Maiden, Joseph

Joseph Henry Maiden was born in London in 1859 and sailed for Australia in 1880, where he lived for the remainder of his life. He was an ardent Australian nationalist, and like many immigrants of this time, remained proud of his British heritage. His sweetheart, Eliza Jane Hammond, followed him to Australia in 1883. They married in Kew the day after she made port in Melbourne, and together in Sydney they raised five children. [1] During the first phase of his career Maiden presided over the Technological Museum of Sydney from 1882 to 1896. In the second phase, he was the director of the Sydney Botanic Gardens from 1896 to 1924. There he managed a whole complex of parks including the Domain,Centennial Park and the Governor's residences, a state nursery at Campbelltown and a scientific institution, the National Herbarium of New South Wales, devoted to botany. A short time after his retirement, he died at his home in Turramurra in 1925...

From Kafka to KAFTA: Intellectual property, and the Korea-Australia free trade agreement

This paper provides a critical examination of the intellectual property sections of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. Chapter 13 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 deals with the subject of intellectual property law. The Chapter covers such topics as the purposes and objectives of intellectual property law; copyright law; trade mark law; patent law; and intellectual property enforcement. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament highlighted the controversy surrounding this chapter of the agreement: The intellectual property rights chapter of KAFTA has drawn considerable attention from academics and stakeholders regarding the proposed need for changes to Australian intellectual property law and the inclusion of intellectual property in the definition of investment with regard to the investor-state dispute mechanism. Other concerns raised with the Committee include the prescriptive nature of the chapter, the lack of recognition of the broader public interests of intellectual property rights, and possible changes to fair use provisions. Article 13.1.1 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 provides that: ‘Each Party recognises the importance of adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights, while ensuring that measures to enforce those rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.’ This is an unsatisfactory description of the objectives and purposes of intellectual property law in both Australia and Korea. There is a failure to properly consider the range of public purposes served by intellectual property law – such as providing for access to knowledge, promoting competition and innovation, protecting consumer rights, and allowing for the protection of public health, food security, and the environment. Such a statement of principles and objectives detracts from the declaration in the TRIPS Agreement 1994 of the public interest objectives to be served by intellectual property. Chapter 11 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 is an investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement regime. This chapter is highly controversial – given the international debate over investor-state dispute settlement; the Australian context for the debate; and the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. In April 2014, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) released a report on Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The overall figures are staggering. UNCTAD reports a significant growth in investment-state dispute settlement, across a wide array of different fields of public regulation. Given the broad definition of investment, intellectual property owners will be able to use the investor-state dispute settlement regime in the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. This will have significant implications for all the various disciplines of intellectual property – including copyright law, trade mark law, and patent law.

Kafka on the Shore

Kafka On The Shore consists of three simple concrete letterforms floating on a gallery wall. Reminiscent of minimalist sculpture, the mathematical expression of the letterforms states that ‘r’ is greater than ‘g’. Despite this material simplicity, the solemn presentation of the formula suggests a sense of foreboding, a quiet menace. The work was created as a response to the economic theories of Thomas Piketty presented in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century. The primary finding of Piketty’s data-driven research is the formula presented by the work; that historically, wealth and inequity both flourish when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g). With this simple mathematical summary the book acts as a sobering indictment on the present state of economic inequality.

Review of 'Kafka Dances'

Review of Timothy Daly's new Australian play, 'Kafka Dances' in Australasian Drama Studies