There have long been significant concerns about how international trade agreements affect Indigenous rights, particularly in respect of Indigenous Intellectual Property. As highlighted in our recent handbook on Indigenous Intellectual Property, there has been an ongoing conversation about the relationship between Indigenous communities, intellectual property, and trade. Such discussions have traditionally taken place in multilateral fora like the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, international climate talks, and the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples. Of late, the debate has also arisen in the context of bilateral trade agreements such as the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 1994, and mega-regional trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership 2015. Matthew Rimmer goes on to discuss.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of Changeover day: when Australia swapped from pounds to the new decimal currency. But the “C” in Changeover day might equally stand for Copyright day, for it marks the first Aboriginal copyright dispute. Stephen Gray goes on to explain.
Doctors, surgeons, and physicians around the Pacific Rim should be concerned by the proposals revealed by WikiLeaks in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
One of the most controversial features of the TPP is the proposal to provide for patent protection in respect of medical procedures. As Public Citizen observed, ‘Health providers, including surgeons, could be liable for the methods they use to treat patients.’ The civil society group noted: ‘Essentially, except for when a surgeon uses her bare hands, surgical methods would be patentable under the U.S. proposal.’
The TPP takes a broad approach to patents and medicine; lacks appropriate safeguards; and fails to address larger questions about equity, development, and human rights.
Such a measure could result in greater litigation against medical professionals; barriers to access to medical procedures for patients; and skyrocketing health costs.
Where do literary characters stand when it comes to copyright law? The ownership of Sherlock Holmes, the fictional detective created by Conan Doyle, is currently the subject of an ongoing legal battle in the US Courts. In the following article (originally published by The Conversation), ARC Future Fellow and Associate Professor in Intellectual Property, Matthew Rimmer, explains why it is that Sherlock Holmes and his companions belong in the public domain.
The UK government has this month been criticised for postponing the decision to introduce plain cigarette packaging in England. Health campaigners and politicians have condemned the move, accusing PM David Cameron of siding with tobacco giants and giving in to pressure from the election strategist, Lynton Crosby. But Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the government wanted to see how the policy had worked in Australia, the first country to introduce plain packaging last year, before making a “final decision”. The fall-out from the Australian Parliament passing the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act was documented last August by Matthew Rimmer (originally published byThe Conversation).
May 6, 2016
0 Comments