Matthew Rimmer's Blog, page 6
October 16, 2018
What next for mega trade deals?
17th October 2018
QUT’s leading legal expert on the Trans Pacific Partnership says the deal has profound impacts for Australia but warns settlement of cross-border disputes by an international tribunal remains controversial.
Professor Matthew Rimmer, from QUT’s Faculty of Law, said it had taken more than a decade to do but today the Australian Senate passed the legislation by 33 votes to 15.
“The most controversial issues remained investor-state dispute settlement, labour rights, health care and the protection of the environment,” Professor Rimmer said.
The TPP deal, which had originally included the United States, was reported to strip 98 per cent of tariffs for the 11 membership countries.
“The Coalition maintains the agreement benefits agriculture, mining and trade in services,” Professor Rimmer said.
Australia is the fourth country to ratify the deal after Mexico, Japan and Singapore. For the deal to enter into force globally, two more nations need to ratify the agreement.
Professor Rimmer said debate was continuing in Vietnam and Malaysia but should be the next two nations to endorse the free trade accord.
The trade deal would then come into force between member countries from 2019.
“The past month has been a watershed moment in international trade law, with critical developments in respect of mega-regional agreements in the Pacific Rim, North America, Great Britain and the European Union,” he said.
“The United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement will certainly have ramifications for the TPP, especially given how it has affected Mexico and Canada.
Professor Rimmer said the big question remained as to whether the US re-joined the TPP at a later date.
“If so, there will be significant questions as to whether suspended provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be revived, particularly relating to intellectual property such as copyright law, patent law, and biologics, and investment,” he said.
Professor Rimmer is a top researcher from QUT’s Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program which is focused on intellectual property, international trade, economic globalisation and public policy.
He is available for media requests.
Media contacts:
media@qut.edu.au
After hours: Rose Trapnell, 0407 585 901
https://www.qut.edu.au/news?id=137111
July 24, 2018
Prosecco wars: an aperitif for new Australia-EU trade talks
QUT Media, 24th July 2018What’s in a name? A lot when it comes to which country owns the rights to the name prosecco, a grape variety, that produces a sparkling wine well-loved in Australia and Italy.
But this is no bar room brawl, says QUT Professor in Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Matthew Rimmer, but a major test case for the nature of geographical indications (GIs) for food and wine under the proposed new Australia-European Free Trade Agreement.
QUT Faculty of Law will hold a seminar this Thursday from 1pm in the Gibson Room, Level 10 of Z Block at QUT Gardens Point that will examine intellectual property, trade and innovation landscape of proposed trade agreements between Australia, the UK and the EU post-Brexit.
“The prosecco issue is one of the many skirmishes we could see if the European community seeks to expand the protection of GI to include a wider range of wine regions, as well as food and foodstuffs under the proposed new trade agreement,” Professor Rimmer said.
“Italy has indicated it wants a GI for prosecco during the Australia-EU negotiation.
“Understandably, Australian winemakers are irate about this. As Brown Brothers’ Ross Brown has said: ‘It’s quite a sleight of hand for the Italians to claim prosecco as a GI when for so long it’s been a grape variety’.”
Professor Rimmer said there had been previous disputes over GIs in Australia.
“We’ve seen litigation in the past over the Australian GI boundaries, for example, for Coonawarra and the King Valley as well as tension over other regions such as the Hunter Valley and the Margaret River.”
Professor Rimmer said Australia is determined to maintain the distinction between GI and the variety of grapes or other foodstuffs.
“Federal Trade Minister Steven Ciobo has said while every effort would be made to maximise our access to the EU market, Australia would also seek GI outcomes that enable the use of grape variety names such as prosecco.”
“As Federal Opposition rural and regional Australia spokeswoman Lisa Chesters says: ‘What’s next? It would be the equivalent of you can no longer call pizza ‘pizza’.”
Professor Rimmer said Australia well understands the importance of protecting the branding of regional foods.
“Australia has relied upon trademarks to protect regional food such as King Island cheese and beef, Beechworth honey and Bega cheese.”
Other speakers at the seminar include:
QUT Chair of Digital Economy Professor Marek Kowalkiewicz who will outline the challenges and opportunities of the digital economy and discuss how they are being addressed by QUT’s academics and their partners around the world.
Dr Ben Wellings, Monash University, on an analysis of the elite drivers of Brexit who feel the UK has not had enough globalisation and a return to trade with the Anglosphere — USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Dr Alexandra George, University of New South Wales, on the likely effects Brexit will have on copyright, patent, trademark and design law in Britain and the EU.
Dr Rita Matulionyte, University of Newcastle, on the significant differences in intellectual property chapters in the EU’s recently negotiated trade agreements with South Korea, Canada and Japan.
QUT Media contacts:
Niki Widdowson, 3138 2999 or n.widdowson@qut.edu.au
After hours: Rose Trapnell, 0407 585 901, or media@qut.edu.au.
QUT Media Press Release: https://www.qut.edu.au/news?id=133473
Wines of King Valley
https://medium.com/media/17b6ee833731178500df254aba646b63/href
May 30, 2018
Stomp out smoking with global plain packaging
30th May 2018
Law-makers in South East Asia should follow Australia’s lead and stomp out ‘glamourous’ cigarette packaging, says a QUT law academic in the lead-up to World No Tobacco Day (May 31).
In 2012 Australia became the first country in the world to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes — a move that aimed to “kill the glamour”, make smoking less appealing to all ages, limit misleading packaging, and provide more obvious health warnings.
QUT Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Innovation Law Matthew Rimmer said Australia’s plain packaging law was a hard-fought win.
“In 2011–2012 two tobacco companies challenged plain packaging in the High Court of Australia where they unsuccessfully argued the Australian Government was trying to acquire their intellectual property, including trademarks, without proper compensation,” Professor Rimmer said.
“Australia has also had to defend its introduction of plain packaging several times on the world stage over accusations from other countries that the new rules infringed international trade.
“But we have held firm and shown that intellectual property, public health and international trade can all co-exist.
“Australia’s groundbreaking plain packaging of tobacco products has proven to be an effective means of tackling the global tobacco epidemic, alongside other tobacco control measures.
“A number of other nations such as New Zealand, Ireland, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada have followed Australia’s lead.
“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. Our close neighbour Indonesia has one of world’s highest smoking rates, with two-thirds of adult males still smoking and children of any age legally able to buy and smoke cigarettes.
“We need to tackle the heartbreaking tragedy of the tobacco epidemic on a global level.”
Plain packaging removes logos, colours, brand images and promotional information from cigarette packages, with all cigarettes in Australia now contained in a standard colour pack with a standard font, and a large, graphic health warning.
