Matthew Rimmer's Blog, page 4

September 27, 2020

What is the ‘Free the Flag’ movement all about?

Matthew Rimmer

Matthew Rimmer, The Sea of Hands, QUT.

With a Senate inquiry holding a public hearing earlier this week, and delicate negotiations between stakeholders recently revealed to have been ongoing since June last year, now seems like a good time to examine the legal issues behind the decades of dispute surrounding the copyright and licensing arrangements for the Aboriginal flag.

The flag was created by Luritja artist Harold Thomas, who first asserted his right to be recognised as its creator in 1980. It had been seen at protests around Canberra as early as 1971.

In 1995, it was proclaimed as an official flag of Australia. As the National Museum of Australia has noted, “the Aboriginal Flag is recognised locally and internationally as a symbol of Indigenous pride and the continuing struggle for justice”.

The Federal Court declared Mr Thomas the owner of the flag’s copyright in 1997. He has mostly held off asserting that copyright, however he has wielded it from time to time, such as in a complaint against a Western Australian businessman in 2003, and in 2010 when Google tried to use the flag in its homepage “Google doodle” without a copyright licence.

In November 2018, Mr Thomas signed an exclusive licence agreement for the use of the Aboriginal flag on clothing with WAM Clothing.

Spark Health, an Aboriginal social enterprise which makes merchandise with the tagline Clothing the Gap, received a legal letter. Objecting to the legal demand, Laura Thompson established a campaign called “Free the Flag”, which has received widespread public support, including over 100,000 people signing a petition.

The football codes of the AFL and the NRL, as well as Australia’s rugby team the Wallabies, have come into conflict with WAM Clothing this year over their use of the Aboriginal flag. A number of AFL Clubs and Indigenous footballers have supported the Free the Flag campaign. In response, WAM Clothing has demanded a retrospective bill for past use of the Aboriginal Flag. The NRL has received a cease-and-desist notice. The Wallabies have now declined to license the flag from WAM Clothing.

The federal opposition spokeswoman for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, last month lamented: “The recently introduced restrictions on the use of the Aboriginal flag are unacceptable and heartbreaking.”

She emphasised: “This is a national flag and the government has to make sure that it is freely available to all Australians.”

Burney has been drafting a bill to address the issues surrounding the flag’s copyright, and the Senate select committee established this month is examining “who benefits from payments for the use of the Aboriginal flag design and the impact on Aboriginal organisations, Aboriginal communities and the broader Australian community of the current copyright and licensing arrangements”.

So what are the options available going forward?

A number of politicians favour the compulsory acquisition of the flag’s copyright. Liberal MP Russell Broadbent says he would support the Commonwealth buying out the copyright as “the market is in this case not serving the national interest”. There are concerns, though, about whether it would be appropriate for the Australian government to appropriate Indigenous intellectual property in such a way.

Another possible approach would be a community approach to copyright ownership. In contrast to the Aboriginal flag, the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and its 15 communities own the copyright of the Torres Strait Islander Flag. Such a model could conceivably be employed with respect to the Aboriginal flag.

Another possible in-between option would be statutory licensing. While such a regime would still recognise the copyright ownership of Harold Thomas, it would enable copyright users to use the work in return for a license fee — without needing the permission of the copyright owner or licensee.

A fourth and more unique approach would be the establishment of a copyright exception. Australia’s copyright regime recognises a number of fair dealing defences, as well as library and archives exceptions; and a number of miscellaneous exceptions. The Australian Parliament could create a new defence of fair dealing or a particular copyright exception, which would allow for free and fair uses of the Aboriginal flag.

The Australian government also retains the power to manage intellectual property with respect to national icons.

The Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, remains hopeful the dispute can be resolved through voluntary negotiations with Mr Thomas. There are certainly precedents for peaceful resolution of copyright conflicts. The long-running copyright dispute over the work of Albert Namatjira was resolved in part by the patient pro bono legal negotiations of Mark Leibler.

The copyright dispute over the Aboriginal flag also highlights the need for a broader approach to the protection of Indigenous intellectual property. The government is currently promising to respond to an inquiry into inauthentic Indigenous art, which Mr Wyatt has vowed to stamp out.

It will be interesting to see whether the Select Committee on the Aboriginal Flag will be able to reach a consensus on its recommendations — given the spectrum of views expressed by legislators in the Australian Parliament.

Matthew Rimmer is a Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the QUT Faculty of Law. He is the editor of the Research Handbook on Indigenous Intellectual Property (2015).

Matthew Rimmer, ‘What is the “Free the Flag” movement all about?’, The Canberra Times, 17 September 2020, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6919769/what-is-the-free-the-flag-movement-all-about/?cs=14246 and BePress Selected Works: https://works.bepress.com/matthew_rimmer/363/

This article was republished in The Leader, Border Mail, Daily Advertiser, Area News, Mandurah Mail, Arata Advertiser, Riverina Leader, Central Western Daily, Ulladulla Times, The Examiner, and elsewhere.

August 5, 2020

Intellectual Property and Education in the Age of COVID-19

Research Symposium, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020

QUT Library

Overview

This event will consider the relationship between intellectual property and higher education in the age of the public health crisis over the coronavirus COVID-19. It will bring together scholars, experts, and practitioners in law, business, and education, and examine this topic from a range of disciplinary perspectives.

Universities and educational institutions will play a key role in our local, national, and global response to the public health crisis of the coronavirus COVID-19. Professor John Shine — the President of the Australian Academy of Science — has stressed: ‘As a repository of knowledge, networks, infrastructure and smart, agile people, university science has the capacity to address global challenges.’ Shine suggests: ‘People trained by university science and working within the research sector are the people whose expertise will deliver on this global challenge.’ He has concluded: ‘It’s the capacity to innovate in our university science that will bring us through this crisis.’

This symposium will consider the role of universities and educational institutions as creators, intermediaries, and users of copyright work. It will also examine how universities rely upon trade mark law, branding, marketing, and Internet Domain Names. This symposium will explore the role of universities in respect of research, development and deployment of patented inventions in key fields — including agriculture, biotechnology, medicine, and clean technologies. This event will also consider the tension between the open access culture of universities, and the push towards the protection of trade secrets and confidential information. It will look at recent concerns about the cyber-hacking of universities, educational establishments, and research institutions.

This symposium will also provide an Australian launch of Professor Jacob Rooksby’s Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer (Edward Elgar, 2020) — which includes a contribution from a QUT researcher on intellectual property, 3D printing, and higher education.

1. Copyright Law and Education

10:00–10:20

The People’s Vaccine: Intellectual Property, Access to Medicines, and the Coronavirus COVID-19

Professor Matthew Rimmer

https://medium.com/media/a7df91bd059e0d281c71841abb1dd7d8/href

Abstract

This presentation provides an overview of intellectual property and access to medicines in the age of COVID-19. There have also been worries that superpowers such as the United States, Russia and China will engage in vaccine nationalism — rather than participate in co-operative multilateralism. The Trump administration has taken an America First position — and has sought to develop Operation Warpspeed to encourage the development of a vaccine for its local population. Likewise, there has been concerns about pharmaceutical drug companies, biotechnology developers, and the medical diagnostics industry engaging in profiteering in respect of COVID-19 technologies. Winnie Byanyima from UNAIDS and former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark have argued that there is a need for a People’s Vaccine — rather than a patent monopoly held by a pharmaceutical drug company. The World Health Organization has established the ACT Accelerator in order to boost research, development, and deployment of COVID-19 technologies — including vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments. Costa Rica proposed a Coronavirus Technology Access Pool — which has been taken up by the World Health Organization. The Medicines Patent Pool has expanded its jurisdiction to include the sharing of intellectual property related to the coronavirus. Stanford University has helped establish a framework for public licensing in respect of COVID-19 technologies. Universities Allied for Essential Medicines has called upon public institutions to ‘free the vaccine’. A number of companies and institutions have taken the Open COVID 19 pledge not to bring intellectual property action against researchers working on the coronavirus. The defence of experimental use under patent law will be important — as will the right to repair under designs law. A range of national governments have also indicated that they will deploy compulsory licensing and crown use provisions if access to COVID-19 technologies are blocked, or companies engage in profiteering. There has also been a larger discussion about the need for open science to encourage a collective approach to tackling the public health pandemic of the coronavirus.

Biography

Dr Matthew Rimmer is a Professor in Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Faculty of Law, at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). He has published widely on copyright law and information technology, patent law and biotechnology, access to medicines, plain packaging of tobacco products, intellectual property and climate change, Indigenous Intellectual Property, and intellectual property and trade. He is undertaking research on intellectual property and 3D printing; the regulation of robotics and artificial intelligence; and intellectual property and public health (particularly looking at the coronavirus COVID-19). His work is archived at QUT ePrints, SSRN Abstracts, Bepress Selected Works, and Open Science Framework.

10:20–10:40

The Internet Archive and the National Emergency Library: Copyright Law and the Coronavirus COVID-19

Professor Matthew Rimmer

https://medium.com/media/d310f80fb3bb490bb2467d08b4147828/href

Abstract

The Internet Archive established the National Emergency Library to provide for access to knowledge for those who were unable to access their usual libraries, schools, and educational institutions. In response, four large publishers have brought a copyright lawsuit against the Internet Archive, alleging both direct copyright infringement, as well as secondary copyright infringement. The Author’s Guild has supported this action. Fearful of litigation, the Internet Archive has decided to close the National Emergency Library earlier than it anticipated. The litigation raises a range of issues in respect of copyright infringement, the defence of fair use, library exceptions, digital lending, and intermediary liability. The dispute raises novel questions about the operation of copyright flexibilities during public health emergencies. It is argued that there needs to better international mechanisms under copyright law to enable access to knowledge in a public health crisis.

Biography

10:40–11:00

Copyright Law in South America: Digital Exclusions, Libraries and Cultural Venues. Unleashing New Opportunities and Experiences

Samuel de Souza Teixeira Lobão

https://medium.com/media/1c4056f225cc92dbd3f0f5c7d56149ad/href

Abstract

Copyright limitations and exceptions have been frequently discussed as an important avenue to promote access to knowledge and thus human and social development. One popular way to balance the public and rights-holders’ interest was the adoption of specific exceptions and limitations concerning libraries, museums, and cultural venues. As many of the countries following TRIPs homogenization, countries in Latin America have implemented superficial exceptions and limitations which quickly became outdated with the expansion of digital technologies. With recent research showing that digital limitations are mostly absent from the great part of the region, the talk will use factual examples of how the lack of a proper legislative framework for copyright exceptions and limitations in this sense fail to cater the needs of education and access to knowledge in a digital world, limiting the implementation of new technologies and cultural experiences.

Biography

Samuel Lobao, Attorney in Law (Brazil), L.L.B (Hons) by PUC-MG (Brazil), L.L.M in Intellectual Property (World Intellectual Property Organization — QUT), and M.Phil Candidate in Intellectual Property and Innovation (QUT). While being a complete geek for all kind of technology, Mr Samuel Lobao has a passion for social sciences and law studies. Acknowledging the difficulty of the task, he dedicates his time to understand the constant transformative impacts caused by technological advances in areas such as Cultural Heritage, Intellectual Property, Commerce and Innovation Law. His current work at QUT seeks to understand how 3D-Printing technologies could have a protagonist role in the future of sustainable development.

2 Trademark Law and Education

11:00–11:20

Navigating Private Rights and the Public Good: Trademark Law and Education

Angela Dahlke

https://medium.com/media/ba6542d7f8012533fdc4a484ea02613f/href

Abstract

Universities and their engagement with intellectual property and associated legal rights has changed both qualitatively and quantitatively, shaped and catalysed by a myriad of forces and factors, including external and institutional. This talk provides an exploratory analysis, description, and deliberation on issues such as: the role, identity, and marketing of universities and their brands in changing contexts; and the trade-offs between, or balancing of, the interaction of public and private rights, interests, and benefits, relating to trade marks. This presentation provides a trans-disciplinary exploration of Universities’ evolving engagement and impact with marketing, branding, and trade mark rights.

