allowing biologists to probe complex systems in ever greater detail, from molecular events in individual cells to global biogeochemical cycles. Integration within biology and increasingly fruitful collaboration with physical, earth, and computational scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are making it possible to predict and control the activities of biological systems in ever greater detail.' The National Research Council contended that the New Biology could address a number of pressing challenges. First, it stressed that the New Biology could ‘generate food plants to adapt and grow sustainably in changing environments’. Second, the New Biology could ‘understand and sustain ecosystem function and biodiversity in the face of rapid change’. Third, the New Biology could ‘expand sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels’. Moreover, it was hoped that the New Biology could lead to a better understanding of individual health: ‘The New Biology can accelerate fundamental understanding of the systems that underlie health and the development of the tools and technologies that will in turn lead to more efficient approaches to developing therapeutics and enabling individualized, predictive medicine.’ Biological research has certainly been changing direction in response to changing societal problems. Over the last decade, increasing awareness of the impacts of climate change and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels can be seen to have generated investment in fields such as biofuels, climate-ready crops and storage of agricultural genetic resources. In considering biotechnology’s role in the twenty-first century, biological future-predictor Carlson’s firm Biodesic states: ‘The problems the world faces today – ecosystem responses to global warming, geriatric care in the developed world or infectious diseases in the developing world, the efficient production of more goods using less energy and fewer raw materials – all depend on understanding and then applying biology as a technology.’ This collection considers the roles of intellectual property law in regulating emerging technologies in the biological sciences. Stephen Hilgartner comments that patent law plays a significant part in social negotiations about the shape of emerging technological systems or artefacts: 'Emerging technology – especially in such hotbeds of change as the life sciences, information technology, biomedicine, and nanotechnology – became a site of contention where competing groups pursued incompatible normative visions. Indeed, as people recognized that questions about the shape of technological systems were nothing less than questions about the future shape of societies, science and technology achieved central significance in contemporary democracies. In this context, states face ongoing difficulties trying to mediate these tensions and establish mechanisms for addressing problems of representation and participation in the sociopolitical process that shapes emerging technology.' The introduction to the collection will provide a thumbnail, comparative overview of recent developments in intellectual property and biotechnology – as a foundation to the collection. Section I of this introduction considers recent developments in United States patent law, policy and practice with respect to biotechnology – in particular, highlighting the Myriad Genetics dispute and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bilski v. Kappos. Section II considers the cross-currents in Canadian jurisprudence in intellectual property and biotechnology. Section III surveys developments in the European Union – and the interpretation of the European Biotechnology Directive. Section IV focuses upon Australia and New Zealand, and considers the policy responses to the controversy of Genetic Technologies Limited’s patents in respect of non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. Section V outlines the parts of the collection and the contents of the chapters.

“I want to see the Queen” : experiences of service use by ageing people with an intellectual disability

People with intellectual disability are a relatively new but growing minority group within Australia's ageing population. Disability policies point to the equal right of people with disabilities to a quality of life similar to that of other citizens. Disability services are increasingly required to provide individualised and responsive services, irrespective of age, for people with lifelong disabilities. The present study explored the everyday lives of older people with intellectual disability in Victoria and Queensland, examining their experiences of using disability services and the ways in which services responded to their ageing. The aim of the study was to inform practice and service development for older people with intellectual disability. The findings suggest that services facilitate important social relationships with other service users and staff. Most older people had a sense of belonging and led busy but directionless lives in two disconnected worlds. Their lives were subject to significant external present-focused control. Yet, despite this, neither services nor family members took responsibility for ensuring their sense of continuity or supporting the development of plans about their future. The experiences described suggest an urgent need for, but significant challenges in the implementation of, holistic indivdualised planning similar to the UK concept of person-centred planning.

Legal aspects of Web 2.0 activities : management of legal risk associated with use of YouTube, MySpace and Second Life

This Report, prepared for Smart Service Queensland (“SSQ”), addresses legal issues, areas of risk and other factors associated with activities conducted on three popular online platforms—YouTube, MySpace and Second Life (which are referred to throughout this Report as the “Platforms”). The Platforms exemplify online participatory spaces and behaviours, including blogging and networking, multimedia sharing, and immersive virtual environments.