The QUT Faculty of Law has released a special issue of the QUT Law Review on the Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products, which includes case studies by guest writers on Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada.
Is alcohol and food next?
In the QUT Law Review, QUT’s Dr Hope Johnson has also outlined lessons for other health campaignersregarding tobacco companies’ fight against plain packaging and the issue of ‘investor-state dispute settlement’ (ISDS).
“The strategies adopted by tobacco companies to prevent or delay regulation often parallel those adopted by the alcohol and food industries,” she writes.
“Tobacco use, unhealthy diets and alcohol abuse are three of the four main modifiable behaviours that increase the risk of non-communicable diseases, such as cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
“… In the case of food, a state (country) may be more likely to avoid liability under ISDS if it introduces consumption-control measures for particular substances with well-established negative health impacts (eg transfats) and specific products (eg sugar-sweetened beverages), rather than applying control measures like restriction on marketing across a range of products, such as unhealthy food.”
World No Tobacco DayThis year’s World No Tobacco Day has the theme “Tobacco Breaks Hearts” and will focus on the impact tobacco has on the cardiovascular health of people worldwide.
https://medium.com/media/7e7dbf9c1ec74266743bce786bcbc2bc/hrefQUT became a smoke-free university on July 1, 2016, with smoking banned across all campuses and QUT-controlled sites.
QUT Media contacts
- Mechelle McMahon,
media@qut.edu.au
- Karen Milliner,
media@qut.edu.au
/ 0407 585 901 (incl after hours)
May 13, 2018
QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law: Research Themes 2018
QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law
Research Themes 2018
International Trade and Sustainable DevelopmentIntellectual PropertyPrivacy, Free Speech, and Human RightsInnovation Law and PolicyOpen Access to Knowledge and CultureInternational Trade and Sustainable Development
Director — Professor Matthew Rimmer
Professor Matthew RimmerWe undertake research in the global governance of intellectual property, innovation, international trade, and sustainable development. The research team consider the role played by international organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization and other multilateral bodies. We explore the international legal response to global issues relating to innovation — including:
Electronic Commerce and The Digital EconomyAccess to Essential MedicinesThe Plain Packaging of Tobacco ProductsClimate ChangeFood Security, Access to Genetic Resources, and BiodiversityThe United Nations Sustainable Development GoalsWe evaluate bilateral agreements between Australia and key trading partners, such as the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, India, and Indonesia. We also explore the rise of regional trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).
Intellectual Property
Director — Dr Kylie Pappalardo
Dr Kylie PappalardoWe consider how well intellectual property law (including copyright, patent law, trade marks, designs and trade secrets) works for the people it purports to regulate: creators, inventors, intermediaries, companies and users.
The research theme covers several key projects:
· Copyright and creative communities — this project considers how creators and makers: understand and manage copyright law; relate to their creations and the creations of others, particularly in a technological-enabled remix and production culture; and derive value from their work, including through generating income and managing the economics of creation.
· Indigenous Intellectual Property — this project examines how Australia’s intellectual property system applies to Indigenous creations and traditional knowledge, and how that system can be improved to facilitate more culturally-appropriate and respectful interactions between Australian law and Indigenous value systems.
· Intermediary liability — this project analyses the circumstances in which intermediaries are held liable for the infringement of copyright law by others. This project also explores challenges in respect of intermediary liability under trademark law as well.
· New challenges in patent law — this project explores the way that new technologies, including 3D printing, artificial intelligence and robotics, and blockchain, impact the functioning of the patent system. It also considers the increasing global significance of trade secrets protection and the tension between patent law and trade secret law.
Privacy, Free Speech, and Human Rights
Directors — Associate Professor Nicolas Suzor , and Dr Monique Mann . Dr Angela Daly (until June 2018)
Dr Monique MannThis research project explores freedom of speech, privacy, and human rights in a digital age. Key projects include:
Human rights obligations of platforms — Internet Intermediaries distribute, host, and index online content. They play a crucial role in our digital economy and culture, providing key infrastructure for people and companies to communicate and access information online. Intermediaries are increasingly being asked to enforce law and social norms. These gatekeepers are in a powerful position to monitor user behaviour, remove content, and censor speech. Our research examines both the liability and the social responsibility of intermediaries as an increasingly important and powerful regulatory force in the online environment. We interrogate the balance between the pressure to enforce laws and the need for adequate safeguards for due process, freedom of speech, and innovation.Privacy, surveillance and encryption –The research project examines successive Australian Law Reform Commission inquiries into privacy law into Australia. It evaluates the operation of confidential information and trade secrets, and a proposal for a statutory cause of action for serious invasion of privacy. This research project also examines the protection of information privacy. This research project explores the threats posed to liberty, freedom, and privacy by data retention laws and mass surveillance. This study also examines the debate over encryption — the ‘war on maths’.Pathways to Ethical Data — In recent years, there has been an exponential increase in the collection, aggregation and automated analysis of information by government and private actors, and in response to this there has been a significant critique regarding what could be termed ‘bad’ data practices in the globalised digital economy. These include the mass gathering of data about individuals, in opaque, unethical and at times illegal ways, and the increased use of that data in unaccountable and potentially discriminatory forms of algorithmic decision-making by both state agencies and private companies. Issues of data ethics and data justice are only likely to increase in importance given the totalizing datafication of society and the introduction of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and automation.Innovation Law and Policy
Director — Dr Angela Daly (until June 2018) and then Professor Matthew Rimmer
Dr Angela DalyWe explore the regulation of emerging technologies such as 3D printing, robotics and AI, life sciences and energy democracy. Our research cuts across a variety of areas of law including sector-specific regulation, IP, competition, human rights and criminal law. Areas of interest include:
3D Printing and the Internet of ThingsRobotics Law and PolicyArtificial Intelligence RegulationBiometrics and Surveillance TechnologiesRegulating the Life SciencesDemocratising EnergyBitcoin, Blockchain and Financial TechnologiesOpen Access to Knowledge and Culture
Director — Associate Professor Nicolas Suzor
Associate Professor Nicolas SuzorFor the first time in recorded human history, the technology exists to enable all people to access the cultural and knowledge goods they need to learn and flourish. Access to culture and knowledge, however, remains highly unevenly distributed. We study models for the production, distribution, and stewardship of information that can help ensure that all people have access to the wealth of human knowledge and the capabilities to participate in culture.
Our research projects for 2018 focus particularly on:
* Measuring the impact and value of open access publishing
* Free and open textbooks: business models and knowledge commons — what are the requirements for sustainable collective action?
