'TRIPs-plus' patent privileges-an intellectual property 'cargo cult' in Australia

Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 355-377

  Lawson, Charles ^a   Pickering, Catherine ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Innovation policy; National competition policy; Patents; TRIPs plus patenting

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION (ECONOMICS); INNOVATION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; TRADE POLICY; TRADE RELATIONS;

AUSTRALASIA; AUSTRALIA; EASTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 10244240473     PISSN: 08109028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08109020412331311632     Document Type: Review

References (138)

1. Theodore Schwartz, 'Residues of a career: reflections on anthropological knowledge', Ethos, 27, 2, 1999, pp. 54-65)
2. Lamont Lindstrom, Cargo Cult: Strange Stories of Desire from Melanesia and Beyond, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1993, pp. 183-210.
3. Anne Applebaum, 'The cargo cult candidate', The Spectator, 265, 8 December 1990, p. 12.
4. Lindstrom, 1993, op. cit., pp. 1-14.
5. Ibid, pp. 183-210
6. Martha Kaplan, Neither Cargo nor Cult: Ritual Politics and Colonial Imagination in Fiji, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1995.
7. Miranda Forsyth, 'Cargo cults and intellectual property in the South Pacific', Australian Intellectual Property Journal, 14, 4, 2003, pp. 193-207.
8. Lamont Lindstrom, 'Cargo cult horror', Oceania, 70, 4, 2000, p. 294.
9. Marrakech Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation [1995] Australian Treaty Series 8, Annex 1C, pt 2, s. 5 ('TRIPs').
10. TRIPs art. 27.1; noting that the terms 'inventive step' and 'capable of industrial application' are equivalent to the terms 'non-obvious' and 'useful' respectively.
11. TRIPs art. 27.2 and 27.3; noting that plant varieties must be protected either by 'patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof (art. 27.3.b).
12. TRIPs art. 64.
13. Charles Lawson, "Flexibility" in TRIPs: using patented inventions without the authorisation of the right's holder', Australian Intellectual Property Journal, 15, 3, 2004a, pp. 141-55.
14. Patents (World Trade Organisation) Amendment Act 1994 (Cth).
15. Such as the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement [2003] Australian Treaty Series 16, ch. 13, art. 2(1).
16. Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement ('AUSFTA') at http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/final-text/ chapter_17.html
17. Commonwealth, Backing Australia's Ability: Real Results Real Jobs-Innovation Report 2002-2003, Corporate Communications ISR, Canberra, 2003, p. 1 ('Real Results 2003a').
18. Commonwealth, Backing Australia's Ability: Real Results Real Jobs-Innovation Report 2003-2004, Corporate Communications ISR, Canberra, 2003, p. 1 ('Real Results 2003b').
19. Commonwealth, Backing Australia's Ability: An Innovation Action Plan for the Future, Big Island Graphics and Corporate Communications ISR, Canberra, 2001, p. 7 ('BAA').
20. BAA, ibid p. 18.
21. Commonwealth, In the National Interest: Australia's Foreign and Trade Policy, White Paper, National Capital Printing, Canberra, 1997, p. 1
22. Commonwealth, Advancing the National Interest: Australia's Foreign and Trade Policy, White Paper, National Capital Printing, Canberra, 2003, p. vii.
23. Real Results 2003a, op. cit., p. 1; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2003, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2003, pp. 16-7.
24. Susan Sell, Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003
25. Talia Einhorn, 'The impact of the WTO agreement on TRIPs (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) on EC law: a challenge to regionalism', Common Market Law Review, 35, 1998, pp. 1069-99.
26. Sell, 0p. cit.
27. Peter Drahos, 'Global property rights in information: the story of TRIPs at the GATT', Prometheus, 13, 1, 1995, p. 7.
28. Susan Sell and Aseem Prakash, 'Using ideas strategically: the contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights', International Studies Quarterly, 48, 1, 2004, p. 154.