Biography

Angela Dahlke offers a unique trans-disciplinary view of trade marks, branding, and marketing, with her multi-disciplinary qualifications, in law, science, and business, and cross-sector professional and entrepreneurial experience, working in/with private practice, universities, start-ups, and consulting to government, in multiple professional roles along with concurrent innovation and social entrepreneurship side-pursuits. She is a registered patent and trade marks attorney (AU, NZ), who’s worked at leading intellectual property firms, managing global IP portfolios, and been an advocate in high profile and precedent cases relating to trade marks. She has served on various committees, including the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (IPONZ). Angela has engaged in and published research in the biological and social sciences, including as a co-founder of an award-winning innovative social enterprise and STEM education program, harnessing citizen science for the discovery and protection of biodiversity and publication of novel genetic codes for the public good. Within the university sector, Angela has enjoyed multiple professional roles, including as a manager of an entrepreneurship hub, lecturer in business including entrepreneurship, start-up mentor, marketer and social media manager, and in stakeholder engagement and commercialisation roles, most recently in her present role at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers. She’s been active in the innovation community, including as an innovation facilitator and mentor, and health innovation consultant, bringing together diverse stakeholders to solve problems, innovate solutions, and realise an impact.

3. Patent Law and Education

11:30–11:50

University Industry Collaboration and the Effect of Government Funding

Annita Nugent

https://medium.com/media/271661f70b7c0da018d9397d826e3ee8/href

Abstract

With innovation as a third mission of universities, governments around the world have competitive funding schemes to support university industry collaboration. Little is known whether these schemes are more successful than traditional competitive funding programs to achieve commercially valuable research outputs. We explore whether this is the case by comparing two Australian funding programs that share the processes of how funds are awarded — one with a requirement of U-I collaboration, one traditional, not requiring collaboration. We use related patenting activity as our measure of commercially valuable research outputs. We find targeted grants lead to more patent activity by inventors that are awarded such grants, compared to those being awarded non-targeted grants. Analysing the dynamics, we find the effect is rather short lift. For technica Universities and Australia‘s biggest universities (Go8), we find that patent activity is maximised if universities achieve a get awarded a mix of both types of funding.

Biography

Annita Nugent, is a PhD candidate in the Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology at the Queensland University of Technology. With a focus on policy, her research explores the dynamic of university-industry collaboration and how it is influenced by government funding. Annita’s interest in this topic stems from over 25 years-experience in the protection, translation and commercialisation of research findings. Acquiring a foundation in intellectual property as a patent examiner with IP Australia, specialising in life science, she registered as a patent attorney in 2000. Before transitioning to the university environment in 2005 as Manager, Innovation and Commercial Development (Queensland Brain Institute) at UniQuest, she gained experience in private practice, industry start-ups and government research organisations. Spending over a decade at The University of Queensland, Annita has facilitated the establishment and maintenance of many and varied research collaborations and initiatives, including commercial projects with industry, joint international laboratories, and multi-disciplinary research Centres, sourcing funding from industry, state, federal and philanthropic sources. Most recently Annita has overseen the development of the ARC Special Research Initiative in the Science of Learning. As Chief Operating Officer of the Centre she built a research translation team, purposed with ensuring the Centre’s industry partners and end-user stakeholders (schools and State Departments of Education) benefitted from its research outcomes, which she subsequently went on to lead. Applying an econometrics approach to understand the impact of government funding on university-industry collaboration her study mirrors, and is shaped by, her experience.

11:50–12:10

Law, Linguistics and Economic Approaches to Measuring the Scope of Patents

Brendan Nugent (Queensland University of Technology), Dr Nancy Kong (Queensland University of Technology), and Professor Uwe Dulleck (Queensland University of Technology)

https://medium.com/media/e2e7232d173e934f3ad5f17f6d1717d3/href

Abstract

Economists often use patent counts to evaluate trends in innovation. Such studies generally recognise that the extent of exclusivity granted by a patent is determined by the claims granted. However, measurements that economists currently use to judge patent scope do not always find a rational basis in patent law or practice. We have identified the elements of a patent claim that contribute to patent scope and developed measures that find their basis in legal analysis of claims. We propose to introduce these measures into linguistic models to provide a measure of patent scope with a strong grounding in patent law and practice.

Biography

Brendan Nugent is an MPhil candidate in the Graduate School of Business at the Queensland University of Technology. He is an Australian patent and trade marks attorney with over 30 years’ experience. With qualifications in chemistry and biotechnology, Brendan has prepared and prosecuted patent applications for clients in the Government and university sectors as well as pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. His interest in biotechnology start-ups led him to become an active angel investor for a time, but he now splits his time between consulting to a small Brisbane-based patent attorney firm and research into the economics of the patent system that he is undertaking at Queensland University of Technology.

12:10–12:30

Computational Linguistic Examination of Readability and Disclosure Among University and Firm Patents

Dr Nancy Kong (Queensland University of Technology), Professor Uwe Dulleck (Queensland University of Technology), Professor Adam B Jaffe (Brandeis), Shupeng Sun (Queensland University of Technology), and Sowmya Vajjala (National Research Council Canada)

https://medium.com/media/e6143e9b94bd789f01dd9ae76989269a/href

Abstract

Encouraging inventors to disclose their new inventions is one of the most important economic justifications of the patent system. Yet, technical information contained in patent applications is often inadequate and unclear. We are the first to examine the patent disclosure using computational linguistic analysis. By comparing the readability of patents applied by universities and firms in the industry of nanotechnology, battery and photoelectric from 2000 to 2019 in the U.S., we show that university patents are significantly easier to comprehend, requiring 1.4 years less education than firm patents. The difference of disclosure level between patent documents could imply that applicants of different entities may strategically choose their disclosure levels for their patent applications.

Biography

Dr. Nancy Kong is a research fellow at the Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology, QUT. She completed her PhD in economics in 2017 at Dalhousie University, Canada. She has a wide range of research interests in health economics, labour economics, and intellectual property using applied econometric methods. Her current project examines the disclosure incentives of patent applications using computational linguistic analysis and machine learning techniques.

12:30–12:50

Harnessing the Potential of 3D Printing to Develop Emergency Equipment in Response to COVID-19

Dr Muhammad Zaheer Abbas

https://medium.com/media/8485a3c5ce7ba68b0f6cf70649c4c812/href

Abstract

COVID-19 has already caused far-reaching negative impacts not only on health but also on the social and economic well-being of the global population. 3D printing offers promise in relation to much needed health technologies associated with COVID-19. Additive manufacturing, which allows the rapid conversion of information from digital 3D models into physical objects, is uniquely well positioned to support the shortage of critical medical devices by enabling customization and printing of devices in a timely and cost-effective manner. This rapid prototyping technology can be used to scale up the manufacturing of hospital respiratory support apparatus, like ventilators, and to mitigate shortages of personal protective equipment like face shields, respirator hoods, and surgical masks. With a key focus on harnessing the potential of 3D printing in response to disruptions to the medical product supply chain in the pandemic context, this paper also discusses how patent exclusivities become a hurdle in using the full potential of 3D printing. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of compulsory licensing, a safeguard provided under intellectual property (IP) regime of the World Trade Organization, as a policy option to overcome IP barriers. This study is crucial because access to necessary health technologies in a pandemic context is a matter of life and death for millions of patients around the globe, especially for underprivileged patients in resource-constrained countries. This study will help policy makers at national and international levels by contributing to the debate over IP and scope of 3D printing in response to the global health crisis.

Biography

Dr. Muhammad Zaheer Abbas has recently completed PhD in Law at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) as a recipient of QUT Postgraduate Research Award (QUTPRA). He studied Law at International Islamic University, Islamabad (IIUI) and obtained BA General and LLB (Hons) with distinction in 2010. He also obtained LLM in International Law, with distinction, from the same university in 2012. He served as a Lecturer in Law at IIUI and has nearly 8 years of legal teaching and research experience. He also served as Associate Editor of ‘Islamabad Law Review’, a peer reviewed open access research journal of Faculty of Shariah & Law, IIUI. He has published 16 peer-reviewed research papers, mostly related to intellectual property protection and the public interest. His notable research publications include:

‘Treatment of the Novel COVID-19: Why Costa Rica’s Proposal for the Creation of a Global Pooling Mechanism Deserves Serious Consideration?’ (2020) Journal of Law and the Biosciences (Early view published online)‘Plant Breeders’ Rights Act 2016: Prospects and Challenges for Pakistan as an Agricultural Country’ (2020) Journal of World Intellectual Property (Early view published online)‘Evergreening of Pharmaceutical Patents: A Blithe Disregard for the Rationale of the Patent System’ (2019) 15(2) Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector 53–60‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism and its Ramifications for Public Health: An Analysis’ (2018) 28(4) Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 244–251‘WTO Paragraph 6 System for Affordable Access to Medicines: Relief or Regulatory Ritualism’ (2018) 21(1–2) Journal of World Intellectual Property 32–51‘Compulsory Licensing and Access to Medicines: TRIPS Amendment Allows Export to Least-Developed Countries’ (2017) 12(6) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 451–452‘Rationale of Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patents in the Light of Human Rights Perspective’ (2014) 19(1) Pakistan Perspectives 107–123‘TRIPS Flexibilities: Implementation Gaps between Theory and Practice’ (2013) Issue 2013(1) Nordic Journal of Commercial Laws 1–25

In 2014, Dr. Abbas got an opportunity to attend the “Winter Institute” held at the College of William & Mary, Virginia, and Georgetown University, Washington D.C. In 2017, he had the honor to present his research at the University of Oxford, UK. In 2018, he attended the 15th WTO-WIPO Colloquium for Teachers of Intellectual Property held at Geneva, Switzerland. In the same year, he attended the “Fifth Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest” held at American University Washington College of Law, Washington D.C.

4. Open Access and Education

2:00–2:20

Negotiating the Production, Management and Ownership of Knowledge in the 21st Century University

Dr. Kylie Pappalardo

https://medium.com/media/cc4739ee21c9a7816bf9ae6171791b81/href

Abstract

Producing and disseminating knowledge is core university business. But research can be tied up in numerous ways, including disputes over who can access it, or who receives credit for or owns copyright-protected works such as journal articles, books, or databases. Poor management of knowledge ownership and dissemination can thwart research objectives: outcomes may not be useable; projects may be delayed or stopped; articles may not be published, or unnecessarily restricted to limited audiences. These problems can put a brake on scholarly advancement, engagement with non-scholarly audiences, and the real world impact of Australian university research.

Navigating knowledge ownership and dissemination is complex and fraught. Copyright law has rules about ownership and credit for research outputs, but copyright law is only a small part of the picture. A range of policies affect ownership and use of university research, including policies on authorship, intellectual property (IP), commercialisation, open access and open data, individual research performance assessment, data integrity and sharing, confidentiality, digital learning, and employment contracts. The rules are drafted by different people, with their own goals and agendas, and implemented within universities across departments and at different levels. Inevitably policies diverge or conflict. Researchers may struggle to reconcile the tension between demands for real-world impact and high quality publications, or may even be unaware of all the rules. This situation jeopardises university research and its ability to meet objectives for real world impact.

This presentation provides an overview of a new ARC-funded project that will investigate how intellectual property laws and licensing decision-making are currently operating in the Australian university context, and how academics and managers are making decisions and prioritising among competing imperatives, or avoiding doing so. The project will propose options for a more coherent, targeted and productive relationship between research and IP-related policies and laws, in light of the changing domestic and international legal context.

