Editorial

摘要

Intellectual Property (IP) law reform is important but, in the face of rapid technological change, extraordinarily challenging. In Australia, recent IP reform has centred on the comprehensive review of the IP system by the Productivity Commission (PC), resulting in a final report issued in September 2016 and the government's response to the report released in August 2017. While public attention has focused on the PC recommendations for copyright reform, and especially its recommendations for introducing a fair use-style exception, much less attention has been given to potentially significant reforms to the patent system, including the threshold for inventive step and abolishing innovation patents. The first article in this issue, by Jane Nielsen and Di Nicol from the University of Tasmania, is a critical analysis of the PC recommendations for patent law reform, including analysis of issues neglected by the Commission. Potentially more significantly, the article questions some of the assumptions made by the PC, including that dealing with low-value patents is the major priority for patent law reform. While there is room for concern about the PC process - and especially the very broad terms of reference - this should not detract from the need for considered attention to reasoned proposals for improving IP laws. In future issues of the journal, we hope to publish similar analyses of the PC copyright recommendations and the processes established by the government for responding to the proposals.