Australia Considers Overhauling Patent Laws After Realizing Current System Is Harming Innovation
from the good-for-them dept
TIIP points us to the news that the Australian government is considering an overhaul of that country's patent system after being presented with research showing how much the system was actually holding back innovation in that country. Specifically, the report showed that the ease of getting a patent in Australia was leading to way too many bad patents being granted, which were then being used to stifle innovation and investment. It's always good to see at least some folks in governments around the world are finding out that "more patents" does not equal "more innovation."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, innovation, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
funny Aussies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: funny Aussies
As happens on the Internet, the story gets modified in the telling. What the person got is called an Innovation Patent. It's essentially a cheaper form patent which doesn't go through the normal examination process. The catch is that it's not legally enforcable until it is a examined, which costs more money.
Unfortunately, patents are a reality for small businesses. Given that you're typically not sued until you have deep pockets (you can always tell when a company is bought by Google, because they're usually sued straight away), this is a cost-effective stopgap measure until such time as patents are reformed to be sane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: funny Aussies
http://www.ipmenu.com/archive/AUI_2001100012.pdf
I put "patent" in quotes because it is abundantly clear that what Australia defines as an "innovation patent" bears virtually no relationship to any instrument enforceable at law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A glorious week for IP
It's almost good news overload. Seems too good to be true after watching everything become scarier and more draconian by the day for so long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the problem with veggimite eaters
VOTE McCain 2008 - He saved the entire world economy, what more do you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the problem with veggimite eaters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You really ought to support your accusations with details rather than make ambiguous negative statements.
Moreover, it would help if you would carefully consider if your usage of the word "innovation" is the same as that of those who prepared the report.
Moreover, it would help if you would indicate why you believed that Mike is using the word "innovation" differently that how it is in the report instead of merely implying that he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Pages/home.aspx
After you have read them and assimilated their substance, you should then be readily able to understand what is meant by my reference to broad generalizations.
By the way, the Australian Government, as you will quickly note, has taken no position on the report, though at least two of its Ministers said in press releases that a government response should be forthcoming within the next several months. Perhaps in that as yet undefined response one will learn what "overhaul", if any, may be proposed for the current state of Australia's statutory regime concerning intellectual property. From what I read as recommendations, suggested changes are almost perfunctory in nature and can hardly be characterized as an "overhaul" as that word is commonly understood and used. As I read the recommendations I was, in all candor, struck by the notion that Australia should make a limited number of structual changes so that its patent system more closely tracked US law as recently clarified in a series of CAFC and Supreme Court decisions (KSR in particular, but some others as well).
Techdirt makes no bones about its general distaste for any form of intellectual "property". However, in no reasonable way can this report be viewed as a strong endorsement of or agreement with the views repeatedly expressed at this site.
Techdirt does many times raise excellent points that deserve thoughful consideration. I just wish it would drop the mantra "IP BAD, NO IP GOOD", a position that in many ways takes away from the forcefulness of its arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's how things generally work. If you make an accusation, it's quite common to actually back that accusation up with what are called "reasons". For example, if you believe that someone is making broad generalizations, it would be quite reasonable to quote the person making the "broad generalization" following by another quote that demonstrates why the generalization is overly broad. Why should anyone have to read through "the article, executive summary, various press releases, public input to the private group that prepared the report, etc." in order to decipher the justification for your criticism?
http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Pages/home.aspx
After you have read them and assimilated their substance, you should then be readily able to understand what is meant by my reference to broad generalizations.
Well, since the link you provided is broken, I guess my attemp to guess what your problem is with Mike's article will have to wait.
Perhaps in that as yet undefined response one will learn what "overhaul", if any, may be proposed for the current state of Australia's statutory regime concerning intellectual property.
A ha! After three different comments, we're finally provided a hint as to why you have an issue with the post. But wait...if you are saying that the use of the term overhaul is a broad generalization, shouldn't your problem be with The Australian? They're the ones who made this statement.
"THE federal Government is considering overhauling patent laws, after a major report this week found the ease with which patents were granted in Australia was hampering innovation."
Techdirt does many times raise excellent points that deserve thoughful consideration. I just wish it would drop the mantra "IP BAD, NO IP GOOD", a position that in many ways takes away from the forcefulness of its arguments.