Biography:

Dr. Kylie Pappalardo is a Senior Lecturer in the QUT School of Law and a Chief Investigator with the QUT Digital Media Research Centre. Her research examines the operation of intellectual property law in a changing digital environment, and she has published widely on copyright and creativity, intermediary liability, and law and digital disruption.

2:20–2:40

How Open Access Suddenly Became the Norm

Professor Ginny Barbour

https://medium.com/media/125a4d2cf1d23bf23eeb13e7e1468d1b/href

Abstract

When the COVID-19 pandemic took off, the usual models of publishing were thrown out of the window. Immediate free, open access became the norm, with non-peer reviewed publications (preprints) becoming the almost the majority form of publishing, publishers dropping article processing charges and journals opening up all their content. Will the new norm continue and what are the implications for the future of publishing?

Biography

Ginny Barbour is Director of the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group and is Co-Lead, Office for Scholarly Communications, Queensland University of Technology (QUT). In 2004, she was one of the three founding editors of PLOS Medicine. She has been involved over the years with many Open Access, publishing, and ethics initiatives including (DORA) the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee, and as a Plan S Ambassador. She writes for the Conversation She is on the NHMRC’s Research Quality Steering Committee.

Her ORCID profile is here http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2358-2440

2:40 -3:00

Open Educational Resources: Social Justice, Equity, and Inclusion in the Age of COVID-19

Stephanie Bradbury and Katya Henry

Abstract

QUT is committed to the creation and dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of society. This includes supporting the adoption, adaptation, and creation of Open Educational Resources (OERs) to widen access to education, and to improve both the cost-efficiency and quality of teaching and learning outcomes. OERs have a role to play in social justice, equity and inclusion. In this age of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on students, the case for OERs is even more compelling.

Biographies

Stephanie Bradbury is Manager, Scholarly Communications Services in the Office for Scholarly Communication, QUT Library.

Katya Henry is the University Copyright Officer in the Office for Scholarly Communication, QUT Library. She is also the Creative Commons Global Network Council Representative, Australia.

https://medium.com/media/4cfaf6244b3d8a2fb9959a3b4b9d4bfb/href

Book Launch

Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer

Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property series

Edited by Jacob H. Rooksby, Dean and Professor of Law, Gonzaga University School of Law, Spokane, Washington, US

Publication Date: 2020 ISBN: 978 1 78811 662 6 Extent: c 512 pp

Written by leading experts from across the world, this Handbook expertly places intellectual property issues in technology transfer into their historical and political context whilst also exploring and framing the development of these intersecting domains for innovative universities in the present and the future.

Contents

Universities everywhere are increasingly being encouraged to translate their research findings into practical applications that will further the common good through technology transfer, a process in which intellectual property (IP) laws and systems play a central role. This Research Handbook skillfully places IP issues in technology transfer into their historical and political context whilst also exploring and framing the development of these intersecting domains for innovative universities in the present and the future.

Written by leading experts from across the world, this Research Handbook offers new insights into our understanding of this area and its practical implications, situating IP and technology transfer within larger dialogues concerning the future of the research university. It illuminates a complex ecosystem in which the stakes are high and best practices are nuanced. Not overlooked are the most timely and controversial topics in the field, including inter partes review proceedings, conflicts of interest, patent enforcement and the public good, 3D printing, and university treatment of data.

This Research Handbook will prove critical reading for scholars of both technology transfer and IP, as well as for practitioners working in these fields. Stakeholders such as university presidents and governing boards and members of higher education organizations will also find it insightful and useful.

References

Intellectual Property and Education in the Age of COVID-19, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, YouTube playlist — https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXUvd1SCdiFUs8fKhC4N-uWKV6IxT_n54

1. Matthew Rimmer, ‘The People’s Vaccine: IP, Access to Medicines, and the Coronavirus COVID-19’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/va5pmrlg0VU

2. Matthew Rimmer, ‘The Internet Archive and the National Emergency Library: Copyright Law and the Coronavirus COVID-19’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/iS5PjoIimOU

3. Samuel de Souza Teixeira Lobão, ‘Copyright Law in South America: Digital Exclusions, Libraries and Cultural Venues. Unleashing New Opportunities and Experiences’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/wU42tspYfH8

4. Angela Dahlke, ‘Navigating Private Rights and the Public Good: Trademark Law and Education’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/r3f2ZgDPsvM

5. Annita Nugent, ‘University Industry Collaboration and the Effect of Government Funding’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/Xl14HHSXDEk

6. Brendan Nugent, ‘Law, Linguistics and Economic Approaches to Measuring the Scope of Patents’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/nPXVzQpINQE

7. Nancy Kong, ‘Computational Linguistic Examination of Readability and Disclosure Among University and Firm Patents’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/L2CP6QpSFHU

8. Muhammad Zaheer Abbas, ‘Harnessing the Potential of 3D Printing to Develop Emergency Equipment in Response to COVID-19’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/97p79zOJIVY

9. Kylie Pappalardo, ‘Negotiating the Production, Management and Ownership of Knowledge in the 21st Century University’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/GMERIFHrMk8

10. Ginny Barbour, ‘How Open Access Suddenly Became the Norm’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/_SueRnB0uCQ

11. Stephanie Bradbury and Katya Henry, ‘Open Educational Resources: Social Justice, Equity, and Inclusion in the Age of COVID-19’, QUT Faculty of Law, 29 July 2020, https://youtu.be/WnJgzj43d0Q

View more on Matthew Rimmer's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 05, 2020 21:40

July 8, 2020

COVID-19 challenges copyright law and library lending

QUT News, 9th July 2020

Major publishing houses including HarperCollins and Penguin are suing the non-profit Internet Archive for its National Emergency Library, set up to provide access to books during the COVID-19 shutdown. The Authors Guild has supported the publishers’ copyright action.

The non-profit Internet Archive set up the temporary National Emergency Library during shutdown to give access to books for researchers and studentsMajor publishers, supported by the Authors Guild are now suing Internet Archive for copyright infringementsThis dispute is a test case for copyright law’s role during a pandemicInternational support for Internet Archive and its emergency library

The Internet Archive has countered that the complaint attacks the ‘concept of any library owning and lending digital books, challenging what a library is in the digital world’.

“The dispute provides a unique test case for the role of copyright law during a public health pandemic’,” says QUT Intellectual Property Professor Matthew Rimmer from QUT Faculty of Law.

Professor Rimmer said the National Emergency Library was intended to provide a public service with a temporary collection of books to support remote teaching, research activities etc while universities, schools and libraries were closed.

“The publishers allege that the Internet Archive is engaged in ‘wilful mass copyright infringements … without any licence or payment to authors or publishers’,” Professor Rimmer said.

“The legal case will no doubt raise issues about library exceptions under copyright law and rules about lending.

“Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle maintains: ‘as a library, the Internet Archive acquires books and lends them, as libraries have always done’ and ‘publishers suing libraries for lending books, in this case protected digitized versions, while schools and libraries are closed, is not in anyone’s interest’.”

Professor Rimmer said the conflict between publishers and the Internet Archive would raise larger questions about the defence of fair use under copyright law in the United States.

The fair use precedent of the long-running Google Books litigation will have a bearing on the case but the dispute raises some new questions in intellectual property law.

“In response to the lawsuit, the Internet Archive said that the National Emergency Library would close early. Nonetheless, the concern is that this lawsuit could bankrupt the non-profit Internet Archive library which plays an important part in documenting and archiving the world wide web,” he said.

“A number of its services like the Wayback Machine are invaluable and indispensable in tracing the history and the present of the Internet.”

Professor Rimmer said there was a need to think about the role of intellectual property during public health emergencies.

He said support and commentary for expanded copyright flexibilities during COVID-19 had come from:

US library copyright specialists who made a public statement on fair use and emergency remote teaching and researchHarvard University librarian and lawyer Kyle Courtney has argued that libraries do not need permission to lend booksCanadian law academics Professor Sam Trosow and Lisa Macklem have opened a discussion about copyright law and fair dealing in a pandemicIn the UK, Dr Emily Hudson and Dr Paul Wragg proposed copyright law and education during the COVID-19 pandemicIn the EU, Communia has said that ‘exceptions and limitations to copyright should support education, research and other public interest activities that need to take place remotely during emergencies that fundamentally disrupt the normal organization of society.

Professor Rimmer said the controversy should spur the revisiting of copyright law reform recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Productivity Commission.

QUT Media contacts: Niki Widdowson, 07 3138 2999 or n.widdowson@qut.edu.au.

After hours: Rose Trapnell, 0407 585 901 or media@qut.edu.au.

Niki Widdowson, ‘COVID-19 Challenges Copyright Law and Library Lending’, QUT Media, 9 July 2020, https://www.qut.edu.au/news?id=166228

June 24, 2020

Race around the world for COVID-19 vaccines

QUT News, 24th June 2020

While the Trump administration trumpets Operation Warp Speed’s search for COVID-19 vaccine, it is unwilling to collaborate with the world’s scientists who share their COVID-19 findings and have pledged to make a vaccine affordable and accessible for everyone.

The US out of step with global collaboration on COVID-19 vaccineWHO has set up a global collaboration to speed up development of vaccine & treatmentsSome pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies unwilling to join global initiativesStrong push from Australia, NZ and Germany’s leaders to make COVID-19 vaccine affordable & accessible to allMany countries will use compulsory licensing or ‘crown use’ laws to make vaccine universally available

QUT Intellectual Property Professor Matthew Rimmer, from the Faculty of Law, said there was concern that the US would take an “America First” approach to COVID-19 diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines.

“This stance would go against the global tide of co-operation and collaboration of countries, institutions, companies and international organisations in the COVID-19 battle,” said Professor Rimmer, who is an expert on access to essential medicines having edited Incentives for Global Public Health and written numerous publications on patent law and public health.

“Everywhere we see calls to make a safe, effective vaccine available to everyone at an affordable cost.

“Australia and New Zealand have played a productive, diplomatic role in encouraging co-operative efforts in coronavirus COVID-19 research.

“Prime Minister Scott Morrison calls for development of ‘a safe vaccine, available to all, affordable to all’ and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says ‘we will advocate for universal access for any treatments and vaccines’.

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said ‘only a global solution will overcome the pandemic. This is a test of our generation’s kindness.’”

Professor Rimmer said WHO had set up the ACT Accelerator, a global collaboration to hasten development, production and equitable access to new COVID-19 technologies.

“The Medicines Patent Pool has expanded its mandate to include COVID-19 related technologies and WHO and Costa Rica have established a COVID-19 Technology Access Pool.

“Some pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology developers, however, have been unwilling to join this voluntary initiative.”

Professor Rimmer said universities and public research organisations played a key role in developing vaccines and treatments.

“Stanford University and several others are engaged in public sector licensing of intellectual property (IP) for the purpose of making products to prevent, diagnose and treat COVID-19 during the pandemic,” he said.

“Universities Allied for Essential Research have called upon public research institutions to ‘free the vaccine’.

“Even companies such as HP Enterprises, Intel, IBM, Amazon, Facebook and Uber have taken the Open COVID-19 Pledge to make their IP available free of charge for use in ending the COVID-19 pandemic and minimizing the impact of the disease.”

Professor Rimmer said the world’s reaction to the pandemic was testing the strengths, limits and flexibilities of patent law.

“While providing exclusive rights to novel, useful inventions, patent law also provides for mechanisms to allow for public access to inventions to enable technology transfer, promote public health and support competition,” he said.

“We need to learn from past history of unruly competition and rent-seeking in therapies for other epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, SARS, bird and swine ‘flus and collaborate.

“Canada, Israel, Ecuador, Chile and Germany among others have indicated they would allow compulsory licensing during the pandemic if needed.

