Tag: around the world
Germany’s new Supply Chain Due Diligence Act: What you need to know
Many governments around the world are using legislation to drive responsible business practices and positive impacts on people’s working conditions. These laws require companies to manage their operational impacts on people and the environment and report on their efforts. It’s important to know which of these laws apply to your business and how to comply.
It’s Farewell to Shelston IP, as IPH Executes Another ‘Integration’
The corporate behemoth that is IPH Limited (ASX:IPH) – which at close on 10 September 2021 had a market capitalisation of A$2.00 billion, and was trading at a near-all-time-high of A$9.270 – has, through a series of acquisitions and ‘integrations’, brought about the demise of a number of well-known names in the Australasian IP firmament. Fisher Adams Kelly, Callinans, Cullens, Watermark and Baldwins are all brands that, until not so long ago, were familiar to anyone with an interest in the IP services market, but which no longer exist. And on 8 September 2021, IPH announced [PDF, 98kB] that Shelston IP is next in line. Shelston IP will be integrated with Spruson & Ferguson Australia, with the combined firm operating under the Spruson & Ferguson brand from 1 November 2021, at which time the Shelston IP brand will be retired. Full systems integration is expected to occur in December 2021.
Ironically, at the time of writing, the ‘About us’ page (Wayback Machine archive, for posterity) on the Shelston IP web site summarises the firm’s history as follows:
Shelston IP has provided excellence in intellectual property for over 160 years. Throughout this time we have developed deep relationships with our clients including with some of the world’s most recognisable companies; relationships that span more than fifty years. Like our clients we never stand still and have innovated, grown and aligned our business for success ensuring we will still be here in another 100 years.
Sadly, this is not to be, and many (me included) will be sad to see the demise of yet another firm with such a long history. But IPH – unlike Xenith IP Group Limited, the listed entity that Shelston IP itself established and which went on to own Watermark and Griffith Hack before being acquired by IPH – has been uncompromising in its determination to generate greater efficiencies and profitability from its stable of firms. And while IPH is not without critics, both within and outside the profession, it is no mean feat to build a A$2 billion company. By my estimation, this now makes IPH large enough for inclusion in the ASX 200 index. Love it or hate it, according to established financial metrics, IPH is a hugely successful enterprise.
I have taken a look at some of the data on changes in the number of patent attorneys at firms within the IPH group over the past 18 months or so, as well as the group’s patent filing numbers over the past financial year, to try to get a sense of where the IPH businesses may be heading. I was also fortunate to have the opportunity to speak with IPH CEO, Dr Andrew Blattman, on Friday 10 September 2021. In what follows, I will present a few of my observations, along with relevant comments from my discussion with Dr Blattman.
Dr Blattman is, of course, the CEO of a listed company, and he has obligations to shareholders and the market that may limit what he can say publicly, and which at the same time constrain him from misleading the market in any way. Not everyone (including me) will agree with everything he says. However, I have done my best to accurately report his comments without distorting or misrepresenting his views. (I have used the blockquote style when reporting Dr Blattman’s comments to clearly differentiate them from my opinions and commentary, although it will be obvious from the context that they are not exact quotes.) I am not trying to engage in hard-hitting journalism here, just to be a source of information and opinion. And please keep in mind, if you choose to engage through the comments section at the end, that the High Court has just confirmed that I am legally responsible for any defamatory content you may post!
Read more »In Becoming the First Country to Recognise Non-Human Inventors, is Australia a Hero of Progress, or a Chump?
As I recently (tentatively) predicted, on Friday 30 July 2021 Justice Beach in the Federal Court of Australia handed down a judgment giving Australia the dubious honour of becoming the first country in the world to legally recognise a non-human as a valid inventor on a patent application: Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879. I would suggest that the remarkable speed with which this unnecessarily lengthy (228 paragraphs) decision was rendered, after being heard on 2 July 2021, may reflect the judge’s enthusiasm for issuing such a ground-breaking ruling. Unfortunately, I do not share that enthusiasm, and I am confident that there are many others who are equally uncomfortable with the outcome. My hope is that this includes officials within IP Australia and the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, and that the decision will be duly appealed to a Full Bench of the court. It is, in my view, deeply regrettable that the Commissioner of Patents did not put on a stronger defence in the first instance because, even though an appeal was probably inevitable either way, the worldwide publicity that this decision is now generating is not necessarily beneficial for Australia.