Research Members
Associate Professor Nicolas Suzor
Research Director
Dr Matthew Rimmer is a Professor in Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Faculty of Law in 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 IL GG). 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. He is currently working on research on intellectual property, the creative industries, and 3D printing; intellectual property and public health; and intellectual property 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 QUT ePrints SSRN Abstracts and Bepress Selected Works .
Attribution
QUT Staff Photographs
May 12, 2018
The Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products — QUT Law Review — Open Access
Poster: Get ready for plain packagingWorld No Tobacco Day — 31 May 2016
The QUT Law Review has officially published the final version of Volume 17 (2) — Special Issue on the Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products. This issue looks at important legal and regulatory issues surrounding plain packaging reforms and the ways in which other jurisdictions have approached plain packaging reform and policy. In particular, it covers Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Ireland.
The special issue arose out of an interest in publishing a volume of papers that specifically considered some of the challenges surrounding the introduction and consideration, in some countries, of plain packaging legislation. The Australian government has been the front-runner in considering and implementing changes to tobacco packaging, with many countries now looking to follow suit.
This issue contains eight articles written by experts in the field, and includes an editorial by the Hon. Nicola Roxon.
See below for a list of the papers which are now available online at: https://lr.law.qut.edu.au/issue/view/55
Special Issue on Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products
Plain Packaging Special Issue — Editorial by The Honourable Nicola Roxon
Tobacco Plain Packaging in Australia: JT International v Commonwealth and Beyond by Catherine Bond
Regulatory Chill: Learnings from New Zealand’s Plain Packaging Tobacco Law by Jane Kelsey
Property and Proportionality: Evaluating Ireland’s Tobacco Packaging Legislation by Eoin O’Dell
The Tobacco Industry’s Challenge to the United Kingdom’s Standardised Packaging Legislation — Global Lessons for Tobacco Control Policy? by Jonathan Griffiths
Making the Case for Canada to Join the Tobacco Plain Packaging Revolution by Becky Freeman
Investor-State Dispute Settlement and Tobacco Control: Implications for Non-Communicable Diseases Prevention and Consumption-Control Measures by Hope Johnson
The Global Tobacco Epidemic, the Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products, and the World Trade Organization by Matthew Rimmer
Tobacco-Free Investment: Harnessing the Power of the Finance Industry in Comprehensive Tobacco Control by Bronwyn King, Clare Payne, Emily Stone
March 21, 2018
Bioprinting Regulation
QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Program
11 December 2017
Bioprinting Regulation, QUT, 11 December 2017, https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/20171211-ipil-workshop-bioprinting-regulation-tickets-39539306129
Date: Monday 11 December 2017
When: 9.00am — 4.30pm
Venue: Seminar Room, KG-Z9–607
QUT Kelvin Grove Campus,
Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove
About the Event
3D printing, Bioprinting, and additive manufacturing promise to revolutionise healthcare, medicine, and surgery. There have been high hopes that the field will result in the next industrial revolution. Governments have invested in makerspaces, fab labs, incubators, and accelerators in order to encourage innovation in the area.
Nonetheless, this disruptive technology poses a range of legal, ethical, and regulatory challenges. There has been a debate about the regulation of 3D printing by food and health regulators. There has been emerging conflicts in the field of intellectual property over 3D printing, bioprinting, and additive manufacturing. Moreover, there have been larger issues in respect of product liability and 3D printing.
3D printing raises larger questions about the relationship between creativity, art, design, and science. There has been much interest in the role of 3D printing in education. 3D printing and bioprinting have also featured in popular culture — from Westworld to Ghost in the Shell.
This research workshop brings together an interdisciplinary range of researchers from science, law, geography, history and art to consider the various dimensions of bioprinting. The event hopes to raise public policy questions about the regulation of 3D printing, bioprinting, and additive manufacturing. The event will provide practical recommendations about intellectual property management and regulation to bioprinting researchers, scientists, and engineers.
Speakers
Patentability and Bioprinting: Where to From Here?
Professor Dianne Nicol, University of Tasmania
Dr Jane Nielsen, University of Tasmania
https://medium.com/media/b1dec8add8d3cbd6c609ca85c979eb9f/hrefAbstract: As research into bioprinting products and processes continues to progress, questions arise as to how we balance incentive and access, the perennial problem in the innovation sphere. Inventors in this space are likely to seek patents to protect their inventions, and reap benefits from their investments. Patents are invaluable for protecting inventions that comprise patentable subject matter, are new, useful and contain an inventive step. Many bioprinting inventions might fulfil these criteria, but the reality is that patents are expensive to apply for and maintain. In the bioprinting world where a major benefit is customised production, patents over methods will predominate. Patents over bioprinted products are less likely to be useful because of the tendency toward bespoke rather than mass produced products. The level of specificity required in patent claims means that claims for each bioprinted product will differ sufficiently that they are effectively different products.
Recent case law has demonstrated that courts have grappled with whether patents over innovative methods constitute patentable subject matter. The jurisprudence in question crosses disciplinary boundaries and there is recent case law in the areas of biomedicine, information technology and methods of medical treatment that will potentially impact on the patentability of biomedical inventions. It includes cases such as D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics and its US counterpart, Mayo v Prometheus, Ariosa v Sequenon, Alice v CLS Bank and Apotex v Sanofi-Aventis. This paper will briefly consider this case law, and attempt to draw some conclusions as to when bioprinting methods will satisfy the patentable subject matter requirement.
Given that the patentability of bioprinting methods is likely to be contentious, it is not out of the question that the exclusion of certain methods used in the treatment of human beings, might be contemplated in Australia. International IP legislation provides for such an exclusion, and the question that arises should such an exclusion be contemplated, is its potential scope and applicability to bioprinting methods. This paper argues that a better approach would be to consider whether perceived access barriers to the technology might be better addressed through exemptions to patentability, like the experimental use exemption, or a therapeutic exception to infringement, such as that which operates in the US. The way in which these exemptions to infringement might operate in practice will be considered in this paper.