“Similarly, Australia has warned it would use its crown use powers if patent inventors engaged in profiteering from essential inventions.

“Both the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and Doha Declaration allow nations to use patent flexibilities such as compulsory licensing and crown use to address public health epidemics.”

QUT Media contacts:

Niki Widdowson, 07 3138 2999 or n.widdowson@qut.edu.au

Rose Trapnell, 0407 585 901, media@qut.edu.au.

https://www.qut.edu.au/news?id=165130

View more on Matthew Rimmer's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 24, 2020 00:58

May 4, 2020

QUT Forum on Access to Essential Medicines — 15 February 2017

Introduction

This forum was hosted by the QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program and the Australian Centre for Health Law Research in the QUT Faculty of Law to coincide with the visit of the Hon. Michael Kirby to the QUT Faculty of Law. It assessed and evaluated the recommendations of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines. Access to medicines is a critical issue in respect of infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, the SARS virus, Ebola, and the Zika virus. There have been a number of obstacles and barriers in respect of access to medicines — including the high prices caused by monopolies, and the absence of appropriate treatments for neglected diseases.

The speakers reviewed the proposed solutions for remedying the policy incoherence between intellectual property, public health, and international law. This forum considered such issues as health research and development; patent law and compulsory licensing; public sector licensing; open access and open innovation; international trade; bioethics, privacy, and human rights. The future possible implementation of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines — both at an international level and by national governments were discussed.

The speakers included the Hon. Michael Kirby, Professor Matthew Rimmer, Professor Charles Lawson, Tessa Marshall of UAEM, Dr Pauline Zardo, Assistant Professor Bruce Arnold, and Professor Belinda Bennett.

Videos

The Hon. Michael Kirby, ‘Human Rights Meets Global Pharma’, 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research — 5th Annual Public Oration, 15 February 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl_pa2siVzk

https://medium.com/media/78a08f2f8e7fa7b92c9f9fd3abeaf08b/href

Matthew Rimmer, ‘Donald Trump, The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines’, Workshop on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines, QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program and the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, 15 February 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NePMiZX304s

https://medium.com/media/dbe63b6e94e56bf5795e694d05241793/href

Charles Lawson, ‘Patent Law, Compulsory Licensing, and Access to Essential Medicines’, Workshop on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines, QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program and the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, 15 February 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLu-kbsV5Y

https://medium.com/media/45c9b86e3a1d8bbb972a239128466c4b/href

Tessa Marshall, ‘Higher Education and Access to Medicines’, Workshop on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines, QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program and the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, 15 February 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLQ5cDubRCM

https://medium.com/media/8fc21b73a5682dc6e7c57a487fdf0983/href

Pauline Zardo, ‘Open Access and Access to Essential Medicines’, Workshop on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines, QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program and the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, 15 February 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0uGavUCkW0

https://medium.com/media/084ba1814f1f0a8294c80fd05225368c/href

Bruce Baer Arnold, ‘Access to Essential Medicines after the Trump-Apocalypse’, Workshop on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines, QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program and the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, 15 February 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVUHEtrbL7A

https://medium.com/media/c419f11879fb5129373900bb2b348040/href

The Hon. Michael Kirby, ‘Reflection on the Workshop’, Workshop on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines, QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program and the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, 15 February 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoCxyImd9iA

https://medium.com/media/f1e52b666d74e89d64477b38e48ba530/href

Speakers

Bruce Arnold is an Assistant Professor in the School of Law at the University of Canberra. He has a strong interest in privacy, data protection, intellectual property and health sector regulation. He is on the editorial board of Privacy Law Bulletin and an OECD Health Information Infrastructure panellist. His work has appeared in Melbourne University Law Review, Journal of Medical Ethics, International Journal of Communication Law & Policy, Local Government Law Journal, Alternative Law Journal and other publications.

Belinda Bennett is Professor of Health Law and New Technologies in the Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) in the School of Law at QUT. She joined QUT in 2014 as part of QUT’s research capacity building program. Belinda leads the Governance and Regulation of Health Care program within the Australian Centre for Health Law Research at QUT. Her research addresses health law and globalisation, global public health, and the legal and ethical challenges associated with regulation of new technologies.

Professor Charles Lawson Charles Lawson is a Professor in the Griffith Law School, Griffith University. He holds a Doctor of Philosophy from the ANU’s Research School of Biological Sciences in molecular biology and biochemistry and a Master of Laws from QUT for research into gene patenting and competition.

Tessa Marshall is currently in the third year of a Bachelor of Biomedicine at the University of Melbourne, majoring in Microbiology and Immunology, with the aim of ultimately pursuing a career in biomedical research. She is the president and co-founder of the Melbourne chapter of Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM). Tessa Marshall is interested in global health and access to medicines.

Professor Matthew Rimmer Professor Rimmer has undertaken research into the dramatic expansion of intellectual property law to accommodate various forms of biotechnology from micro-organisms, plants, and animals to human genes and stem cells. His work in these areas has made a unique theoretical contribution to the controversial public debate over the commercialisation of biological inventions.

Dr Pauline Zardo’s research career has been focused on research engagement, translation and impact, with a current focus on how open access, data, science and innovation contribute to research having an impact on society, beyond academia. Her PhD was on the translation, implementation and impact of research in public health policy and practice. Dr Zardo published several papers in this field during her PhD at Monash University, and also as Research Fellow in the Indigenous Health Equity Unit, School of Population and Global Health at the University of Melbourne. Dr Zardo is a mixed-methods researcher, with training and experience in quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods research approaches and projects.

Matthew Rimmer, ‘Workshop Summary: QUT Forum on Access to Essential Medicines’, 15 February 2017, https://link.medium.com/AWasvDsre6

View more on Matthew Rimmer's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 04, 2020 22:12

November 10, 2019

Open Innovation

Open Innovation: A QUT Research Symposium

Open Innovation:

A QUT Research Symposium

Presented by QUT Faculty of Law Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program

Thursday, 24 October 2019

9:00 am to 5:00 pm

S1215, Owen J. Wordsworth Room (Gardens Point)

QUT Gardens Point Campus

OVERVIEW

This research symposium is dedicated to the topic of open innovation. This event will provide a focal point for Open Access Week in Brisbane, Queensland for 2019. The theme for Open Access Week is ‘Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge’.

This symposium will consider the relationship between copyright law, contract law, and scholarly publishing, and the clash between proprietary and open access models. It will explore the evolution of open licensing — from Free Software and Open Source Software to the burgeoning Creative Commons movement. The symposium will preview the forthcoming Supreme Court of the United States case between Carl Malamud and Public Resource.org, and the State of Georgia over copyright law and access to justice.

This conference will examine the debate over public education and access to knowledge. It will consider the efforts to provide open educational resources for students. This event will examine larger questions of digital inclusion. In particular, it will focus upon recent copyright law reform in respect of disability rights at a national and an international level. It will consider larger questions about the relationship between open access, education and sustainable development. This event will also highlight the tensions between copyright law, database protection, and open data.

This symposium will investigate the rise of open innovation — both in the context of public research and new business models. It will chart the movements of Open Agriculture, Open Biology, Open Medicine, Open Neuroscience and Open Science. It will examine how the strategies of open licensing have been deployed as an alternative to proprietary models of protection under patent law and trade secrets. It will also investigate the use of open licensing in the context of the environment, biodiversity, and climate change.

The event features speakers from QUT, the University of Queensland, the University of the Sunshine Coast, Bond University, the University of Canberra, and Griffith University. The presenters will cover a range of disciplines — including law, the creative industries, design, science and technology, robotics, political science, and international relations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS

In keeping with the spirit of Reconciliation, we acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands — and recognise that these have always been places of teaching and learning. We wish to pay respect to their Elders — past, present and emerging — and acknowledge the important role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within the QUT community.

ABSTRACTS

Session 1

Chair

Paula Callan (QUT Library)

Since 2003, Paula Callan has been actively engaged in encouraging the uptake of innovations in scholarly publishing, particularly those related to open access, at the institutional, national and international level. In 2004, she led the implementation of QUT’s very successful open access repository, QUT ePrints. At the time, it was the first such repository in the world to be backed by an institution-wide open access ‘mandate’. Similar policies now exist at many other universities around the world.

In 2008, Paula was appointed by the ARC (Australian Research Council) to be a member of the Indicators Development Group for the first round of ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia).

In collaboration with members of the OAK Law Project Team, Paula was involved in the development of OAKList; a publicly available database of information about publishers’ open access policies and the rights retained by authors under the terms of the copyright transfer agreements used by Australian scholarly publishers. When it was released in 2009, OAKList was an important resource for Australian academic authors and repository managers. Subsequently, the data was transferred to Sherpa-RoMEO, an international version of OAKList.

Between 2008–2013, Paula was QUT Library’s eResearch Access Coordinator. While in this role, she helped develop and implement the University’s first training program on research data management. The program was designed to provide researchers with the tools and knowledge needed to ensure their data was not just safely stored but also could (where appropriate) be made discoverable and accessible.

In her current role as Scholarly Communications Librarian, Paula still has oversight of QUT ePrints but also supports a number of other open access publishing related services including the eJournal Hosting Service which supports a number of high-quality peer reviewed open access journals published here at QUT.

Open Education

Not a Simple Relationship: Ensuring that Open Scholarship Maximises Equity and Benefit across Education

Professor Virginia Barbour (QUT)

https://medium.com/media/d2ad3e8f09515bad5e3e77e520a6becb/href

Abstract

This year’s theme of “Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge” has brought into sharp focus the long term aims of open scholarship — as not the end game, but as a means to an end. This is good time therefore to reflect on how openness can support equity for users and producers of open educational resources and tools, and also to reflect on challenges that remain.

Biography

Professor Virginia (Ginny) Barbour is Director of the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group, and advisor to the library and the Office of Research Ethics & Integrity at Queensland University of Technology (QUT). In 2004 she was one of the three founding editors of PLOS Medicine, and became Editorial Director for Medicine and Biology at PLOS. She has participated in many publishing and ethics initiatives, currently including the DORA International Advisory board and NHMRC’s Research Quality Steering Committee.

Open Access

The Impact of the Marrakesh Treaty on the Print Disabled in the Global South

Dr Paul Harpur (UQ) with Michael Ashley Stein (Harvard Law School)

https://medium.com/media/256ce0dfe9ec179376ec8c5252bd0f83/href

Abstract

Coupled with the expansion of low cost screen readers, digital format E-Books have made worldwide reading equality an achievable dream. Nevertheless, copyright laws, industry practices and lack of political will have resulted in a book famine that prevents persons with print disabilities across the globe from reading. The book famine is serious in the Global North, and pervasively detrimental in much of the Global South. Certainly, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), in combination with the Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (Marrakesh Treaty), have transformed international law. But will these human rights matter in practise? This presentation draws upon a chapter Dr Harpur has written with Professor Michael Ashley Stein that analyses the new sharing model and reflects on its potential impact.

See — Paul Harpur and Michael Ashley Stein, ‘The Relevance of the CRPD and Marrakesh Treaty to the Global South’, in Michael Ashley Stein & Jonathan Lazar (Eds.), Accessible Technology and the Developing World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Biography

Dr Paul Harpur is a leading international and comparative disability rights legal academic having held visiting positions with the Centre for Disability Law and Policy, Institute for Lifecourse & Society, National University of Ireland, Galway and with the Burton Blatt Institute, College of Law, Syracuse University, New York. Following his work at Syracuse University, Dr Harpur has been appointed an International Distinguished Fellow with the Burton Blatt Institute. He is the holder of a prestigious Fulbright Future Scholarship entitled “Universally Designed for Whom? Disability, the Law and Practice of Expanding the “Normal User”.

