DOCSLIB.ORG

Melbourne on Friday, 24 June 2016 at 8.41 Am

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Melbourne on Friday, 24 June 2016 at 8.41 Am __________________________________________________________ PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION INQUIRY INTO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ARRANGEMENTS MR J COPPEL, Commissioner MS K CHESTER, Deputy Chair & Commissioner TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 24 JUNE 2016 AT 8.41 AM IP Arrangements 24/06/16 © C'wlth of Australia INDEX Page MR MARK SUMMERFIELD 557-571 AUSTRALIAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION MR JOEL BECKER 572-590 MR MARK RUBBO MR TIM WHITE ELECTRONIC FRONTIERS AUSTRALIA MR JON LAWRENCE 591-602 MR PETER DONOUGHUE 602-609 MS DEE WHITE 609-616 MR PETER GLEESON 617-624 ASSOCIATION OF LIQUOR LICENCES MELBOURNE MR CON SARROU 624-632 PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE AUSTRALIA MS JULIE BURLAND 633-646 MS BRIONY LEWIS LAW COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA MR RICHARD HAMER 647-659 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED MR ALEX ORANGE 659-672 MR PHIL WADSWORTH IPTA MR MICHAEL CAINE 673-686 TEXT PUBLISHING COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA MR MICHAEL HEYWARD 687-697 MR MARCUS FAZIO MS WENDY ORR 698-704 SCRIBE PUBLICATIONS MR HENRY ROSENBLOOM 705-712 IP Arrangements 24/06/16 © C'wlth of Australia HAPPY FINISH DESIGN MR NICK RENNIE 712-719 MR NICK GRUEN 719-727 MR DAVID DAY 727-730 IP Arrangements 24/06/16 © C'wlth of Australia RESUMED [8.41 am] 5 MR COPPEL: Good morning everybody. Welcome to the public hearings of the Productivity Commission Inquiry in Australia's Intellectual Property Arrangements. My name is Jonathan Coppel and I am one of the Commissioners on the inquiry and my colleague Karen Chester is the other Commissioner. 10 By way of background, the inquiry started with a terms of reference from the Australian Government in August 2015 to examine Australia's IP arrangements including their effect on investment, competition, trade, innovation and consumer welfare. We then released an Issues Paper in 15 early October 2015 and we've talked to a range of organisations and individuals with an interest in the issues. We have also held a number of roundtables, both pre-report, draft report and post-draft report and met with many groups of interested parties to inform the inquiry. 20 We released the draft report in late April, which included over 20 draft recommendations, draft findings and a number of information requests. We have received a large number of submissions in response and now they total well over 500. So we are grateful to all the organisations and individuals who have taken the time to prepare 25 submissions, many of those who are appearing at the hearings both today and in previous days. The purpose of the hearing is to provide an opportunity for interested parties to provide comments and feedback on the draft report; things like 30 where people agree with the draft recommendations and where they may disagree or where there may be differences of opinion on ease of implementation or even factual comments. Prior to this hearing today, hearings have been held in Brisbane, 35 Canberra and Sydney and also yesterday in Melbourne. A further hearing will be held in Sydney next Monday. We will then be working towards completing the final report, having considered all the evidence presented at the hearings and submissions, as well as other informal discussions. The final report will be handed to the Australian Government later this 40 year. All those participants and those who have registered their interest in this inquiry will be advised of the final reports released by government which may be up to 25 parliamentary sitting days after completion. Regarding today's proceedings, we like to conduct all hearings in a 45 reasonably informal manner, but I remind participants that a full transcript .IP Arrangements 24/06/16 556 © C'wlth of Australia is being taken. For this reason, comments from the floor cannot be taken but at the end of today's proceedings we will endeavour, time permitting, to provide an opportunity for anyone who wishes to do so to make a brief presentation 5 Participants are not required to take an oath, but are required under the Productivity Commission Act to be truthful in their remarks. The transcript will be made available to participants and will be available on the Commission's web site following the hearings. Submissions are also 10 available on the web site. If there are any media representatives attending today there are some general ground rules and we ask you see one of our staff concerning those and that member of the staff is there by the door. To comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth Occupational 15 Health and Safety Legislation you are advised than in the unlikely event of an emergency requiring the evacuation of this building that you should follow the green exit signs to the nearest stairwell. Lifts are not to be used and follow the instructions of the floor wardens at all times. If you believe you would be unable to walk down the stairs, it is important that 20 you advise the wardens who will make alternative arrangements for you. If you require assistance, please speak to one of our inquiry team members here today. Unless otherwise advised, the assembly point for the Commission in Melbourne is at Enterprise Park, situated at the end of William Street on the bank of the Yarra River. 