Patentability and Bioprinting: Where to From Here? Professor Dianne Nicol and Dr Jane Nielsen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtH0-uKnwGM
Hospitals of the Future: Bioprinting, Intellectual Property, Innovation Law and Public Health
https://medium.com/media/06aeb2f80cbabe8f3eb958a48e34f201/hrefAbstract: This paper will consider the topic of intellectual property and bioprinting. It will examine the public policy issues raised in respect of intellectual property and bioprinting. In terms of patentable subject matter, there has been concern of late in the judiciary about the limits of what is patentable. This study will consider the position of bioprinting — in light of recent rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and the High Court of Australian in respect of eligible patentable subject matter in a string of cases. The project will chart the landscape for patents in respect of bioprinting. In particular, it will focus upon leaders in the field — such as Organovo Inc., Koninklijke Philips, Wake Forest University, Hewlett-Packard, the University of Texas, Medprin Regenerative Medical Technologies Co Ltd, and Corning Incorporated. This data analysis will look at the databases of the World Intellectual Property Organization, IP Australia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, and the Japanese Patent Office. The study will seek to illuminate patent trends in the field. Moreover, it will seek to analyse patent thickets and white spaces in the field of bioprinting. This will be of considerable importance in determining the freedom to operate for researchers and scientists working in the field. 3D printing and bioprinting also raises larger questions about the nature of patent infringement, and the role and scope of patent exceptions. There has been interest in public licensing, patent pools, and open innovation in respect of bioprinting. The historical conflicts over access to essential medicines also highlight the need to consider questions in respect of intellectual property, bioprinting, and public health. This paper was also consider the relevance of other fields of intellectual property — most notably, there has been a trademark conflict over BioBots. This paper will also investigate the intersection between intellectual property, regulation, innovation law, and public health.
Hospitals of the Future: Bioprinting, Intellectual Property, Innovation Law and Public Health — Professor Matthew Rimmer https://youtu.be/Joy1s6RDP4U
Talking to experts: what we are learning about medical 3D printing, regulation and innovation from 3DPIP Futures workshops
https://medium.com/media/f17e5025a83a32fdb78b9a56b53ad886/hrefAbstract: This presentation will present some initial findings from the UK IPO-funded 3DPIPFutures project. We have been conducting innovative horizon-scanning workshops with 3D printing industry and ecosystem stakeholders in a number of countries during 2017 in order to understand the state of 3D printing in that location, interactions with the IP system and possible future outlooks for the relationship between 3D printing and IP. Alongside these questions, focus group participants have pointed to broader issues for the relationship between 3D printing in the medical field and law, as well as how different cultural norms may influence applications of the technology and may present barriers to take-up.
Talking to Experts: What We Are Learning from 3D Printing IP Futures Workshops — Dr Angela Daly https://youtu.be/zlsrkdor7NI
3D Printing and Development
Dr Thomas Birtchnell, University of Wollongong
Abstract: In this presentation I give attention to various actors relevant to the technologies, designs, Intellectual Property, materials, and infrastructures of 3D printing: its innovation ecosystem. These actors are dubbed in this presentation ‘indicators’ and ‘forerunners’ because they give a guide to how this niche innovation might scale up to become socially significant and even ubiquitous. From a 3D printing ‘go-to-guy’ to an not-for-profit entrepreneurial venture to turn stone powder into jewellery, the case studies in this presentation draw on insights from research in the global South.
3D Printing — Food Safety and Regulation
https://medium.com/media/a4ed4b77001794ee326291fa94938700/hrefAbstract: From increasing access to farming tools to improving food supply stability following natural disasters, 3D-printing food poses several opportunities for addressing current challenges facing food systems. This presentation begins with a pragmatic analysis of the contributions 3D-printing technologies could make to the converging challenges facing food systems. Of these contributions, this presentation argues that the development of synthetic meat using 3D-printing technologies is the optimal technological trajectory for 3D-printed food. This presentation outlines the potential drivers and counter-forces to the development of synthetic meat, which are likely to influence acceptability of 3D-printed synthetic meats, as well as how such products and processes are regulated. To capture the benefits of 3D-printed, synthetic meat, regulatory actors in Australia and internationally will need to undertake significant regulatory review and reform. This presentation briefly maps the implications of 3D printed, synthetic meat for intellectual property and food labeling laws as well as the regulatory standards across meat processing and importation. To conclude, this presentation outlines complementary alternatives to synthetic meat that already exist, but are less consistent with the dominant technological paradigm for food systems.
Bioprinting: Development and Sustainability — Dr Hope Johnson https://youtu.be/e8sBDxprDFc
Immortal Selves: Biofabrication at the Intersection of Art and Science
Svenja Kratz, University of Tasmania
https://medium.com/media/4c9f075996ba1c512159f0c4ce60d68c/hrefAbstract: In this presentation, Svenja Kratz provides insight into the critical and creative potentials of cross-disciplinary art and science engagements. Using her research interests and creative work as a springboard for discussion, she provides insight into the development of her practice from early engagements within the area of cell and tissue culture, to more recent engagements with 3D scanning and biofabrication processes. In particular, the presentation provides an overview of the collaborative Biosynthetic Systems project developed in partnership with the Centre for Regenerative Medicine at QUT. Engaging speculatively with the concept of immortality through technological intervention, the project is designed to highlight the potentials of 21st century biomedical sciences and invite viewers to consider the creative applications of the Centre’s research and contemplate the possibilities, and philosophical implications, of living engineered systems and mergers of artificial life and biotechnology.
Immortal Selves: Biofabrication at the Intersection of Art and Science — Dr Svenja Kratz https://youtu.be/aA2IzNaj8hg
Speculative Biology: Cultural Perspectives on Biofabrication and Bioprinting
Associate Professor Elizabeth Stephens, University of Queensland
https://medium.com/media/5a37636600b713204f9fb535b47b18c0/hrefAbstract: SymbioticA, the Centre for Biological Arts at UWA, will consider the cultural impact of recent work in speculative biology and design. The last decade has seen an increasing number of experimental fields in which biological materials are re-engineered as technical objects, and in which technical objects are designed with integrated organic components. The result is the emergence of a whole new class, or perhaps species, of things: what Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr have called “semi-living” machines and “partially alive” organisms. These new hybrid bio-technological entities problematize the distinction between the living and non-living, and thus raise a number of important philosophical and political questions. Most urgently: how must our current understanding of biopolitics and bioethics be reconfigured in light of this transformation of the category of the “bio” itself? And how is the general public to understand the significance of these new hybrid objects? Such challenges and questions provide an important cultural space in which the commercial, critical and creative potential of art-science engagements comes to the fore.