Oh man! You were doing so well, but reverted back to baseless accusations. As far as I can tell, TechDirt is critical of how IP is enforced and supports IP reform, but if you have proof that TD believes that no IP is good, then please supply a link. And here's a hint: we're going to need a little more than "read www.techdirt.com and you'll see my point".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re techdirts criticism of IP, it does criticize enforcement and support reform, but at the same time it makes no bones about its view that structual changes nothwithstanding, IP (particularly patents and copyrights) should be eliminated from our body of laws. This view has been stated repeatedly in numerous articles and comments, but I do not make it a habit of saving links to such articles for ready future reference. Suffice it to say that techdirt sees nothing to recommend what it terms "government granted monopolies". As long as patents and copyrights exist it takes the view that their scope should be scaled way, way back, but the position it openly advocates is that they be eliminated in their entirety. If for some reason you remain doubtful about its position on this issue, all you need to do is ask the principals at techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Frankly, I don't either, but...if I make an accusation, I have the common courtesy to actually go back and look for a quote that backs up my position. What you've done is make accusations and, when confronted with requests for support of the accusations, do one of two things...
1) Provide a link to a site that contains hours worth of reading, thus shifting the onus on the reader to somehow guess the relevent information and how it relates to your argument.
2) Give a rather lame excuse that you don't save links.
If for some reason you remain doubtful about its position on this issue, all you need to do is ask the principals at techdirt.
Once again, if you are going to make an accusation, you'll be taken much more seriously if you actually provide justification for the accusation. You are the one making the statement. Why on earth would you think it would make sense for the reader to go back and ask the party being accused for an explanation of your mischaracterization? If you're going to make a statement, then take responsibility and stand by it instead of trying to pass the buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this matter I was able to eventually find a copy of the report and a host of related papers. They are located at the link I provided earlier. Upon reading the report I almost immediately noted that it was not a government document, but rather one prepared by a non-government panel. It disclaimed that its contents reflected the views of the government. It claimed copyright in the name of Cutler & Company Ltd., a company in which the individual presenting the report, Mr. Terry Cutler, is likely a principal (on this point I may be wrong in that I could not find a website for that company). Two Ministers of the Australian government issued press releases noting they had received the report and that a formal government response, something certainly important to ascertain if changes to law are needed, will issue in due course. I did not note any other Australian government officials also issuing press releases and expressing any views concerning the report.
The fact Mr. Cutler is involved is of passing interest to me given that I understand him to be the head of a government agency known as CSIRO. This agency is currently involved in patent infringement litigation in the US in the matter of CSIRO v. Buffalo Technology, wherein the agency is the patentee and is asserting its US Patent against Buffalo Technology.
In the final analysis the point I am making is that reporting something that is purely based upon hearsay, and without at least some modicum of effort to ascertain its veracity, is not something I am prepared to accept at face value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Educating one's self is great, but after having gone through the effort of doing so, why would you stop just short of using that information to support your accusation? Mark Twain said, "The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." The corrolary to this is that man who researches a blog post, but doesn't include any results of that research in their attack of the post is indistinguishable from the man who did no research.
In this matter I was able to eventually find a copy of the report and a host of related papers.
Exactly. A "host" of related papers. You seem to be saying that since you linked to site that had so much information, your point would be made for you. But in fact, the reaction would far more likely have been something like "Why is this guy linking to all of this material when he could have simply told us what what he thought was relevant?" It's like answering a kid's questions "Why is the sky blue?" by pointing to an encylopedia and saying "There's your answer."
Upon reading the report I almost immediately noted that it was not a government document, but rather one prepared by a non-government panel. It disclaimed that its contents reflected the views of the government. It claimed copyright in the name of Cutler & Company Ltd., a company in which the individual presenting the report, Mr. Terry Cutler, is likely a principal (on this point I may be wrong in that I could not find a website for that company). Two Ministers of the Australian government issued press releases noting they had received the report and that a formal government response, something certainly important to ascertain if changes to law are needed, will issue in due course. I did not note any other Australian government officials also issuing press releases and expressing any views concerning the report.
Was that so hard? Hopefully next time you make an accusation, you'll include information like this that goes to support your argument instead of leaving it to the reader to search through a host of documents in order to try and guess the reasoning for your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
===========
Brook
dating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patents and copyrights
my quote is:
'If innovation is stifled by greed (patents & copyrights) where does that leave our future genuises.
artistic ability that has just been squashed by Australian copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patents and copyrights
my quote is:
'If innovation is stifled by greed (patents & copyrights) where does that leave our future genuises.
artistic ability that has just been squashed by Australian copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]