25 Participants are invited to make some opening remarks of no more than five minutes, keeping the opening remarks brief will allow us the opportunity to discuss matters in participant's submissions in greater detail. Participants are welcome to comment on the issues raised in other's 30 submissions. Those formalities complete, I would now like to welcome the first participant who is Mark Summerfield. So welcome. If, for the purposes of the transcript, you could give your name and who you represent and then I invite you to make a brief opening statement. Thank you, Mark. 35 MR SUMMERFIELD: I am Mark Summerfield and I am with Watermark Patent and Trademark Attorneys, but I am actually mainly here in a personal capacity, so whatever I say here doesn't necessarily represent the views of my employer, but my feeling is that they're 40 probably fairly well aligned. Just by way of opening I would like to just summarise some of the points in my submission and that submission relates to the recommendation that business methods and software be excluded from the - from patentability under the Patents Act 1990, and there are a number of reasons why I regard that as a poor recommendation 45 and one that should not be carried over into the final report. .IP Arrangements 24/06/16 557 © C'wlth of Australia Primarily, the issue is that this whole category of business methods and software as it appears to have been brought together within the report is extremely broad and at one extreme you have the kinds of business 5 processes that have already, on a number of occasions by the Full Federal Court in Australia been found to be unpatentable in any event. At the other extreme, under heading of software or computer-implemented inventions or inventions that have been implemented partially or wholly by means of programming, rather than 10 preconfigured hardware, you have things such as the CSIRO Wi-Fi technology which is itself largely nowadays implemented in hardware that may or may not be programmed. My background originally is as an electrical engineer. I practised as 15 an electrical engineer for over a decade before entering the patent attorney profession. During that time I worked at Telstra's research laboratories, Telecom at the time. I worked - I did a PhD in optical fibre technology at Melbourne University. I did post-doctoral research at Melbourne University. I worked in a start-up company that was developing hardware 20 and software for telecommunications access networks. I worked in a second start-up company which was developing computer-aided design software for use in the design and development of optical fibre technology systems; everything from devices through to large-scale national telecommunications. 25 Following that, I became a patent attorney and I have worked for a number of clients in related areas in relation to hardware and software, and within the general areas of technology that I've worked in and where I have assisted clients, I would have to say that the decision as to whether 30 something might be implemented in hardware or might be implemented in software or might be implemented using some form of programmable hardware, which again, the tools are used in those cases are very similar to software development tools, they consist of effectively programming languages, that it is entirely an engineering implementation decision. 35 There is no distinction in terms of the end functionality; the distinction is in relation to matters such as cost, performance, miniaturisation - those sorts of things that affect the engineering decisions and the final product design. 40 The general preference nowadays is for implementation to be as far as possible and, at least at the early stages of development, in programmable devices whether that's microprocessors with associated software, whether it is devices that are - there are types of hardware that can themselves be programmed; they are bit like digital stem cell arrays, if you want to think 45 of it that way. They start out having no particular function and you feed .IP Arrangements 24/06/16 558 © C'wlth of Australia them a file and that configures them to perform a particular way. The reason, of course, that that is preferred is because you can then build the hardware once and you can reprogram it in development to adapt it, develop it, correct bugs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Technology Transfer Convention 2014
    IP Awareness in Secondary and Tertiary Education- an Australian Perspective Zhuhai, Novemberr 06, 2019 Dr Andy Sierakowski, Former Chair, KCA and Chair International Committee ITTN Beijing INTRODUCTION : • My background: – Academic beginnings – Private sector – University technology transfer – KCA – Current role ITTN International Committee – who are we and what do we do? • Global advisory network to ITTN • Work closely with the ITTN Secretariat to promote international technology transfer between China and other countries • Conduct IP awareness and technology transfer training in China. • APEC projects in IP technology transfer in the Region. Published Technology Commercialization Handbook in APEC Economies, 2019, as a training aid. • More than 140 influential leaders from overseas international technology transfer organizations This talk: • Will focus largely on IP awareness and training as it relates to tertiary sector/ university technology transfer and IP commercialization • University of Western Australia, 2001-2014 and more recently on IP awareness training conducted in China on ITTN programs Some key Groups involved in IP Awareness training in Australia • IP Australia (Australian Federal Government agency that manages and registers various forms of IP protection) See www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ • Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia(a public-sector focussed organisation focussing on technology transfer) See https://techtransfer.org.au/ • Licensing Executives of Australia and New Zealand or LESANZ (the local chapter of LES) See https://www.lesanz.org.au/
    [Show full text]
  • The Trento Law and Technology Research Group Student Paper N