Speculative Biology: Cultural Perspectives on Biofabrication and Bioprinting — Associate Professor Elizabeth Stephens https://youtu.be/D5oIHOtsd5A
The Science of Bioprinting
Naomi Paxton, QUT and University of Würzburg, Felix Wunner, QUT, Jo Maartens, QUT
https://medium.com/media/21b66fa60c215694df456ceb1bf59552/hrefThe Science of Bioprinting — Naomi Paxton, Felix Wunner and Jo Maartens https://youtu.be/bNRl7ui9TB4
Naomi Paxton
PhD student, QUT and University of Würzburg
Printability of Shear-Thinning Hydrogels for 3D Bioprinting
Extrusion-based 3D bioprinting systems have seen a surge in popularity as a biofabrication technique due to their ability to fabricate a wide range of biomaterials in cell-friendly conditions. However, despite their widespread success, the factors influencing ‘printability’ of shear thinning materials, including many hydrogel systems, has yet to be well understood. Here, a ‘printable’ material is defined as that which can be successfully extruded within the range of printing pressures, collector plate velocities and needle sizes available for a specific bioprinting system, known as the ‘bioprinting window’. Printability is therefore strongly influenced by a material’s rheological properties and the degree of shear thinning exhibited can be quantified using rheological measurements of a material’s shear rate-viscosity plot. In this study, a series of mathematical equations were developed to predict the pressure-driven flow of hydrogels through bioprinting needles within the ‘bioprinting window’, the realistic operational limits of bioprinters. Furthermore, the effects of various printing parameters were investigated theoretically and experimentally to provide a useful insight into fibre diameter control for the fabrication of stable 3D structures. Finally, by calculating the shear rate experienced by the materials during extrusion, trends in the viscosity profile of printable materials were investigated. Four hydrogels were used to test this model, both theoretically and experimentally, including pluronic, sodium alginate, alginate-gelatin blend and Nivea Crème, as examples of widely-used, biocompatible, thermoresponsive and colloidal materials respectively. Overall, this study provides a useful tool for examining the printability of hydrogels for 3D bioprinting applications.
Felix Wunner
PhD student, QUT
Design and development of an additive manufacturing technology platform for melt electrospinning writing
The introduction of 3D printing principles to traditional fibre fabrication processes in 2011 is in a pioneering role at the vanguard of medical innovations and its effectiveness is increasingly evidenced for applications in the fields of additive biomanufacturing. Referred to as Melt Electrospinning Writing, this technological symbiosis is built on the functional benefits from both of its predecessors, namely additive manufacturing and electrospinning: high accuracy in material deposition and the capability of printing dimensions in the lower micron scale. The resulting highly porous architectures, electrostatically fabricated from biocompatible polymers, are implemented to effectively promote cell infiltration, proliferation and attachment in the field of tissue engineering or a cell culture lattices for T-cells. Within the last years, the exponential growths of published work and patent applications evidenced the enormous potential of MEW to become a standardised technology in the medical fields; yet additionally offers high potential for applications in the filtration, energy or textile industries.
The research area for MEW, however is still in its infancy and the major focus consisted in exploring the benefits of the resulting scaffolds/lattices, while bypassing the essentials of developing highly functional devices to gain reproducible results. From an engineering perspective, it became an inevitable milestone to reach a stable process with a high degree of control. Beyond that, this constitutes the most important prerequisite for transferring the process to industrial levels.
Therefore, this PhD project hypothesises that the application of systematic engineering methodologies assists in designing a technology platform to foster process control, reproducibility, and up-scale. The implementation of an automated monitoring and parameter control system is used to generate large data volumes which enable the identification of the optimum parameter settings for any given design. In particular, we draw a conclusion between the geometry of a fibre flight path and the quality of the final scaffold, which helps to assess from a manufacturing point of view the robustness and reproducibility of a process. Additionally, the novel hardware facilitates to increase the achievable scaffold fabrication height of 2–3 mm to 7 mm and helped to identify the influence of gravity on the process. In the last phase of this PhD project, the results and technologies are utilised to design and develop a large scale high-throughput MEW printer, which meets the requirements for industrial applications.
Jo Maartens
PhD student, QUT
Challenges and opportunities in the manufacture and expansion of cells for therapy
Cell therapy is poised to transit from proof-of-principle studies toward clinical validation and, ultimately, standardization, paving the way for next-generation of personalized medicine. If cells are to be used routinely for clinical or drug discovery applications, they need to be produced at an affordable cost of goods. This implies scaling up the labour intensive production of cells to a commercially viable level while optimising on the use of costly media and growth factors. Given these limitations, it is likely that manufacturing methodologies should include some elements of automation. This fact is strengthened by the growing market demand for cell quantities and therefore a concomitant step change in industrial manufacturing methods is required.
Unsurprisingly, the legacy laboratory-based ex vivo cell culture methods are notoriously expensive as a result of a combination of factors such as the high costs associated with the production of cells at high densities and in large volumes in cleanroom facilities, and the lack of automated cell culture methods, which still rely on manual pipetting and thus require a large number of highly trained technicians. Classical laboratory-based methods are very seldom subjected to optimisation for the purposes of maximising the processes underpinning cell yields and minimising the use of expensive reagents. An additional obstacle for cell-based products that are largely manual in their manufacturing processes, is meeting the regulatory requirements of process validation, quality control and reproducibility which is extremely difficult to achieve.
Applying Quality-by-Design (QbD) principles in the cell therapy industry in general and for cell therapy products in particular poses challenges at multiple levels. Given the complexity of interactions between cells and their environment it remains challenging to develop a high level of confidence in a design space for complex cell therapy systems. Design of Experiments (DOE) and systems modelling are complementary tools and a valuable adjunct to QbD and will be used to study the relationships between factors such as critical process parameters and outcomes of cell expansion such as cell purity, identity and potency. It is envisaged that employing techniques within the suite of DOE approaches will facilitate better understanding of the process which is the “product”. We hypothesise that “a combined quality-by-design / systems engineering approach facilitates a more efficient pathway to study proof-of-principle cell therapy scale-up concepts”. This will pave the way for modelling the system architecture for the proposed cell expansion framework.
The Third Industrial Revolution: Designs Law and 3D Printing
QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Research Symposium
30 August 2017
The Third Industrial Revolution: Designs Law and 3D Printing
Speakers:
Title: The ‘Third Industrial Revolution’ 3D Printing Technology and Australian Designs Law
https://medium.com/media/06674a87c0b75be6993865d13ec1b166/hrefAbstract: Three-dimensional (3D) printing and scanning, touted as the next disruptive technology, is already upon us. Merging the physical and digital, 3D printing and scanning is having profound effects on how we design, share, copy and manufacture objects. Consequently, this article considers the previously unexplored intellectual property implications for registered design owners. In doing so, it examines the technological background to 3D printing and scanning against a backdrop of consumer access to these technologies. With the advent of 3D scanners and 3D printers any user can (re)produce unauthorised versions of an object that embodies a registered design in digital or physical form. This article considers the effectiveness of Australian registered design rights to combat infringement of this kind. It is concluded that the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) is unable to deal with this nascent technology.
3D Printing Technology and Australian Designs Law — Mitchell Adams https://youtu.be/WuRHuaHGQLs
Professor Margaret Maile Petty.