29. Drahos, op. cit., pp. 7-8
30. Sell and Prakash, op. cit., pp. 154-5.
31. Industry Functional Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights for Trade Policy Matters, The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) : The Intellectual Property Provisions, Advisory Committee Report to the President, the Congress and the United States Trade Representative on the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, Washington, March 2004, pp. 2-6 (http://www.ustr.gov/new/fta/Australia/advisor/ifac03.pdf, visited 10 June 2004; 'IFAC-3'); perhaps significantly, IFAC-3 stated about the AUSFTA 'with high-level agreements with both small developing countries in the [ United States-Central America Free Trade Agreement ] and a strong and mature developed country like Australia, it will prove much easier to convince future [Free Trade Agreement] countries that strong intellectual property protection is in the interest of all countries regardless of their economic circumstances' (p. 4).
32. Sell and Prakash, op. cit., pp. 166-7), with this following through to a majority consensus among WTO members that 'nothing in the TRIPs Agreement reduces the range of options available to governments to promote and protect public health, as well as other overarching public policy objectives': Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Submission by the African Group, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Peru, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Venezuela, IP/C/W/296, 2001, p. 3.
33. Lawson, 2004a, 0p. cit., p. 145.
34. 19 USC §2102(b)(4) (Trade Act of 1974).
35. IFAC-3, op. cit., p. 3.
36. 19 USC §2155(a) (Trade Act of 1974).
37. John Revesz, Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Staff Research Paper, Productivity Commission, Canberra, 1999, p. 62.
38. As a measure of the size of Australia's market a comparison of gross domestic product is illustrative: 1995 prices and 1995 exchange rates for 2002 in billions of United States dollars: Australia-484.6, United States-9,186.0, Japan-5,606.5 and United Kingdom-1,354.9: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Main Economic Indicators Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 2003, p. 247.
39. Commonwealth, In the National Interest, 1997, op. cit., pp. 3-4
40. Commonwealth, Advancing the National Interest, 2003, op. cit. p. 4.
41. The standards are applied according to the Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, IP Australia, Canberra, September 2002; IP Australia is a 'prescribed Agency' under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1998 (Cth) s. 5 although it is accountable to Parliament through the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources: Administrative Arrangement Orders sch pt 13.
42. Charles Lawson, 'Patenting genes and gene sequences and competition: patenting at the expense of competition', Federal Law Review, 30, 1, 2002, pp. 103-11.
43. BAA, op. cit., p. 7.
44. Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee, Review of Intellectual Property Legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement, IP Australia, Canberra, 2000 ('IPCRC Report').
45. BAA, op. cit.
46. Ibid, p. 18.
47. Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Innovation-Unlocking the Future: Final Report of the Innovation Summit Implementation Group Goanna Print, Canberra, 2000.
48. Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, Investing for Growth: The Howard Government's Plan for Australian Industry, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1997.
49. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Innovation: A Concept to Market, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1995.
50. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, The Effect of Certain Policy Changes on Australian R& D, CanPrint Communications Pty Ltd, Canberra, 1999.
51. BAA, op. cit., p. 7.
52. Real Results 2003a, op. cit., p. 1.
53. Real Results 2003b, 0p. cit., p. 1.
54. BAA, op. cit., p. 7.
55. Ibid, p. 8.
56. Ibid, p. 8.
57. Ibid, p. 14.
58. Being $2.9 billion of additional funding over five years: see Ibid p. 14.
59. Commonwealth, Backing Australia's Ability: Building Our Future through Science and Innovation, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Canberra, 2004.
60. BAA, 0p. cit., p. 18.
61. Real Results 2003a, op. cit., p. 7.
62. Commonwealth, Backing Australia's Ability: Real Results Real Jobs-Innovation Report 2001-2002, J. S. McMillan Printing Group, Canberra, 2002, p. 14 ('Real Results 2002').
63. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, Getting a Better Return, CanPrint Communications Pty Ltd, Canberra, 2001, p. 127.
64. Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Consideration of Legislation Referred to the Committee-Patents Amendment Bill 2001, Senate Printing Unit, Canberra, 2001, p. 2.
65. Real Results 2002, op. cit., p. 14.
66. Ibid, p. 59.
67. In reporting on the effectiveness of Backing Australia's Ability, the Government claimed its earlier changes to the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) as significant: see Real Results 2002, op. cit., p. 14.
68. Industry Commission, The Pharmaceutical Industry, Report No 51, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1996, pp. 66-7 and 444 ('Industry Commission 1996a').
69. Similar and recent assessments of the cost of pharmaceutical new chemical entities remain unchallenged in government reporting [see e.g. United States Federal Trade Commission, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition Law and Patent Law and Policy, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, 2003, p. 3(5).
70. Industry Commission 1996a, op. cit., pp. 438-9.
71. Nicholas Gruen, Ian Bruce and Gerard Prior, Extending Patent Life: Is it in Australia's Economic Interests? Staff Information Paper, Industry Commission, Canberra, 1996, pp. 27-32.
72. Industry Commission, Research and Development, Report No 44, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1996, p. 186 ('Industry Commission 1996b').
73. IPCRC Report, 0p. cit.
74. Australian Council on Industrial Property, Review of Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights, IP Australia, Canberra, 1999.
75. Parliamentary Debates House of Representatives, 24 May 2001, p. 26974.
76. Charles Lawson, 'Patenting genetic materials' unresolved issues and promoting competition in biotechnology', Information Economics and Policy, 16, 1, 2004b, pp. 99-103.
77. Parliamentary Debates House of Representatives, 24 May 2001, p. 26974
78. IPCRC Report, op. cit., pp. 139 and 154-6.
79. Keith Maskus, 'Intellectual property rights and economic development', Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 32, Summer 2000, pp. 495-502.
80. Dan Burk and Mark Lemley, 'Policy levers in patent law', Virginia Law Review, 89, November 2003, pp. 1595-630 and 1668-95; this analysis challenges the assumption that patent privileges are technology neutral, documenting the different threshold standards applied to different technologies under the guise of a uniform and technology neutral standard, and identifying different policy levers for different industries.
81. Paul Heald, 'Mowing the playing field: addressing information distortion and asymmetry in the TRIPs game', Minnesota Law Review, 88, December 2003, pp. 253-66.
82. Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite, 'Intellectual property, corporate strategy, globalisation: TRIPs in context', Wisconsin International Law Journal, 20, Summer 2002, p. 476 and the references there.
83. Lawson, 2004a, op. cit., pp. 144-54.
84. Independent Committee of Inquiry into Competition Policy in Australia, National Competition Policy, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1993 ('Hilmer Committee').
85. Competition Principles Agreement, cl 5(3).
86. Competition Principles Agreement, cl 5(5).
87. Competition Principles Agreement, cl 5(1).
88. Competition Principles Agreement, cl 1(3); importantly, this is different to the test applied for authorisations and notifications under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
89. Competition Principles Agreement, cl 1 (4).
90. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, Inquiry into Aspects of the National Competition Policy Reform Package, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 2002.
91. Committee on Socio-economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, Riding the Waves of Change, Senate Printing Unit, Canberra, 2000.
92. Committee on Socio-economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, Competition Policy: Friend or Foe? Senate Printing Unit, Canberra, 1999.
93. Council of Australian Governments, Communiqué-3 November 2000, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2000, attachment B.
94. Industry Commission, Regulation and its Review 1995-96, Annual Report Series, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1996, p. 11 ('Industry Commission 1996c').
95. Hilmer Committee, 0p. cit., p. 191.
96. Competition Principles Agreement, cl 5(1).
97. The construction of the Competition Principles Agreement, cl 5(1) relies on the term 'demonstrated' in setting out the standard to be achieved in applying the 'guiding principle' in reviewing existing legislation and proposed legislation that restricts competition, while the Competition Principles Agreement, cl 5 (5) expressly requires 'evidence' that proposed legislation restricting competition is consistent with the 'guiding principle'. While this might be construed as a lower standard for reviewing existing legislation, the preferable construction is evidence demonstrating that the guiding principle has been satisfied. That is, 'legislation that restricts competition must be accompanied by evidence that the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs, and that the objectives can only be achieved by restricting competition': Productivity Commission, Regulation and its Review 2002-03, Annual Report Series, Productivity Commission, Canberra, 2003, p. 7.