    4 The Trento Law and Technology Research Group Student Paper n. 23 LA GESTIONE DELLA PROPRIETÀ INTELLETTUALE NELLE UNIVERSITÀ AUSTRALIANE. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES. MARIA OTTAVIA CHIARUTTINI ISBN: 978-88-8443-626-9 COPYRIGHT © 2015 MARIA OTTAVIA CHIARUTTINI This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Trento Law and Technology Research Group Student Papers Series Index http://www.lawtech.jus.unitn.it Eprints: http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/4453 Questo paper © Copyright 2015 by Maria Ottavia Chiaruttini è pubblicato con Creative Commons Attribuzione-Non commerciale-Non opere derivate 2.5 Italia License. Maggiori informazioni circa la licenza all’URL: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/it/> 2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES. ABSTRACT Despite the majority of academic research results are available regarding conferences, seminars and publications in order to promote the community’s economic and cultural growth, it is not possible to ignore the phenomenon of research commercialisation. Traditionally universities have always had two principle missions: teaching and research. Lately, a third mission has begun to evolve, involving universities and the transfer of knowledge from the academic reality to the industrial and entrepreneurial one. Theoretically the aim is to shorten the distance between basic research and applied research. Yet, in practice, the result is often to the contrary because of public funding cuts. Universities are, therefore, encouraged to profit from research commercialisation instead of considering the innovative potential of research results. The focus of this thesis is on the management of intellectual property rights in connection with this new universities’ third mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Thinking the Role of Intellectual Property
    Re-Thinking the Role of Intellectual Property 1 Francis Gurry The context in which intellectual property (IP) operates in the contemporary world is vastly different from the one in which IP was born. The new context has changed the position of IP both in the economy and in society. It calls equally for a change in the way in which we think about IP and its role. Traditional Explanations for IP Let me start by recalling briefly the traditional explanations of why we have IP. There are four main reasons, applicable to varying degrees to all the rights that we characteristically consider to be IP rights. Oneset of explanations arises from the non-rivalrous nature of knowledge and information. Knowledge and information are private goods in production. They cost human and financial resources to create. In contrast, they are public goods in consumption. Once available, they may be used by another without lessening their enjoyment by the producer. This characteristic of knowledge was noticed by Columcille in his defence against the charge by Finnianin Ireland in the Sixth Century that he had copied the illuminations of a bible that Finnian had lent to him. When called before King Diarmuid to answer to the charge of theft, Columcille protested that he had not stolen anything, since Finnian still had his 1Director General, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Member States of WIPO. Re-Thinking the Role of Intellectual Property 2 Francis Gurry drawings and “Finnian’s book was none the worse for his copying from it.” In dismissing the defence, the king ushered copyright into the world by pronouncing “To every cow her calf; and to every book its copy.” 2 IP creates a policy restriction, in the form of exclusive rights to commercial use, on the otherwise free availability of knowledge and information in order to compensate for the cost of production of the knowledge or information.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and Collaboration
    Patents and Collaboration Professor Brian Fitzgerald QUT Law Faculty Australia Two Levels 1) Between national offices – inter-office 2) Between national offices and the community Patent • Granted by a national (patent)office • There is no such thing as an international patent Mutli-Jurisdiction Patent Filing • Paris Convention 1883 http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/trtdocs_wo020.html • Patent Cooppy()eration Treaty 1970 (PCT) http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/atoc.htm • Regional level filing – e.g. European Patent Office – European Patent Convention (1973) Paris Convention on Industrial Property 1883 – Art 4 - Priority A. (1) Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed. ... B. Consequently, any subsequent filing in any of the other countries of the Union before the expiration of the periods referred to above shall not be invalidated by reason of any acts accomplished in the interval, in particular, another filing, the publication or exploitation of the invention, the putting on sale of copies of the design, or the use of the mark, and such acts cannot give rise to any third-party right or any right of personal possession. Rights acquired by third parties before the date of the first application that serves as the basis for the right of priority are reserved in accordance with the domestic legislation of each country of the Union C.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Forum Issue 123
    Issue 123 Intellectual Property Forum Issue 123 Journal of The Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc. March 2021 Co-Editors Fiona Phillips Fiona Rotstein Editorial • In Conversation with Jo Oliver • Obituary: John Adrian Sterling, 17 April 1927 – 29 November 2020 • Articles • Finding Harmony between “Commonplace” and “Copyright”: a Contents Sound Legal Approach to Borrowing in Popular Music • Parameteritis in Patent Claims – New Diagnosis, Old Cures • Geographical Indications and the Australia-EU FTA Negotiations: an Assessment of the Potential Costs and Benefits to Australia • Store Layouts and the Trade Mark Apple: Will Australia Take a Bite? • Reports • The INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FORUM Decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Sandoz v Lundbeck and its Implications in Pre-Grant and Post-Patent Term Environments • Review of Art Law and the Business of Art • Current Developments • Australia • New Zealand • Asia • Europe • North America • Africa Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc The Journal of The Intellectual Property Society of Australia Subscriptions to the Journal Trans Tasman National Committee of Management and New Zealand Inc ABN 056 252 558 Four issues of the Journal are published annually. President: Shelley Einfeld Co-Editors Membership of the Society entitles you to receive the Journal. Subscriptions to the Journal can be purchased from the Society. Contact the Society for Fiona Phillips Vice Presidents: Clare Cunliffe and Fiona Rotstein