He has legal practice and teaching expertise in teaching anti-discrimination laws, human rights, labour laws and work health and safety laws.

Dr Paul Harpur’s focus on disability inclusion forms part of a group of world leading scholars across The University of Queensland who, individually and collectively, advance ability equality and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities. He chairs the UQ Disability Inclusion Group which supports the university in its implimentation of the UQ Disability Action Plan. Dr Harpur received a commendation in the 2019 UQ Awards for Excellence for his service to promoting disability inclusion and the UQ DIG received the highest accolade in the diversity category, the UQ Award for Excellence.

Dr Harpur’s recent monograph, Discrimination, Copyright and Equality: Opening the E-Book for the Print Disabled (2017) Cambridge University Press analyses the interaction between anti-discrimination and copyright laws. Dr Harpur has also led a range of projects, including an International Labour Organization project assessing labour rights in the South Pacific, including a particular focus on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Dr Harpur has a mixture of practice and research experience, having formerly practiced as a lawyer and continuing to work as an industrial relations special advisor in a national private practice, IRIQ Law, as a special advisor. Dr Harpur is active on boards and promoting the rights of persons with disabilities, as well as the rights of persons with disabilities to use assistance animals. He also regularly appears in the news speaking on disability law and policies.

Outside the law, Dr Harpur has previously been a professional athlete with a disability, competing in the 2000 Sydney and 2004 Athens Paralympics, the 2002 Manchester and 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games and a range of other World Titles and international competitions.

Dr Harpur’s publications and speeches can be found on his Google Scholar page. Further information can be found on his Linkedin page.

Open Law

Georgia on my Mind: Carl Malamud, Public.Resource.Org, Copyright Law, Government Edicts, and Access to Justice

Professor Matthew Rimmer (QUT Faculty of Law)

https://medium.com/media/40736444239cd91b71e309a41b83eb0e/href

Abstract

This presentation previews the Supreme Court of the United States case of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org. In 2013, Public.Resource.org (Public Resource) scanned all the volumes of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, and uploaded the documents to its website to be made freely available to the public. In 2015, the State of Georgia obtained an injunction against Public Resource in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for infringing Georgia’s copyright in the code’s annotations. In 2018, the Eleventh Circuit reversed this ruling, and held that ‘no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the [code].’ The State of Georgia has appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. According to SCOTUS.blog, the Supreme Court of the United States will consider whether ‘the government edicts doctrine extends to — and thus renders uncopyrightable — works that lack of the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia.’ There have been a plethora of submissions by friends of the court to the Supreme Court of the United States. The State of Georgia was supported by a number of states, the Software & Information Industry Association, and the LexisNexis Group. Public Resource has been supported by a coalition of libraries, copyright law reformers, and government accountability organisations. Next generation legal research platforms and databases and digital accessibility advocates have also supported Public Recourse. One of the most powerful submissions was by 119 students, 54 solo and small-firm practitioners of law, and 21 legal educators. This brief argued that ‘all amici are harmed when the creation of tools for reading, using, and analyzing the law are hobbled by a copyright system that is meant to encourage creation, not regulate civic access to government.’ This case will have important implications in respect of open access to government records and legal matters.

Biography

Dr Matthew Rimmer is a Professor in Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Faculty of Law, at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). He is a leader of the QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law research program, and a member of the QUT Digital Media Research Centre (QUT DMRC) the QUT Australian Centre for Health Law Research (QUT ACHLR), and the QUT International Law and Global Governance Research Program (QUT IP IL).

Rimmer has published widely on copyright law and information technology, patent law and biotechnology, access to medicines, plain packaging of tobacco products, intellectual property and climate change, and Indigenous Intellectual Property. As a chief investigator of an ARC Project on intellectual property and 3D printing. Rimmer is currently working on research on intellectual property, the creative industries, and 3D printing. He is a co-editor of 3D Printing and Beyond: Intellectual Property and Regulation. He has also been researching intellectual property and trade, looking at the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and the Trade in Services Agreement. His work is archived at QUT ePrints SSRN Abstracts Bepress Selected Works.

Session 2

Chair

Professor Matthew Rimmer (QUT Faculty of Law)

Open Culture

The Intergenerational Cultural Implications of Automated Regulatory Technologies in Digital Media Environments

Dr Joanne Gray (QUT DMRC and the Creative Industries Faculty)

https://medium.com/media/3133d95e7f90355fbb66801db70d9e34/href

Abstract

A diverse and highly generative culture must first be an open culture. We can only create and contribute to culture when we have freedom to play with existing ideas, techniques and resources. The development and deployment of algorithmic regulatory technologies, particularly those used to filter content and enforce copyright on the internet, substantially reduce levels of openness in critical social and cultural spaces and threaten to restrict cultural openness for generations to come. We should be very concerned by policymakers’ apparent embrace of and demand for the adoption of these technologies. The most recent European Union copyright directive, for example, in effect strongly incentivises platforms to deploy automated system to monitor for copyright infringement, and is regarded by some a viable and sensible policy model for other jurisdictions and subject matter. As automated regulatory technologies evolve, and if they are applied more broadly, we must examine and anticipate the intergenerational cultural implications.

Biography

Dr Joanne Gray is a Lecturer in the Creative Industries Faculty at QUT specialising in the regulation of digital media environments. Gray has also worked in the Australian music industry for over a decade, predominantly as an artist manager, progressing the careers of Australian recording and performing artists in Australia and internationally. Her forthcoming monograph Google Rules: The History and Future of Copyright under the Influence of Google will be available through Oxford University Press in January 2020.

Open Cities

Open Cities: Openness as a basis for Trustworthiness in Smart Cities

Brydon Timothy Wang (QUT)

https://medium.com/media/63d3e2f6d68ce94a5c767a9864b8bc33/href

Abstract

The proliferation of sensors in the built environment has given us an unprecedented ability to aggregate large data sets and model the physical assets of our cities.

These digital replicas are called ‘Digital Twins’ and allow us to utilise real-time inputs to simulate the effect of any changes made to our cities and inform our decision-making processes.

In 2018, the UK Digital Framework Task Group put forward 9 Gemini Principles. These principles articulate an ethical framework to ensure that development of digital models serve the public’s interests, creates valuable insights and economic benefit. The principles also serve to establish the technical expectations of these digital twins. But more importantly, the principles of openness and accountability are espoused to set in place trusted systems for how data is collected, owned and transferred, analysed and used to drive decision-making. As these digital systems and the urban data they rely on play an increasing role in decision-making in urban design, we must consider the principles of openness and accountability, and the other Gemini Principles, through a lens of trustworthiness.

Biography

Brydon is a technology and construction lawyer who is passionate about smart city technology, infrastructure delivery and new ways people can come together to live, work and play. He has a previous career in architecture and co-edited a book on Large Floating Structures, exploring environmentally-sustainable technologies that allow cities to expand onto adjacent water bodies. Prior to coming to the law, Brydon was a Project Manager with the Public Transport Authority (WA) and worked as a Contracts Administrator in a number of leading commercial construction firms. Brydon also teaches at the School of Law in QUT and the School of Architecture at the University of Queensland. Brydon is currently researching the legal implications of emerging trusted autonomous systems, particularly machine superintendence in construction contracts.

Open Additive Manufacturing

3D Printing, Sustainable Development and Openness: The Importance of Open-Source to Enable Disruptive Solutions in the 21st Century

Samuel Lobao (QUT)

https://medium.com/media/ff5ff72e22396259743353a987574232/href

Abstract

Based on my current research into the potential of utilising 3D printing as leveraging technology for achieving sustainable development goals, this presentation will highlight the importance of open-source innovation in order to consolidate this interface. In the last decade, this technology, once restricted to large industrial sites, has become more accessible to the public in a wider range of applications. Together with other digital technologies, 3D printers promise to democratise innovation as result for simplifying, expediting and redistributing manufacturing.

The open-source movement was, and still is, instrumental for this change. Following the expiration of the first patents, the RepRap project was an open-source project responsible for the first low-cost 3D printers focused on the general public. Being capable of self-replicating its parts, the RepRap grew popular with members of the Maker movement — one of the main reasons for the popularisation of 3D printing. As a consequence of the increasing popularity, many creative minds are using 3D printers to create new avenues of work against some persistent development problems. Amongst these new-millennia tinkers, the open-source model is extremely popular. As remarkable example, Careables.org is an open hardware project functioning as a platform for co-design and sharing of health products throughout new digital fabrication technologies.

These cases, amongst other examples of open-source initiatives, will serve to demonstrate some of the major contributions done by open models to the topic, revealing its importance as an enabling mechanism for innovative contributions and disruptive solutions in the 21st.

Biography

Session 3

Chair

Dr Quentin Pope (QUT Library)

Dr Quentin Pope is a Law Librarian at Queensland University of Technology (QUT). She holds a PhD in Biological Sciences from Moscow State University (MSU), and post-graduate degrees in Earth Sciences (MSU) and Information Management (QUT).

Quentin worked for many years as an Industrial Chemist for mining companies, a Research Fellow at universities and an Information Systems Analyst and Researcher for Cambia advising on patent and non-patent search strategies and bibliographic management. Quentin has published over 40 scientific papers.

Dr Quentin Pope:

https://www.library.qut.edu.au/about/contact/staff/q_pope.jsp

Open Agriculture

Can Agriculture Be ‘Open’ If No-One Shares?

Professor Jay Sanderson (University of the Sunshine Coast) and Associate Professor Leanne Wiseman (Griffith University)

https://medium.com/media/98fa8122c10b9c911c759b6d4c15f82c/href

Abstract

As global and domestic initiatives around open agriculture gather pace, it is necessary to consider legal frameworks and issues that may hinder or help the sharing of agricultural data. In this paper, we combine insights from a survey of Australian farmers with a legal analysis of the way in which agricultural data are collected, controlled, shared and used. We argue that the lack of transparency and clarity around issues such as data ownership, privacy and liability in the commercial relationships governing smart farming are contributing to farmers’ reluctance to engage in the widespread sharing of data. At the heart of the concerns is the lack of trust between the farmers as data contributors, and those third parties who collect, aggregate and share their data.

Biographies:

Jay Sanderson is Professor in Law at USC Australia and an Adjunct Research Fellow with the Law Futures Centre (Griffith Law School, Griffith University). Jay researches and publishes in the areas of intellectual property, food and agriculture; his current research focuses on trade marks, certification and BioTrade.

Contact: jsander4@usc.edu.au

Leanne Wiseman is Associate Director of Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA) and an Associate Professor in Law at Griffith University, Brisbane Australia. Leanne is an an interdisciplinary scholar whose research lies at the intersections of law and new and emerging technologies, with particular focus on agriculture. Her research has most recently focused on the legal and trust issues arising from the adoption of digital technologies in agriculture in a national and international context.

Contact: l.wiseman@griffith.edu.au

Open Data

Open Environmental Data: Strengthening Data Culture and Communities

Bernadette Hyland-Wood (UQ)

https://medium.com/media/9f468b8f72176a0018e8107b57b234b9/href

Abstract

Government data, including openly accessible data, serves to inform many important areas of public policy impacting on job creation, public health, energy and the environment. In liberal democracies, open government data are seen to support government transparency, and Right-to-Know laws, and advancement of science. Recently, federal science and environmental organizations with a long history of supplying open data have become the targets of funding cuts. If open government data are located in areas of political contestation, leaders may be tempted to order the concealment or removal of information from public websites. This study describes the potential disruption to scientific knowledge production and applied research when open data management is not prioritized or when a supportive culture for data sharing is lacking. One might expect an erosion of engagement during a period when ‘fake news’ makes daily headlines and evidence-based policymaking seems diminished. Paradoxically, recognition of the benefits of public investment in open data is serving as a rallying cry to scientists and open data advocates worldwide, and to public sector officials in over 70 countries who have adopted the Open Data Charter. The progress of public sector data champions and data-driven research communities forging open access frameworks and policies for sharing, linking and preserving publicly funded data are discussed. Scientists, data advocates and civil society organizations are engaging in informed discussion, defining and promoting robust mechanisms to prioritize, release, share and preserve this public good.