98. IPCRC Report, op. cit., pp. 134-78.
99. National Competition Council, Review of Sections 51(2) and 51(3) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, CanPrint Communications Pty Ltd, Canberra, 1999 ('NCC Review').
100. Dawson Review (Trade Practices Act Review Committee, Review of the Competition Provisions of the Trade Practices Act, CanPrint Communications Pty Ltd, Canberra, 2003, p. 87) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
101. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2003 (Cth) Trade Marks and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (Cth); Corporations (Repeals, Consequentials and Transitionals) Act 2001 (Cth); Patents Amendment Act 2001 (Cth); Industry, Science and Resources Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act 2001 (Cth); Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Act 2000 (Cth); Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 1998 ( Cth ), and so on.
102. IPCRC Report, op. cit., pp. 202-15.
103. Ibid, p. 139.
104. Lawson, 2004a, 0p. cit., pp. 141-55.
105. IPCRC Report, 0p. cit., p. 27.
106. Ibid, pp. 143-4.
107. Lawson, 2004a, op. cit., pp. 141-56.
108. IPCRC Report, 0p. cit., p. 61.
109. Hilmer Committee, op. cit., p. 191.
110. Ibid, p. 61.
111. NCC Review, op. cit.
112. Ibid, pp. 227-30.
113. Ibid, pp. 193-213.
114. Ibid, p. 242.
115. Ibid, pp. 200 and 213.
116. Ibid, p. 200.
117. Ibid, p. 213.
118. Ibid, pp. 196 and 200.
119. IPCRC Report, 0p. cit., pp. 202-15, the IPCR Committee itself noted that the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) provisions were fashioned in a different economic era and probably should be subjected to their own independent review (pp. 209-10).
120. Office of Regulation Review, A Guide to Regulation, Office of Regulation Review, Canberra, 1998.
121. Productivity Commission, Regulation and its Review, op. cit.
122. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2003 (Cth); Trade Marks and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (Cth); Corporations (Repeals, Consequentials and Transitionals) Act 2001 (Cth); Industry, Science and Resources Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act 2001 (Cth); Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Act 2000 (Cth).
123. Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1998, Revised Explanatory Memorandum, 1998, p. 3.
124. Industry Commission 1996a, op. cit., pp. 66-7 and 444.
125. Ibid, pp. 439-40.
126. Industry Commission 1996b, op. cit., p. 186.
127. Industry Commission 1996a, op. cit., pp. 438-9.
128. Commonwealth, Australia-United States of America Free Trade Agreement Regulatory Impact Statement, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Canberra, 2004, p. 4 (at http://www.aph.gov.au/house /committee/jsct/usafta/treaties/newris.pdf, visited 10 June 2004) ('AUSFTA RIS').
129. Centre for International Economics, Economic Analysis of AUSFTA Impact of the Bilateral Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Centre for International Economics, Sydney, 2004, pp. 41-2; notably these economic impacts are considered to be negligible, although the likely changes to the regulatory scheme were unknown (p. 42).
130. Ibid, p. 41.
131. AUSFTA RIS, op. cit., p. 7.
132. Ibid, p. 13; further, there is a recognition that '[t]here are additional commitments to bind our existing standards of regulation in certain aspects of intellectual property protection' (p. 15).
133. BAA, op. cit., p. 7
134. Real Results 2003a, op. cit., p. 9.
135. BAA, op. cit., p. 18.
136. Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy, Earthscan, London, 2002.
137. Lawson, 2004a, op. cit., pp. 141-55.
138. Industry Commission 1996c, op. cit., p. 11.