Title: A Moment of Truth: 3D technologies and the future [or obsolescence] of design
https://medium.com/media/2a1741eaa73dcc6c6d20b28305f99925/hrefAbstract: Contemporary design has its origins in the first third of the twentieth century, with the blossoming of mass manufacture and the rise of consumer culture and economics, when the re-styling of a refrigerator could triple sales within one financial year. Today such exhilarating sales curves are harder won. However many UX designers a company employs, the notion of creating a singular ‘killer product’ that can be produced in the millions is increasingly challenged by cross-sector disruptions such as 3D printing and scanning in combination with the escalating sophistication and use of AI and big data. The allied design disciplines have a small window of opportunity to consider what design means in the 4th industrial revolution, where does it add value, and how can it adapt to radically different forms of manufacture, supply chains, IP protections and customer demands for greater levels of customization. ‘A Moment of Truth’ will briefly explore these drivers in the relation to the larger evolution of design since the 1930s and pose critical questions central to defining the future or future obsolescence of design.
3D printing and the Future of Design — Professor Margaret Maile Petty https://youtu.be/ldW_fo4xa4s
Title: Misconceptions of Legality: 3D printing and community
https://medium.com/media/f4f0090a3ecff6c717332d4432293b83/hrefAbstract: ‘Just because someone can’ does not mean they should but Australians have proven to be culturally ambivalent to this reality where it intersects with the legality. This is clearly evidenced by the published numbers of Australian illegal downloads of Game of Thrones. Mashup and remix culture reflect a frontier attitude to copyright that is pervasive and can be evidenced through a simple Google search.
At large the community does not truly understand the legal realities, citing fair use or a general ambivalence towards their actions. This is compounded by the implements of making — including 3D design and printing — being so readily available at an affordable price point, easily accessible in public places like libraries and makerspaces. Further, the current cultural movements of repair cafes and DIY encourages communities to repair their own equipment, designing replacement parts using 3D printers that are, at their core, protected intellectual property. In essence breaking the law.
Conversely, with this consumer equipment and increasingly powerful tools for design is establishing a new class of designers that lack a learned, embodied understanding regards intellectual property law, moral rights and licensing, the misuse of copyright and alternate licensing platforms (Creative Commons, GPL etcetera) in their work in common, negating the protections they offer and exposing individuals to be either taken advantage of or finding themselves in breach of those same licenses.
Misconceptions of Legality will explore the understanding and misconceptions in the general community around intellectual property and 3D printing, and the role spaces such as libraries, public makerspaces (etc) can and do play in informing this conversation in community.
Who owns Thor’s Hammer? 3D Printing and Community: Daniel Flood https://youtu.be/Mn7tnRP0XaE
Title: Opportunity knocks — 3D printing will revolutionise the automotive industry!
https://medium.com/media/53dc29c698eee82fa96906e6400d2911/hrefAbstract: Business has been aware of 3D printing and the expectation it will revolutionise the automotive industry. However, the technology is still considered to be on the periphery and only recognised by innovators as a disruptor to both the manufacturing sector and the retail, service and repair sector of the automotive industry. Latest developments suggest that 3D printing is preparing to turn manufacturing on its head, with 3D metal printing systems that are much faster, safer and cheaper than existing systems and now capable of competing with traditional mass manufacturing processes. The hype is real with new technology enabling 3D printing up to 100 times faster, with 10 times cheaper initial costs and 20 times cheaper materials costs than existing laser technologies may be tipping point for large scale 3D manufacturing of car components. Latest technology provides rapid, cheap metal prototyping for engineering groups, and a production system for mass manufacturing. Indeed, 3D printing is likely to disrupt both manufacturing and retail service and repair sectors of industry.
The entire automotive value chain will be transformed by emerging technologies, such as 3D printing in 2–5 years. Specifically, 3D printing will disrupt our parts suppliers, our vehicle body sector, tools and servicing and eventually the car manufacturing sector itself. Industry must maintain the leadership and momentum on digital disruption and emerging technologies, which according to experts will impact business by 2020 with the major rollout and effect here by 2022. In the context of a timeframe, it is closer than many realise! Real opportunities will be gained by preparing business for the digital and technological transformations. The key to success will be open collaboration with stakeholders and regulators about emerging technologies to ensure that associated regulations are responsive, flexible and support business prosperity and consumer expectations.
Opportunity Knocks — Dr Brett Dale https://youtu.be/xWLdHN6y3bs
Title: 3D printing and designs in China
https://medium.com/media/2325e79aafb8cd350eb76fa15cf4b4e4/hrefAbstract:This presentation provides an introduction to the 3D printing ecosystem in China, with a focus on file-sharing sites, makerspaces and some of the emerging IP law considerations there. China has been investing large sums in innovative technologies including 3D printing, and is transitioning from a ‘user’ of others’ IP to a creator and producer country in its own right. As with the Internet, a different linguistic, political and cultural context has given rise to a different 3DP ecosystem compared to the Western world. However, our initial research suggests similar concerns are arising as regards the relationship between 3D printing, design files and IP. The work-in-progress in this presentation comprises exploratory research conducted as part of the UK Intellectual Property Office-funded project, 3D Printing and IP Law Futures, in advance of our horizon scanning workshop to be held in Shenzhen in September 2017.
3D Printing and Designs in China — Dr Angela Daly https://youtu.be/8_1VjZOvMlU
Title: Bring It On: The Supreme Court of the United States, Copyright Law, Designs, Fashion, and 3D Printing
https://medium.com/media/33de39a259ce49230608bd2546550ae5/hrefAbstract:The Supreme Court of the United States granted leave to consider the vexed question of copyright protection in respect of fashion. In the case of Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, a number of 3D printing companies have filed a brief to establish a test for determining conceptual separability under copyright law. The companies involved include Formlabs Inc., Matter and Form Inc., and Shapeways Inc. In many ways, this dispute focuses upon legal issues thrown up by the controversy over Left Shark. The submission noted: ‘This case presents a clear conflict among the circuits on an important substantive matter of copyright law that justifies this Court’s review’.
The submission warned: ‘These advancements are threatened by the current fractured state of copyright law on objects combining functional and artistic elements.’ The 3D companies were concerned: ‘Uncertainty over the line between copyrightable and noncopyrightable works can lead to over-claiming and over-categorization of material as copyrightable, upsetting the balance struck by Congress between the interests of rights holders and the societal benefits from a vibrant public domain.’ The industry pleaded with the Supreme Court of the United States: ‘This Court should grant certiorari to resolve the present circuit split and ensure that the development of innovative technologies and industries such as 3D printing is not hampered by the ongoing conflicts and confusion in conceptual separability doctrine’. There was a powerful joint submission led by Public Knowledge on the topic of intellectual property and 3D printing. Charles Duan from Public Knowledge highlighted the larger ramifications of the dispute for fashion, designs, and 3D printing hobbyists.
