The Australian report is ready. From the recommendations and summary document:
Also the number of researchers per thousand employees has declined substantially in the last decade and US patents granted per 1,000 population have plunged from 0.06 to 0.01 (1999-2003)
Intellectual Property is also critical to the creation and succesful use of new knowledge - particularly the 'cumulative' use of knowledge as an input to furtherm better knowledge. In this regard, particularly in new areas of patenting such as software and business methods there is strong evidence that existing intellectual property arrangements are hampering innovation. To address this, the central design aspects of all intellectual property needs to be managed as an aspect of economic policy. Arguably, the current threshold of inventiveness for existing patents is also too low. The inventive steps required to qualify for patents should be considerable, and the resulting patents must be well defined, as to mininise litigation and maximise the scope for subsequent innovators.
Recommendation 7.2
Patent law should be reviewed to ensure that the inventive step required to qualify for patents are considerable, and that the resulting patents are well defined so as to minimise litigation and maximise the scope for subsequent innovators.
Recommendation 7.3 puts the foxes in charge of the hen house but acknowledges the importance of an emphasis on economic policy.
Professional practioners and beneficiaries of the IP system should be closely involved in IP policy making. However, IP policy is economic policy. It should make the same transition as competition policy did in the 1980s and 90s to beeing managed as such.
