tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5657781159780981676..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Australians ask: what should we patent?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56490756338914114152011-02-17T23:38:29.772+00:002011-02-17T23:38:29.772+00:00As a member of the Australian public, I am intrigu...As a member of the Australian public, I am intrigued by a the introduction of "a general exclusion from patentability of inventions whose commercial exploitation would be wholly offensive to the Australian public". The report mentions cloning humans, genetically modifying animals, and the commercial use of human embryoes as inventions that would probably be excluded. Personally I believe that these inventions should be patent eligble, but ok, I'll bite. You could still make the explotation of these types of patents criminal offences.<br /><br />What really concerns the Australian public is the ethics of commercialisation of patent rights. Patentees shouldn't be given overly broad patents which exclude access to public domain material (i.e. the Myriad case).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17999656903626682802011-02-17T16:31:37.932+00:002011-02-17T16:31:37.932+00:00So, does much invention actually happen between th...So, does much invention actually happen between the beach and the pub?<br />.....@@ runs away quicklyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20291431283801732492011-02-17T09:24:58.243+00:002011-02-17T09:24:58.243+00:00Here is a similar story
Now, here is something in...Here is a similar story<br /><br />Now, here is something interesting… on the website of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet you can obtain a document listing all of the legislation proposed for introduction during the Autumn 2011 sessions of Parliament.<br /><br />On page eight you will find the following intriguing entry:<br />Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill<br /><br /> 1. raise patent standards and increase certainty in the validity of granted patents<br /> 2. give researchers the freedom to innovate without the threat of litigation<br /> 3. speed up the processes for determining patent and trade mark applications<br /> 4. improve the operations of the intellectual property profession<br /> 5. improve mechanisms for trade mark and copyright enforcement in Australia<br /> 6. modernise aspects of Australia’s intellectual property system.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16584474357018255502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5922228384987024652011-02-16T21:47:24.812+00:002011-02-16T21:47:24.812+00:00In my view, some of ACIP's recommendations are...In my view, some of ACIP's recommendations are sensible, but the most significant of them do not seem like obviously good ideas.<br /><br />For example, the report claims that the proposed definition of patentable subject matter merely codifies the existing law, and will not change anything. But the greatest advantage of the existing law is its adaptability to changing circumstances and technologies, and any codification must necessarily sacrifice this benfit to some degree.<br /><br />If the same 'codification' had occurred sixty years ago, Australia's Patent Law might today require a patentable invention to be a 'vendible product' (how very 19th century)!<br /><br />And the suggestion that the Patent Office should be expending resources assessing what is and is not 'wholly offensive to the Australian public' might be great in an ideal world where those resources are not already stretched doing more important things, but in the real world it is just plain silly.<br /><br />More of my analysis and opinion can be found <a href="http://patentology.blogspot.com/2011/02/acip-reports-on-patentable-subject.html" rel="nofollow">here on my blog</a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157794228297387928noreply@blogger.com