On the 22nd March 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a majority 6–2 opinion in favour of the respondents Varsity Brands, Inc. against Star Athletica LLC. Thomas J delivered the opinion of the court, in which Roberts CJ, Alito J, Sotomayor J, and Kagan J joined. Ginsburg J filed a concurrence. Breyer J filed a dissenting opinion, which Kennedy J joined. Writing for the majority, Thomas J observed: ‘Congress has provided copyright protection for original works of art, but not for industrial designs’. His Honour noted: ‘The line between art and industrial design, however, is often difficult to draw. ‘We hold that an artistic feature of the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful article.’ Thomas J found that the test was satisfied in this case involving the surface of cheerleading uniforms. In her concurrence, Ginsburg J held that ‘the designs are themselves copyrightable pictorial or graphic works reproduced on useful articles.’
In dissent, Breyer J disagreed that the designs that Varsity Brands Inc. submitted to the Copyright Office would be eligible for copyright protection. His Honour emphasized that there was a need to respect the decisions of Congress in respect of the scope of copyright protection: ‘The Constitution grants Congress primary responsibility for assessing comparative costs and benefits and drawing copyright’s statutory lines. Courts must respect those lines and not grant copyright protection where Congress has decided not to do so. And it is clear that Congress has not extended broad copyright protection to the fashion design industry.’ The judge observed: ‘I fear that, in looking past the three-dimensional design inherent in Varsity’s claim by treating it as if it were no more than a design for a bolt of cloth, the majority has lost sight of its own important limiting principle.’
The decision attracted a wide array of public commentary. There has been disquiet about the impact of the Supreme Court of the United States decision on 3D printing. The presentation will consider the ramifications of the ruling for copyright law, designs, fashion and 3D printing.
Bring It On: The Supreme Court of the United States, Copyright Law, Designs, Fashion, and 3D Printing — Professor Matthew Rimmer https://youtu.be/UO64cfwlqh8
https://storify.com/DrRimmer/3d-printing-and-designs
https://www.qut.edu.au/news/news?news-id=122037
October 23, 2017
Open access unlocks the universe
QUT Media
24 October 2017
It’s Open Access Week! Why is it important to you?
“Open access provides the starting point to make resources, such as textbooks, more accessible for students and the general public,” says QUT Law PhD candidate Jessica Stevens, who is researching open education resources.
“Resources such as school and university textbooks are expensive, but using Open Education Resources (OER) means these resources could be made free — free to access, use, reuse, and share.
“Our QUT research team is collaborating with academic experts, advocacy groups and public representatives from around Australia to create free, accessible resources on Australian intellectual property law.
“Australia is just starting to catch up with the trend overseas where universities are given grants to self-generate open access textbooks.”
QUT’s Dr Pauline Zardo said open access was of critical importance to public policy and good governance.
“Evidence-informed policy-making depends upon having open access to research and knowledge,” said Dr Zardo, who is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Data and Policy in QUT’s School of Law.
“Policy-makers will be unable to make optimal decisions if research is locked away behind paywalls.
“The Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council both encourage publicly funded researchers to make their work publicly accessible.”
QUT Intellectual Property and Innovation Professor Matthew Rimmer said open access to research and knowledge potentially affected just about every aspect of our lives.
“Open access and its licensing system, Creative Commons, have enabled the sharing of copyright works in art, music, TV, film and publishing so that artists and musicians can create new works and ‘borrow’ and build on work that has gone before,” he said.
“We need only look at Cambridge University’s website meltdown with the free release of Stephen Hawking’s 1964 PhD thesis on Monday to mark Open Access Week.
“It’s being downloaded by the world, eager for a window into this great scientist’s early thinking which has informed his career.”
Professor Rimmer said that prior to its open release, the thesis was the university’s most requested item and people had to pay to read it.
“In genomics, open source biology has been used to counteract the rise of gene patents,” he said.
“Open access to essential medicines has been promoted by the UN High Level Panel on Access to Medicines to share research to combat public health epidemics — such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB, the SARS virus, ebola, and the zika virus.
“Elon Musk has been willing to share Tesla’s technologies under open licensing.
“Open access has enabled collaboration amongst the maker movement on 3D printing and additive manufacturing and CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, which runs the Large Hadron Collider, uses open hardware licensing.”
QUT is celebrating Open Access Week with:
Open Education Resources: Open in order to … transform education — three speakers on making educational resources freely available. Wednesday, 25 October 8.15am to 10am, UQ.
The Power of Open: International Policy and practice — two experts share insight on the US and international state of Open Access. Friday, October 27, 10 to 11.30am QUT Gardens Point.
Media contact: Niki Widdowson, QUT Media, 07 3138 2999, or n.widdowson@qut.edu.au
After hours: Rose Trapnell, 0407 585 901 or media@qut.edu.au .
July 16, 2017
Save net neutrality to save freedom of speech: QUT’s Professor Matthew Rimmer
QUT Media
12 July 2017
A free and open Internet fosters freedom of speech but is under threat from the administration of President Donald Trump according to Professor Matthew Rimmer from QUT’s Faculty of Law.
“July 12 2017 is a Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality in the US, an event responding to plans by the Federal Communications Commission under the leadership of President Donald Trump’s chair Ajit Pai to repeal government rules which established net neutrality,” said Professor Rimmer.
“The new Trump administration has been seeking to dismantle network neutrality rules as part of its deregulation agenda. The Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality represents a community effort to resist such changes.
“There will be a massive online protest by a wide array of companies including Amazon, Netflix, Shapeways, Kickstarter, Twitter, and Reddit, along with organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union, Greenpeace, and the American Library Association.”
Professor Rimmer added that comedian John Oliver had called on his viewers to defend network neutrality and cited inventor of the Web Tim Berners-Lee who said: “To reach its full potential, the internet must remain a permissionless space for creativity, innovation and free expression.”
“We have not seen such a massive online action since the protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act — in which Wikipedia and other online sites staged a blackout against draconian copyright laws,” Professor Rimmer said.
“Network neutrality started out as a philosophical concept developed by Professor Timothy Wu from Columbia University to address discrimination by broadband service providers.
“It was designed to preserve a free and open Internet by preventing broadband providers from blocking, throttling or slowing Internet services. Rather hesitantly, President Barack Obama’s administration institutionalised principles of network neutrality.”