Keywords: evidence-based policy, open access, open data, open government data, open science, right-to-know

Biography

Ms. Bernadette Hyland-Wood is a UQ Global Change Scholar and PhD candidate at The University of Queensland School of Political Science and International Studies. Her PhD research is on sustainability of open government data and open science used for research investigations and policymaking. For over a decade, Bernadette pioneered U.S federal and international open data programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. She served as chair of the international W3C Government Linked Data Working Group. Passionate about STEM education, she was on the organising committee for the March for Science (Brisbane 2017) and was an inaugural digital ambassador for the World Science Festival (Brisbane 2018). A driving force for women in engineering, Bernadette was a co-founder of Women in Technology QLD (1997), supporting the professional development of women in STEM fields. Bernadette received the WiT Established Entrepreneur Award sponsored by the Queensland Government and ICT Outstanding Achievement Award (2017).

Contact info

Email b.hylandwood@uq.edu.au

Twitter https://twitter.com/BernHyland

LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/bhyland/

Open Robotics

Open versus Proprietary in Robotics: A Trillion Dollar Tension

Professor Michael Milford (QUT Science and Engineering Faculty)

https://medium.com/media/5d8b2f504941edf39c8d05134274be8c/href

Abstract

The technological arms race towards ubiquitous robotics, autonomous vehicles and artificial intelligence is one of the greatest in modern history, with speculation of a multi-trillion dollar market. At its core lies a strange tension between open source code and packages, which enables and drives many of the advances in the field, and highly proprietary technology developed in-house within corporations and start-ups. I will provide an overview of this interesting landscape, pointing out success cases in the robotics open access community, and detail some of the key ongoing and future challenges and opportunities.

Biography

Professor Milford conducts interdisciplinary research at the boundary between robotics, neuroscience and computer vision and is a multi-award winning educational entrepreneur. His research models the neural mechanisms in the brain underlying tasks like navigation and perception to develop new technologies in challenging application domains such as all-weather, anytime positioning for autonomous vehicles. He is also one of Australia’s most in demand experts in technologies including self-driving cars, robotics and artificial intelligence, and is a passionate science communicator. He currently holds the position of Professor at the Queensland University of Technology, as well as Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision.

Session 4

Chair

Associate Professor Tina Cockburn (Australian Centre for Health Law Research)

Tina Cockburn TEP is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at the Queensland University of Technology, Co-Director of the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, a sessional member of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and a member of the Queensland Law Society Health and Disability Law Committee.

Open Medicine

Open to Whom? Questions about Innovation and Access in the Health Sector

Dr Bruce Baer Arnold (University of Canberra)

https://medium.com/media/a4c5fc36ff59d4c965e4a0a8cb470690/href

Abstract

It is axiomatic that best practice in the development and delivery of health services involves openness: scrutiny by clinicians, researchers, policymakers and consumers. Openness as a matter of principle and practice may conflict with regulatory capture and with regulatory incapacity, in particular bureaucratic perceptions that ‘access’ to information involves inordinate administrative costs or inhibits the proper functioning of government. It is at odds with publishing practice that sees researchers in the North and South priced out of access. It more directly conflicts with traditional incentives for innovation through patent and other law providing investors with scope for egregious rent-seeking. That conflict is exacerbated by institutional cultures that emphasise commercialisation rather than ‘open science’. The presentation draws together practitioner regulation, intellectual property, freedom of information, confidentiality and contract law in exploring the scope for ‘open health’ as a basis for innovation in the emerging world of precision medicine and an agenda item for institutional reform.

Biography

Dr Bruce Baer Arnold teaches contract, intellectual property and innovation law at the University of Canberra. His research centres on law regarding access to information (in particular privacy, trade secrets and patents) and regulatory failure in the health sector. He is currently writing about genomic privacy principles and practice. He is on the editorial board of Privacy Law Bulletin and an OECD Health Information Infrastructure panellist. His work has appeared in Melbourne University Law Review, Journal of Medical Ethics, International Journal of Communication Law & Policy, Local Government Law Journal, Alternative Law Journal and other publications.

Open Biology

Opening up Biology? Evolution, or Revolution, of a Discipline

Associate Professor Wendy Bonython (Bond University)

https://medium.com/media/1e551b930be6ae2929189e55f4b3d083/href

Abstract

The study and observation of the natural world has long been a feature of human development. For much of that time, such study and observation, and reporting of its findings, has been undertaken by curious — or even accidental — amateurs. The rise of the professional scientist is only a comparatively recent phenomenon.

Professionalisation of biology has been a mixed experience for the discipline. Formalisation of training and education of scientists has been accompanied by increasingly restricted dissemination of data, and rigorous protection of discovery, often enforced by law, in a way that is inconsistent with fundamental principles of scientific enquiry. For sub-disciplines with greater commercialisation potential, such as medicine and established biotechnologies, professionalisation, protection, and ‘closed’ access have become the standardised — and arguably sustainable — way of doing business. For other subdisciplines of biology with fewer immediately-discernible economic benefits, and basic biological research, funding is scarce, opportunities for return on investment are fewer, and engagement is more likely to be based on pure scientific curiosity, or even altruism, than profit. ‘Open biology’ models, accompanied by adequate, but potentially different, protection mechanisms may represent an alternative to the existing dominant model of closed knowledge and intellectual property protection.

Biography

Associate Professor Wendy Bonython is a cross-disciplinary researcher at Bond University. Her research interests include the law and ethics of health, medical, and scientific technology research and regulation.

Open Neuroscience

Open Innovation through Open Neuroscience, Open Science

Scott Kiel-Chisholm (QUT Faculty of Law)

https://medium.com/media/102b514dbd54f63a5faeba933ebbea97/href

Abstract

Traditionally, patents are sought to protect the outcomes of neuroscientific research. In 2016, the Montreal Neurological Institute (the Neuro) at McGill University in Montreal, Canada established the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute, the first open science institute in the world. This presentation explores the Neuro’s Open Science initiative — open data, open materials and no patenting — the unique vision that radically transformed the way the Neuro provides access to knowledge. This includes an investigation of the Neuro’s Open Science model and the research benefits sought with this alternative to proprietary models of protection under patent law.

Biography

Scott Kiel-Chisholm is a Lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology Law School and is a PhD Candidate in Law at The University of Queensland and his thesis, currently under examination, is titled ‘Civil Liability Challenges for Neural Interface Devices: Reconceptualising the Law’. See Research with Impact.

Scott is a researcher with the Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program at QUT focusing on Regulating Life Sciences and Robotics and the Law. These areas are intertwined with neural interface devices and enable the continuation of the research undertaken in his PhD. He is also the unit coordinator of the new QUT Online subject, Think Like a Lawyer in the Digital World, the foundation subject in the new Graduate Certificate in Data and New Technology Law.

Videos:

Professor Virginia Barbour, ‘Not a Simple Relationship: Ensuring that Open Scholarship Maximises Equity and Benefit across Education’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/6lzFJiMb57E

Dr Paul Harpur with Michael Ashley Stein, ‘The Impact of the Marrakesh Treaty on the Print Disabled in the Global South’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/VgniCUllryY

Professor Matthew Rimmer, ‘Georgia on my Mind: Carl Malamud, Public.Resource.Org, Copyright Law, Government Edicts, and Access to Justice’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/s6xaZ0Qw300

Dr Joanne Gray, ‘The Intergenerational Cultural Implications of Automated Regulatory Technologies in Digital Media Environments’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/RxlkKl-8WOo

Brydon Timothy Wang, ‘Open Cities: Openness as a basis for Trustworthiness in Smart Cities’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/AqHiHmmf-A8

Samuel de Souza Teixeira Lobao, ‘3D Printing, Sustainable Development and Openness: The Importance of Open-Source to Enable Disruptive Solutions in the 21st Century’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/YJ5AGczlm3g

Professor Jay Sanderson and Associate Professor Leanne Wiseman, ‘Can Agriculture Be ‘Open’ If No-One Shares?’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/ncEXvZFIxtw

Bernadette Hyland-Wood, ‘Open Environmental Data: Strengthening Data Culture and Communities’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/H_iX5oNI9VQ

Professor Michael Milford, ‘Open versus Proprietary in Robotics: A Trillion Dollar Tension’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/Z4CuUCt8ijY

Dr Bruce Baer Arnold, ‘Open to Whom? Questions about Innovation and Access in the Health Sector’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/eaOGL6zG38c

Associate Professor Wendy Bonython, ‘Opening Up Biology? Evolution, Or Revolution, Of A Discipline’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/9d7hMVozow4

Scott Kiel-Chisholm, ‘Open Innovation through Open Neuroscience, Open Science’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 24 October 2019, https://youtu.be/1UHRRg51sQw

View more on Matthew Rimmer's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 10, 2019 20:12

October 30, 2019

Raising Climate Ambition: A Resolution for a Green New Deal

Matthew Rimmer

A number of Nobel Laureates in economics have been grappling with the problem of research, development, and transfer of clean technologies in order to tackle the climate crisis. Joseph Stiglitz has been investigating how intellectual property laws could be recalibrated and redesigned to better account for sustainable development and climate change. Stiglitz and his collaborators have argued: ‘A substantial recalibration of the international approach to Intellectual Property Rights is required to ensure the advancement of the standards of living and well-being of the entire world.’ In their view, ‘As the world continues to move towards greater integration and becomes more interdependent and faces up to the pressing challenge posed by our co-dependencies on each other, including global public health and climate change, these reforms will become more urgent.’

Another Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus has also been focused upon the best public policy options to promote the adoption of clean technologies. In his 2018 Nobel Lecture in Economics, Nordhaus stressed that ‘people must understand the gravity of global warming’, engage in ‘intensive research’ and resist ‘false and tendentious reasoning.’ He insisted that: ‘Nations must raise the price of CO2 and other greenhouse-gas emissions.’ Nordhaus also maintained that ‘policies must be global and not just national or local.’ He believes that ‘the best hope for effective coordination is a climate club.’ In his view, ‘rapid technological change in the energy sector is essential.’

In this context, Brown seeks to address one of the profound challenges of our time — namely, achieving a just transition to a low-carbon economy to address the wicked global problems of climate change. This foreword considers three key dimensions of the contribution of Brown’s book, Intellectual Property, Climate Change and Technology. First, it explores the work as a response to the need for global climate action in the wake of the Paris Agreement 2015. Second, the foreword examines how the book considers new legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks to address climate change. Third, it examines the focus of the book upon climate litigation as a means of encouraging government and corporate action in respect of climate change. Brown seeks to push for greater climate ambition in international agreements; in national policy; and in the courts.

Rimmer, Matthew (2019) Raising climate ambition: A resolution for a green new deal. In Brown, Abbe E.L. (Ed.) Intellectual Property, Climate Change and Technology: Managing National Legal Intersections, Relationships and Conflicts. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton (MA). The full version is available open access here — https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781788111102/03_foreword.xhtml and https://eprints.qut.edu.au/128789/

View more on Matthew Rimmer's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 30, 2019 21:02

3D Printing, the Maker Movement, IP Litigation and Legal Reform

WIPO Magazine

By Matthew Rimmer * , Professor in Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Faculty of Law in the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia

3D printing is a field of technology that relies upon additive manufacturing (as opposed to traditional subtractive manufacturing). 3D printing has also been associated with the Maker Movement — a social movement focused upon developing and sharing design files.