    [Show full text]
  • Encouraging the Ideas Boom in Biosciences Through Collaboration
    Encouraging the ideas boom in the biosciences - A white paper from MSD (Australia) Ltd 16 December 2015 Encouraging the ideas boom in biosciences through collaboration Key points • MSD Australia welcomes the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of a National Innovation and Science Agenda. • Australia has a long heritage in making medical breakthroughs but our track record in commercialising biomedical research is poor. • Consistent with the National Innovation and Science Agenda, MSD believes that the following would greatly enhance Australia’s innovative output in the biosciences: 1. Leverage the local presence of business development functions of global bioscience companies, potentially through the Medical Devices & Pharmaceutical Growth Centre 2. Involve more leaders with commercial experience on NH&MRC grant panels 3. Further encourage private companies to participate in NH&MRC and MRFF research 4. Recognise the potency of trials in generating expertise in cutting edge science 5. Streamline the approval and improve the co-ordination of clinical trials 6. Support fair and transparent reimbursement policies 7. Consider the benefits of extending data exclusivity provisions for Australian science 8. Reduce the red-tape associated with registering innovative medicines. 1 Encouraging the ideas boom in the biosciences - A white paper from MSD (Australia) Ltd Introduction Australian scientists have played a leading role in bioscience research for over 80 years, from Florey’s pioneering work in penicillin production, through Don Metcalf’s discovery of the first therapeutic proteins to Ian Frazer’s invention of cancer vaccine technology. While Australia punches above its weight in basic research, its performance in commercialising biomedical discoveries is poor. The 2013 Global Innovation Index ranked Australia 116th out of 142 countries in innovation efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Official Journal Of
    Vol: 35 , No: 24 17 June 2021 AUSTRALIAN OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF PATENTS The Australian Official Journal of Patents is part of the Official Journal issued by the Commissioner of Patents for the purpose of the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995 and the Designs Act 2003. (ISSN 0819-1794) AUSTRALIAN OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF PATENTS 17 June 2021 Contents General Information & Notices Amendments Applications for Amendment ...................................................................................... 5060 Amendments Made ...................................................................................................... 5061 Alteration of Name(s) of Applicant(s)/Patentee(s) .................................................... 5063 Applications Accepted Name Index ................................................................................................................... 5154 Numerical Index ............................................................................................................5177 IPC Index .......................................................................................................................5179 Applications with amended filing dates Reg 3.5(A). ................... 5055 Applications Lapsed, Refused or Withdrawn, Patents Ceased or Expired ........................................................... 5056 Applications Open to Public Inspection Name Index ................................................................................................................... 5066 Numerical Index ............................................................................................................5074
    [Show full text]
  • IP Australia and the Future of Intellectual Property
    Delivering a world leading IP system IP Australia and the Future of Intellectual Property Megatrends, scenarios and their strategic implications JULY 2017 Citation Attribution IP Australia (2017) IP Australia and the future of intellectual The CC BY licence is a standard form licence agreement that property: Megatrends, scenarios and their strategic implications. allows you to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or Canberra: IP Australia. format, as well as remix, transform, and build upon the material, on the condition that you provide a link to the licence, you indicate if changes were made, and you attribute the material as follows: Copyright Licensed from the Commonwealth of Australia under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. All content in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ with the exception of: Important disclaimer • the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, IP Australia and CSIRO advise that the information contained in • IP Australia’s corporate logo this publication comprises general statements based on scientific • photographs of our staff and premises research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such • content provided by third parties – including information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any photographs, logos, drawings and written specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made descriptions of patents and designs on that information without
    [Show full text]