The judge summarised his reasoning (at [10]) that:
…in my view an artificial intelligence system can be an inventor for the purposes of the Act. First, an inventor is an agent noun; an agent can be a person or thing that invents. Second, so to hold reflects the reality in terms of many otherwise patentable inventions where it cannot sensibly be said that a human is the inventor. Third, nothing in the Act dictates the contrary conclusion.
The patent system faces many challenges, but right now a need to grant more patents in a wider range of circumstances in not one of them. We are in the grip of a global pandemic, and very serious questions are being asked about whether patents deliver a net benefit to the people of the world by incentivising the development of new vaccines and treatments, or whether they have the detrimental effect of denying affordable access to vital care and protection in poor and developing nations. While I am firmly in the former camp, it only becomes harder to defend the patent system when opponents see the law expanding access to allow inventions generated by machines – potentially including those owned and controlled by giant corporations.
The standing and reputation of Australia and our patent laws are also at risk. The country is already the target of criticism – rightly or wrongly – for declining to support calls for a waiver of IP provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). The Federal Court’s decision in Thaler is receiving global attention, and not all of it is positive. One tweet (in Spanish) compares Australia’s patent-friendly approach unfavourably with the infamous incident of an early innovation patent being granted for a ‘circular transportation facilitation device’, a.k.a. the wheel.
Just because patents are (or, at least, can be) good, it does not follow that more patents, generated in more ways, by more entities, must be better. Australia should not think that we will necessarily come across as a socially and technologically progressive nation by ‘leading the way’ on allowing patents to be granted for inventions generated by non-humans. On the contrary, we risk being left out on our own and looking like chumps. The United States will not follow our lead – there are Constitutional, statutory and procedural barriers to permitting US patent applications naming non-human inventors. The European Patent Office will not follow in the foreseeable future – it has already established its position via an academic study and discussions with member states of the European Patent Convention. The UK has so far rejected any expansion of inventorship to non-humans. And, contrary to recent reports (and the claims of the Artificial Inventor Project’s Ryan Abbott), the recent grant of a patent in South Africa naming DABUS as inventor indicates nothing about that country’s law or position on the issue. As South African patent attorney Pieter Visagie has explained, the application effectively avoided any scrutiny of the legitimacy of the inventor by virtue of being filed via the international (PCT) system.
So what does Australia gain by being the first – and possibly only – country in the world to legally recognise non-human inventors? Nothing, as far as I can see, other than a whole lot of unneeded publicity and global scrutiny of our patent laws. If we are lucky, we will not receive many serious patent applications for inventions generated by machine inventors, and little practical harm will be done. At worst, however, we could become the only country in the world to grant patents on such inventions, mostly filed by foreign applicants, creating exclusive rights that are enforceable only in Australia to the relative detriment of Australian innovators and consumers.
Read more »7 Ways to Prevent Invoice & Email Fraud: A Comprehensive Guide
A Comprehensive Guide to Preventing B2B Payments Fraud
The FBI reported that Business Email Compromise (BEC) and invoice fraud has cost U.S. businesses more than $2 billion between 2014 and 2019 through BEC scams. These events have been reported in all 50 states and in 177 countries.
If businesses and corporate finance professionals do not find a way to mitigate the risk of email and invoice fraud quickly, we could see twelve-figure losses in the not too distant future. That’s why we’ve created a comprehensive guide to help you reduce the risk of invoice and email fraud in 2021 and beyond.
First, we’ll take a look at the primary reasons why invoice and email fraud are on the rise, and then we’ll outline seven ways to avoid it. Like all things, protection starts by understanding the root cause.
Latest Intelligence