Professor Rimmer observed there are many benefits to be derived from network neutrality, including the promotion of consumer rights, innovation, competition, and freedom of expression.
“Network neutrality ensures consumer rights are not undermined by Internet service providers and that they do not suffer a dystopia of slow lanes and fast-paid lanes on the Internet,” he said.
“Network neutrality helps ensure the Internet is a free and open platform, which supports innovation. In particular, it ensures that start-up companies and new market entrants have an equal playing field. Without such protections, Internet Service Providers could use their role as gatekeepers to reinforce their monopolies.
“Network neutrality plays an important role in respect of freedom of speech. US Senator for Minnesota Al Franken has stated ‘Network neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time’. The American Civil Liberties Union argues: ‘As information technology advances apace, the meaningful exercise of our constitutional rights — including the freedoms of speech, assembly, press and the right to petition government — has become literally dependent on broadband internet access’.”
Professor Rimmer concluded that while at least the subject was under discussion in the US, Australia was a long way behind.
“While the United States debates network neutrality, Australia still has not had a proper conversation about network neutrality,” he said.
“The issue has been periodically raised in the context of debates over the NBN, media convergence, and competition reform. There are, though, concerns about the speed of broadband services in Australia, and the problem of the data drought.
“At a time at which it is modernising its media laws, Australia would benefit from the introduction of the principle of network neutrality. The public interest doctrine would boost consumer choice, competition, and innovation in Australia.”
Media contact:
Amanda Weaver, QUT Media, 07 3138 9449, amanda.weaver@qut.edu.au
After hours: Rose Trapnell, 0407 585 901, media@qut.edu.au
Copyright Law and the Future of Education
The Advocate, NTEU National, July 2017
Kathy Bowrey and Matthew Rimmer
As authors, teachers, experts on intellectual property law and champions of public education, we were saddened and disappointed to read that the NTEU is promoting costly, anti-competitive parallel importation restrictions. These laws hurt students, academics, and other members of the education system. We are also concerned that the NTEU has provided an unbalanced account of the Productivity Commission report on Australia’s intellectual property arrangements.
Rather than being a measure for the protection of local culture and local jobs, parallel importation restrictions on books were actually introduced into Australian law in 1912 to help consolidate the Empire market as the international book trade expanded. The provisions prevented Australian booksellers from importing English language books from America. In noting the requirement to only source books from Commonwealth countries, Tasmanian Senator John Keating observed, the law ‘as it stands, affords [opportunity] for blackmail.’
The restrictions facilitated global price differentiation and monopolistic behavior that supported the dominance of British and American multinational publishers. Australian readers, consumers, and citizens have paid dearly for such parallel importation restrictions.
Repeated independent inquiries and investigations, including the Prices Surveillance Authority (1994); Ergas Competition review (2000); the IT Pricing Inquiry (2013) and the Productivity Commission (2016) have all came to the same conclusion. Parallel importation restrictions allow copyright owners to manipulate the Australian market. The main beneficiaries are foreign multinationals and their local agents — not local authors or other skilled Australian workers.
The Productivity Commission has highlighted that Australian consumers were paying much more for books than elsewhere. Commissioner Karen Chester commented: ‘The Commission purchased data on book prices, compared more than a thousand like-for-like titles in Australia, the UK and the US, and found that books were indeed more expensive — by around 20 per cent on average — than in those other jurisdictions like the UK.’
The Commission noted that the evidence of the publishing industry was unreliable (with comparisons of paperbacks with hardbacks, and skewed samples). The Commission also found that there was no evidence that extra profits given to multinational publishers were passed onto local authors or local industries.
Moreover, the Productivity Commission rejected assertions that the removal of parallel importation restrictions had destroyed the New Zealand publishing sector and decimated New Zealand authors. Commissioner Karen Chester noted: ‘Data on the number of authors shows that, following the reform, the share of authors in overall employment has increased in New Zealand.’
The main defender of Australia’s parallel importation restrictions has been the subsidiary of News Corp, HarperCollins. This is one of the Big Five English-language publishing companies. The largest education publishers in the Australian market are affiliates of British or U.S. multinationals — Pearson Australia, Penguin Random House Australia, and Scholastic Australia.
It is perplexing why the NTEU has been so receptive to industry propaganda. The NTEU asserts: ‘The consequences of PIR go beyond job losses in publishing and printing and profits going overseas but also to a “brutal reduction” in the range of commissioned Australian literary and scholarly works which will directly impact on NTEU members.’
There is simply no evidence to substantiate such extravagant claims. What job losses? Books are rarely printed in Australia. How will the commissioning of Australian works be impacted, by which presses? And as a net importer of copyright works, significant profits are already channeled through local branch offices and sent overseas. These profits for book sales go overseas along with a substantial proportion of the fees generated by the compulsory licensing for educational works, paid by publicly funded schools and universities to the one Australian copyright collecting society, the Copyright Agency.
The Australian school sector currently spends upwards of $665 million per annum on purchasing educational resources for Australian schools, in addition to over $80 million spent on fees paid to collecting societies.
Commissioner Karen Chester commented that ‘the higher costs of books are borne by all Australians from the bibliophiles, to the students as they (or their parents) are forced to pay more for Harry Potter, Diary of a Wombat and the dreaded text books.’
The reality is that the nature of educational publishing is changing in response to funding shifts that seek to drive improvements in student learning outcomes. Education publishing comprises around 40% of the entire publishing market in Australia. It is the largest sector of the market. All NTEU members will be well aware there is significant pressure for teachers to master blended learning, produce online resources and MOOCS. Large publishers are also well on the way of transitioning their business models to capture this new market. Rather than publishing text books they are already moving to hard copy/ebooks hybrids, online learning platforms and teaching support materials.
The chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Rod Sims, has expressed concerns about restrictive copyright laws adversely affecting education. He has called for policy-makers to embrace the suite of copyright reforms proposed by the Productivity Commission: ‘The world is now moving too fast for Australia to get left behind, again.’
Instead of defending dated British imperial parallel importation restrictions, the NTEU should instead be supporting efforts to provide open, accessible, and affordable educational resources. The recent Creative Commons Summit in Toronto showed how students and educators alike could benefit from the open dissemination of education, science, and research. The NTEU should be honoring its policy platform and supporting copyright laws which promote access to knowledge, open education, and freedom of speech.
Kathy Bowrey and Matthew Rimmer, ‘Copyright Law and the Future of Education’ (2017) 24 (2) Advocate, NTEU National, 4, https://issuu.com/nteu/docs/advocate_24_02
Professor Kathy Bowrey
Professor Matthew Rimmer
Matthew Rimmer's Blog
- Matthew Rimmer's profile
- 4 followers