The field of 3D printing is currently undergoing a transitional phase. While the consumer 3D printing revolution has been a disappointment, there has been a rise in other forms and modes of 3D printing (photo: Courtesy of Queensland University of Technology).

The field of 3D printing is currently undergoing a transitional phase. The consumer 3D printing revolution — which was aimed at one day seeing a 3D printer in every home — has been a disappointment. The pioneering home 3D printing company MakerBot was embroiled in a number of controversies over its changing approach to intellectual property (IP), resulting in disenchantment with the open source maker community and alienation from its user-base. Bre Pettis, the former head of MakerBot, reflected in an interview, “the open-source community cast us out of heaven.” In the end, MakerBot was taken over by the leading 3D printing company Stratsys and was restructured and repurposed.

A number of other key companies became insolvent. TechShop, a chain of membership-based, open-access, do-it-yourself workshop and fabrication studios, went into bankruptcy. Maker Media — which runs Make Magazine and a couple of maker festivals in the United States — went into administration. Dale Dougherty, founder of Make Magazine has sought to revive the venture with Make Community LLC.

Industrial 3D printing continues to advance

While personal 3D printing has not developed as anticipated, there has been a rise in a number of other forms and modes of 3D printing. Industrial 3D printing — along with robotics and Big Data — has become integrated into advanced manufacturing. Information technology and design companies have sought to improve the applications of 3D printing. Metal 3D printing has attracted significant investment — particularly from transportation companies. There also has been much experimentation with health applications of 3D printing — such as dental 3D printing, medical 3D printing, and bioprinting.

As the technology has matured and advanced, there have been a number of early pieces of litigation and some policy developments in respect of 3D printing regulation. Our recent book 3D Printing and Beyond explores some of the key developments in IP and 3D printing. In particular, it investigates 3D printing issues in the domains of copyright law, designs law, trademark law, patent law, and trade secrets (as well as some larger questions about 3D printing regulation). It also looks at the use of open licensing models in respect of 3D printing.

3D printing and copyright law

Some years ago, there was moral panic that the advent of 3D printing would lead to a Napster-like scenario of large-scale copyright infringement. While this situation has not arisen, there have been various skirmishes involving copyright law and 3D printing. For example, Augustana College in the United States objected to the 3D scanning of Michelangelo statues although these were not covered by copyright and were clearly in the public domain. United States cable and TV network HBO objected to Fernando Sosa’s 3D printed Iron Throne Game of Thrones iPhone deck. American singer-songwriter Katy Perry complained about Fernando Sosa’s 3D printed Left Shark (although the work was later reinstated to the Shapeways 3D printing systems). The estate of French-American artist Marcel Duchamp had issues with a 3D printed set of chess pieces based upon the artist’s work.

The notice and takedown system of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (USA) has been employed with respect to 3D printing. Shapeways and a number of other 3D printing firms have been concerned about the impact this regime will have on 3D printing platforms and intermediaries.

There has also been debate over the use of technological protection measures in the context of copyright law and 3D printing. For example, the United States Copyright Office has recognized a narrow exception for technological protection measures in relation to 3D printing feedstock.

3D printing and designs law

Developments in 3D printing have also given rise to the right to repair an object.

In the European Union, there has been a push for the right to repair to help support consumer rights and the development of a circular economy. In this respect, the European Ecodesign Directive (Directive 2009/125/EC) has been an important driver of change in the behavior of companies and consumers.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission held a hearing in July 2019 on “Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions”. There remain significant divisions between IP holders and champions of the right to repair in the United States. Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has called for a right to repair bill to benefit farmers in agricultural communities in the United States.

In Australia, there was an important test case regarding the right to repair under design law (GM Global Technology Operations LLC v S.S.S. Auto Parts Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 97). The Australian Treasury has been considering policy options for sharing repair information in the motor vehicle industry.

The ACT (Australian Capital Territory) Consumer Affair Minister, Shane Rattenbury, has called for a right to repair at the Consumer Affairs Forum, which includes Ministers from both Australia and New Zealand. The Federal Minister Michael Sukkar has requested that the Australian Productivity Commission investigate the issue.

There has also been a push for right-to-repair legislation at both state and federal levels in Canada. In this regard, Laura Tribe, Executive Director of Open Media, has argued, “we’re really making sure people have the power to own their own devices”.

3D printing and trademark law

3D printing also disrupts trademark law and related legal regimes — such as passing off, personality rights, character merchandizing, and trade dress. The legal conflict over Katy Perry’s Left Shark trademark application highlights some of the issues in this field.

In the field of bioprinting, Advanced Solutions Life Sciences has sued Biobots Inc. for trademark infringement (Advanced Solutions Life Sciences, LLC v BioBiots Inc. 15 May 2017, 2017 WL2114969). Advanced Solutions Life Sciences owns and uses the registered trademark “Bioassemblybot” for three-dimensional bioprinting and tissue fabrication.

3D printing and patent law

As WIPO’s 2015 World Intellectual Property Report on Breakthrough Innovation and Economic Growth has shown, there has been a steady rise in patent applications in the field of 3D printing. A number of specialist industrial 3D printing companies — such as 3D Systems and Stratasys — have accumulated significant patent portfolios in respect of 3D printing. Major manufacturing companies — such as GE and Siemens — have also built up significant patent assets in the field of 3D printing and additive manufacturing. Information technology companies — like Hewlett Packard and Autodesk — are also notable players in the area of 3D printing.

With the rise in commercial value of 3D printing in the realm of manufacturing, there has been significant patent litigation over metal 3D printing. In July 2018, in Desktop Metal Inc. v Markforged, Inc. and Matiu Parangi (2018) (Case Number 1:18-CV-10524), a federal jury found that Markforged Inc. did not infringe two patents held by its rival Desktop Metal Inc (see Desktop Metal Inc. v Markforged, Inc. and Matiu Parangi (2018) 2018 WL 4007724 (D. Mass.) (jury verdict). In response, Greg Mark, CEO of Markforged Inc., commented, “we feel gratified that the jury found we do not infringe, and confirmed that the Metal X, our latest extension of the Markforged printing platform, is based on our own proprietary Markforged technology.” For its part, Desktop Metal noted that it was “pleased that the jury agreed with the validity of all claims in both of Desktop Metal’s patents asserted against Markforged.”

In 2018, Desktop Metal Inc. and Markforged Inc. subsequently reached a confidential financial settlement, thereby resolving all outstanding litigation between the two parties. However, in 2019, Markforged Inc. sued Desktop Metal Inc., claiming that its rival had breached the non-disparagement clause in the settlement.

3D printing and trade secrets

There has also been some early litigation in the area of trade secrets law and 3D printing. In 2016, a Florida-based startup 3D printing company, Magic Leap, sued two of its former employees for trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act in Federal Court in the Northern District of California (Magic Leap Inc. v Bradski et al (2017) Case Number 5:16-cvb-02852). In early 2017, the judge granted the defendants’ motion to strike, ruling that Magic Leap failed to disclose the asserted trade secrets with “reasonable particularity’”. The judge allowed Magic Leap to amend its disclosures. This matter was the subject of a “confidential agreement” in August 2017. In 2019, Magic Leap brought legal action against the founder of Nreal, claiming breach of contract, fraud, and unfair competition (Magic Leap Inc. v Xu, 19-cv-03445, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco)).

3D printing and open licensing

In addition to proprietary modes of IP protection, there has been extensive use of open licensing for 3D printing. A number of companies — like the Czech company Prusa Research; the Dutch-American company Shapeways; and Dutch company Ultimaker — have espoused an open source philosophy. The Maker Movement has relied upon open licensing to help share and disseminate 3D printing files. The State of the Commons 2017 report highlighted that Thingiverse was one of the top platforms for using Creative Commons licenses.

Other issues raised by 3D printing

In addition to matters of IP, 3D printing has also been posing a range of other legal, ethical, and regulatory issues. In the field of healthcare, regulatory authorities have grappled with personalized medicine. The United States Food and Drug Administration, and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration have held consultations about developing well-adapted regulations for medical 3D printing and bioprinting. The European Parliament has issued a resolution calling for an holistic approach to the regulation of 3D printing.

There is also ongoing litigation in the United States over the 3D printing of guns. A number of State Attorneys-General have sued the current Administration to halt a settlement between the Federal Government and Defense Distributed. And there have been a number of criminal cases in Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States over the 3D printing of guns. Law makers are discussing whether there should be new offenses in respect of the possession of digital blueprints for making 3D printed guns.

Biography

Dr. Matthew Rimmer is a leader of the QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law research program, and a member of the QUT Digital Media Research Centre, the QUT Australian Centre for Health Law Research, and the QUT International Law and Global Governance Research Program. He is the chief investigator of an Australian Research Council Discovery Project on IP and 3D Printing. Dr Rimmer has published widely on copyright law and information technology, patent law and biotechnology, access to medicines, plain packaging of tobacco products, IP and climate change, and Indigenous IP. He is currently working on research on IP, the creative industries, and 3D printing; IP and public health; and IP and trade, looking at the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and the Trade in Services Agreement. His work is archived at SSRN Abstracts and Bepress Selected Works and funded by the Australian Research Council.

Matthew Rimmer, ‘3D Printing, the Maker Movement, Intellectual Property Litigation and Legal Reform’, (2019) 5 WIPO Magazine 40–45 https://wipo.int/export/sites/www/wipo_magazine/en/pdf/2019/wipo_pub_121_2019_05.pdf QUT ePrints: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/132647/

Republished under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

View more on Matthew Rimmer's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 30, 2019 19:49

September 22, 2019

Tobacco Control in the Asia-Pacific

QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 19 September 2019

QUT Faculty of Law Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program

Thursday, 19 September 2019

5:30pm to 7:30pm

Z1064, Gibson Room, Level 10, Z Block

QUT Gardens Point Campus

OVERVIEW

This event is a research workshop focusing upon tobacco control in the Asia-Pacific. The World Health Organization has highlighted that the region of South-East Asia has high levels of smoking:

The 11 countries — Bangladesh, Bhutan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Timor Leste — comprising the WHO South-East Asia Region (SEAR) are inhabited by 1.536 billion people (in 2000) comprising about 25.35% of the world population. In regard to economic developmental level, the countries have also some parity. One half of them are developing countries; while the other half of countries fall into the category of the least developing countries. In regard to tobacco consumption, SEAR has some unique problems. The people in the region are used to both smoke and smokeless tobacco consumption. Four countries of the region — India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Thailand — are among the top 20 tobacco-producing countries in the world.

The research workshop will consider what Australia’s neighbours could learn from Australia’s pioneering tobacco control measures (such as advertising bans; graphic health warnings and plain packaging of tobacco products; and taxation of tobacco). It will examine the strategies for a tobacco endgame in the Asia-Pacific.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS

In keeping with the spirit of Reconciliation, we acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands — and recognise that these have always been places of teaching and learning.

We wish to pay respect to their Elders — past, present and emerging — and acknowledge the important role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within the QUT community.

PRESENTATIONS

Chair: James Farrell, General Manager, Advocacy at Cancer Council Queensland

Biography

James Farrell is the General Manager, Advocacy with Cancer Council Queensland, where he leads and drives the Cancer Council’s advocacy, creating and boldly pursuing opportunities that enable our vision of a cancer free future In that role, James collaborates with Cancer Council Groups across Queensland, the community and all levels of government to advance cancer control as a proponent for all Queenslanders and all types of cancers.

From 2011 to 2015, James was a lecturer with the Deakin University School of Law, where his research interests have been shaped by his experiences working with marginalised and disadvantaged clients, and his research focuses on poverty law, social justice and human rights.

