Report on Legal Expenses Insurance, 239 pages; Prepared for the Access to Justice Committee Queensland Law Society Inc.; Access to Justice Committee, Australian Law Society (23 May, 2002).

A report prepared for the Access to Justice Committee Queensland Law Society Inc.

Child rearing Inc : On the perils of political paralysis Down Under

In his 2007 PESA keynote address, Paul Smeyers discussed the increasing regulation of child-rearing through government intervention and the generation of “experts,” citing particular examples from Europe where cases of childhood obesity and parental neglect have stirred public opinion and political debate. In his paper (this issue), Smeyers touches on a number of tensions before concluding that child rearing qualifies as a practice in which liberal governments should be reluctant to intervene. In response, I draw on recent experiences in Australia and argue that certain tragic events of late are the result of an ethical, moral and social vacuum in which these tensions coalesce. While I agree with Smeyers that governments should be reluctant to “intervene” in the private domain of the family, I argue that there is a difference between intervention and support. In concluding, I maintain that if certain Western liberal democracies did a more comprehensive job of supporting children and their families through active social investment in primary school education, then both families and schools would be better equipped to deal with the challenges they now face.

23andMe Inc.: Patent law and lifestyle genetics

The venture, 23andMe Inc., raises a host of issues in respect of patent law, policy, and practice in respect of lifestyle genetics and personalised medicine. The company observes: ‘We recognize that the availability of personal genetic information raises important issues at the nexus of ethics, law, and public policy’. 23andMe Inc. has tested the boundaries of patent law, with its patent applications, which cut across information technology, medicine, and biotechnology. The company’s research raises fundamental issues about patentability, especially in light of the litigation in Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. and Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics Inc. There has been much debate and controversy over 23andMe Inc. filing patent applications – particularly in respect of its granted patent on ‘Polymorphisms associated with Parkinson’s Disease’. The direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing by 23andMe Inc. has also raised important questions of bioethics and human rights. It is queried whether the terms of service for 23andMe Inc. provide adequate recognition of the concepts of informed consent and benefit-sharing, especially in light of litigation in this area in the United States. Given the patent thickets surrounding genetic testing, the case study of 23andMe Inc. also highlights questions about patent infringement and patent exceptions. The future reform of patent law, policy, and practice needs to take into account new developments in lifestyle genetics and personalised medicine – as exemplified by 23andMe Inc.

Breakfast at Tiffany's': eBay Inc., trade mark law, and counterfeiting

In an exploration of intellectual property and fashion, this article examines the question of the intermediary liability of online auction-houses for counterfeiting. In the United States, the illustrious jewellery store, Tiffany & Co, brought a legal action against eBay Inc, alleging direct trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and trademark dilution. The luxury store depicted the online auction-house as a pirate bazaar, a flea-market and a haven for counterfeiting. During epic litigation, eBay Inc successfully defended itself against these allegations in a United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Tiffany & Co made a desperate, unsuccessful effort to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States. The matter featured a number of interventions from amicus curiae — Tiffany was supported by Coty, the Fashion Designer's Guild, and the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition, while eBay was defended by publicly-spirited civil society groups such as Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, and Public Knowledge as well as Yahoo!, Google Inc, Amazon.com, and associations representing telecommunications carriers and internet service providers. The litigation in the United States can be counterpointed with the fusillade of legal action against eBay in the European Union. In contrast to Tiffany & Co, Louis Vuitton triumphed over eBay in the French courts — claiming its victory as vindication of the need to protect the commercial interests and cultural heritage of France. However, eBay has fared somewhat better in a dispute with L’Oréal in Great Britain and the European Court of Justice. It is argued that, in a time of flux and uncertainty, Australia should follow the position of the United States courts in Tiffany & Co v eBay Inc. The final part examines the ramifications of this litigation over online auction-houses for trade mark law reform and consumer rights; parallel disputes over intermediary liability and safe harbours in the field of copyright law and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2010. The conclusion calls for a revision of trade mark law, animated by a respect for consumers’ rights and interests in the electronic marketplace.

Australian Property Institute Inc, Submission to the Productivity Commission on Intellectual Property Arrangements – Issues Paper

This submission responds to the document Intellectual Property Arrangements Issues Paper (Issues Paper) released by the Productivity Commission in October 2015 for public consultation and input by 30 November 2015. The API is grateful for the extension of time granted by the Commission to complete and lodge this submission. The overall need for an inquiry into intellectual property is supported by API. In particular it is noted with approval that the Commission states in its Issues Paper that it is to consider the appropriate balance between “incentives for innovation and investments, and the interests of both individuals and businesses in assessing products”.1 However, API is of the view that intellectual property in the area of real property presents a number of issues which are not fully canvassed in the abovementioned Issues Paper. Intellectual property embedded in valuation and other property-related reports of API members involves the acquisition of information which may possibly be confidential. Yet, when engaged in banks and financial institutions the intellectual property in such valuations and/ or reports is commonly required to be passed to the client bank or financial institution. In the Issues Paper it is proposed that there are seven different forms of intellectual property rights.2 It is the view of API that an eight form exists, namely private agreements. The Issues Paper, however, regards private agreements between firms as alternatives to intellectual property rights. The API considers that “secrecy or confidentiality arrangements”3 as identified in the Issues Paper form a much larger part of the manner in which intellectual property is maintained in Australia for the purposes of trade secrecy or more often, financial confidentiality...