James was Director of Community Legal Centres Queensland from 2013 to 2019, and a Team Leader and later Manager/Principal Lawyer with the PILCH Homeless Persons Legal Clinic from 2007 to 2011. He has been the Treasurer of both the National Association of Community Legal Centres and Victoria’s Federation of Community Legal Centres, and a member of the StreetSmart Australia grants committee. James was a centre fellow of the Centre for Rural Regional Law & Justice, a member of the Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Griffith Law School’s Visiting Committee, QUT’s Law Advisory Board and the UQ Pro Bono Centre’s advisory board, and an editorial board member of the Alternative Law Journal. James received a Churchill Fellowship in 2014 to investigate ‘how lawyers can empower communities to achieve change’. James has also served on the boards of community legal centres, an arts organisation and other community groups. In 2014, James was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for services to the community, particularly social welfare and legal access programs.

Protecting public health: How the tobacco industry continues its death march in the Asia-Pacific
Professor Dr Becky Freeman, the University of Sydneyhttps://medium.com/media/c5fd1b1ec775949bd77fbeec5e75690c/href

Abstract
It is tempting to believe that smoking is no longer a ‘real’ problem in Australia. Very few teenagers smoke anymore, public areas are largely smoke-free, and cigarettes are sold out of sight and in packages adorned only with diseased body parts and the most unappealing shade of green/brown. But, this belies a much bigger story where tobacco continues to rob vulnerable families and communities of decades of life. Tobacco is still sold on virtually every street corner, in every suburb, of every city, — even in the remotest of communities — all over Australia. Looking outwards, the Asia-Pacific region remains a haven for the tobacco industry, where cigarettes are heavily promoted, freely available, inexpensive, and viewed as socially acceptable and completely normal.

In response to its tainted reputation and the increasingly heavy hand of government regulation, the tobacco industry has attempted to recast itself as a partner in public health. These efforts are designed to weaken the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [FCTC] and drive a wedge in the highly effective alliance of public health stakeholders. The emergence of new tobacco products and ever creative ways of exploiting loopholes in existing tobacco advertising laws, requires vigilant monitoring and policy action to prevent a new generation of tobacco industry victims. Social media, paired with novel nicotine delivery devices, has created a whole new path to reaching young people — a path governments are struggling to understand, let alone regulate. A commitment to strengthening the implementation of the WHO FCTC is critical in an era of globally accessible media and a tobacco industry unwilling to play fair.

Biography

Dr Becky Freeman is Senior Lecturer with the Prevention Research Collaboration at the School of Public Health, University of Sydney. Her primary research interests include tobacco control, food advertising, and how online and social media influence public health. She is an established authority on the potential of the Internet to circumvent tobacco advertising bans.

She has prepared technical reports for the World Health Organization outlining how to monitor and regulate tobacco industry advertising and interference in tobacco control policy. Prior to pursuing her research interests in Australia, Becky worked for both government and not for profit organisations in Canada and New Zealand. All her research papers are available from http://tinyurl.com/drbfreeman and you can follow her on Twitter @DrBFreeman

2. The Plain Packaging Revolution in the Asia-Pacific
Professor Matthew Rimmer, QUT

https://medium.com/media/5038282c07b22bc909cb5292b35557a3/href

Abstract
This presentation considers the implications of Australia’s successful defence of plain packaging of tobacco products for nation states in the Asia-Pacific.

Australia has justified plain packaging of tobacco products in an array of fora. The Commonwealth defeated a challenge by Big Tobacco in the High Court of Australia — with a majority of 6–1 judges holding that plain packaging of tobacco products did not constitute an acquisition of property. An investor action brought by Philip Morris against Australia under an investment agreement between Hong Kong and Australia was dismissed as an ‘abuse of process.’ In response to complaints by Ukraine, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Indonesia, the Government of Australia defended the introduction of plain packaging of tobacco products in the World Trade Organization. Australia will be further safeguarding the regime in the World Trade Organization against appeals by a couple of those nations.

Emulating Australia’s example, there has been a first wave of countries — including the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, and France — which have adopted plain packaging of tobacco products. There is a need to encourage further nations to follow suit — particularly in South East Asia, where the tobacco industry has been targeting its marketing resources. There have been some promising signs of legislative action by a number of nations. Thailand has made plain packaging mandatory from the 12th September 2019. Cigarette packs are to be sold in plain packaging in Singapore from the 1 July 2020 — after the passage of legislation there. Malaysia has also been reviewing the adoption of plain packaging of tobacco products. Sri Lanka is well-advanced with plans for the introduction of plain packaging of tobacco products.

In other jurisdictions, there has been concern that Big Tobacco has been subverting tobacco regulations. In India, Modi’s Government has introduced graphic health warnings — but Reuters has reported that Big Tobacco has been flouting tobacco control measures. In Pakistan, there has been concern that tobacco companies have been making political donations in order to delay the introduction of tobacco control measures.

There remain a number of jurisdictions in South East Asia, which have been hostile to tobacco control. Indonesia’s support of tobacco companies remains a great concern — both domestically and internationally. Indeed, the ABC recently described Indonesia as ‘Big Tobacco’s Disneyland’, with great health costs emanating from tobacco use and consumption. Likewise, state investment in tobacco in China may be a factor in holding back public health reforms.

There has been worry about how regional trade agreements — such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership — will affect the flexibilities of nation states in implementing tobacco control measures. There is a need for concerted approach amongst nations in South-East Asia in implementing the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 2003 and adopting a common approach to plain packaging of tobacco products.

Biography

Rimmer has published widely on copyright law and information technology, patent law and biotechnology, access to medicines, plain packaging of tobacco products, intellectual property and climate change, and Indigenous Intellectual Property. As a chief investigator of an ARC Project on intellectual property and 3D printing. Rimmer is currently working on research on intellectual property, the creative industries, and 3D printing. He is a co-editor of 3D Printing and Beyond: Intellectual Property and Regulation. He has also been researching intellectual property and trade, looking at the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and the Trade in Services Agreement. His work is archived at QUT ePrints SSRN Abstracts Bepress Selected Works.

3. Proposals to End the Cigarette Epidemic in the Asia-Pacific

Associate Professor Coral Gartner, University of Queensland

https://medium.com/media/18097f172a01b81fc57a6ac0f4defc8b/href

Abstract
An ongoing dialogue has developed in the tobacco control field about how to finally end the cigarette epidemic, sometimes referred to as the “tobacco endgame”. This has been defined as “having an explicit government intention and plan to achieve close to zero prevalence of tobacco use” and “a clearly stated government ‘end’ target date within a maximum of two decades”.

In the Asia-Pacific Region, the small country of Bhutan banned all domestic cultivation, manufacture, sale, and distribution of tobacco products in 2010. New Zealand has also featured prominently in endgame discussions with the Government adopting a Smokefree 2025 goal in 2011. A number of policy options have been proposed by New Zealand academics and tobacco control advocates to achieve this goal, such as a ‘sinking lid’ on tobacco sales.

In Singapore, Khoo and colleagues proposed banning the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after the year 2000. A proposal that was also considered, but not adopted, by the Tasmanian parliament. A number of Australian tobacco control researchers and advocates have also proposed various pathways to a cigarette endgame. Examples include Gray’s “Three Phase Policy”, Borland’s Regulated Market Model, and Chapman’s Smoker Licensing Scheme. Some of these proposals incorporate a role for lower risk nicotine products, while others do not.

This presentation will look at the state of the cigarette epidemic in Asia-Pacific Countries, give an overview of tobacco endgame proposals in the Asia-Pacific region, discuss public support for phasing out tobacco sales and progress toward ending the cigarette epidemic in the region.

Biography

Associate Professor Gartner’s main research interest is in evaluating strategies to reduce the harm from tobacco use. She leads the Nicotine and Tobacco Regulatory Science Research Group.

Coral is also the program convenor for the Master of Environmental Health Sciences program. She has a background in environmental health and environmental epidemiology. Her previous research has included control of the dengue fever vector, Aedes aegypti and environmental risk factors for Parkinson’s disease.

Her current primary research field is in the area of tobacco control policy and interventions to reduce tobacco-related harms. Her research interests include tobacco harm reduction and monitoring community illicit drug use via wastewater analysis. Her research methods includes cohort studies, mixed method studies, epidemiological modelling and clinical trials.

Presentations

Dr Becky Freeman, ‘Protecting public health: How the tobacco industry continues its death march in the Asia-Pacific’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 19 September 2019 https://youtu.be/slmRD49Q5wI

Professor Matthew Rimmer, ‘The Plain Packaging Revolution in the Asia-Pacific’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 19 September 2019, https://youtu.be/AEUdINdLv7c

Associate Professor Coral Gartner, ‘Proposals to End the Cigarette Epidemic in the Asia-Pacific’, QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program, 19 September 2019, https://youtu.be/_EebBrG7tps

View more on Matthew Rimmer's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 22, 2019 23:02

August 21, 2019

Intellectual Property and Trade in the Pacific Century

Intellectual Property and Trade in the Pacific Century

QUT IP And Innovation Law Research Symposium

22 June 2017

https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/20170622-intellectual-property-and-trade-in-the-pacific-century-tickets-34710792916#

With the election of US President Donald Trump and the fall of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has taken on a new importance in the Asia-Pacific. RCEP is one of the leading potential economic frameworks for the Asia-Pacific region. The proposed membership of RCEP is based upon the ASEAN framework. The negotiations involve ASEAN trading partners — such as the Republic of Korea, China, India, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. RCEP is both an opportunity and a challenge for Australia in a time of uncertainty in the global trading system. This one day symposium will explore the geopolitics of the RCEP negotiations. The event will consider key chapters of the proposed agreement — dealing with intellectual property, investment, innovation, electronic commerce, agriculture, public health, the environment, and trade in services. This event will consider the future evolution of RCEP in the Pacific Century.

The speakers included Dr Shiro Armstrong, Professor Lisa Toohey, Professor Jane Kelsey, Professor Matthew Rimmer, Professor William van Caenegem, Associate Professor Jay Sanderson, Associate Professor Judith McNamara, Dr Burcu Kilic, Dr Felicity Deane, and Professor Luke Nottage.

Asia’s Response to Uncertainty in the Global Trading System: Dr Shiro Armstrong (ANU)

https://medium.com/media/fe189f590ebaf57e9a15f5a956c6bca1/href

The Trojan Horse of e-Commerce — Professor Jane Kelsey (University of Auckland)

https://medium.com/media/5b6f49bc7f58fec55a9de6a1e5d2b039/href

Identity, Security and Trade: Professor Lisa Toohey (University of Newcastle)

https://medium.com/media/54ecffa31b5c49c3f21dc6a1baf917ea/href

RCEP, Copyright Law, the Digital Economy, and the Pacific Century — Professor Matthew Rimmer

https://medium.com/media/66d5d9392f92c40507f003766d59a134/href

Impact of RCEP on Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region — Judith McNamara (QUT)

https://medium.com/media/5fa09714acb35e2506bb09f31273367d/href

The RCEP and plant variety rights: Is it in the interest of farmers and food? Jay Sanderson

https://medium.com/media/49ab85daa5fd0ffb3b5384fa25c0e695/href

Geographical Indications and Trademarks in the Asia-Pacific region. Professor William van Caenegem

https://medium.com/media/de4460b87e35554343b67d4087f5d045/href

Dangers for Access to Affordable Medicines in RCEP — Dr Burcu Kilic (Public Citizen)

https://medium.com/media/06428b751d265f700805c5dfa4f76221/href

Climate Change, Maritime Emissions and Transparency — Dr Felicity Deane (QUT)

https://medium.com/media/d748f02c9dd4c7d54eb95c01d0b2b015/href

View more on Matthew Rimmer's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 21, 2019 22:06

← Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next →

Matthew Rimmer's Blog

Matthew Rimmer's profile
4 followers

Matthew Rimmer isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.