<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.8.4" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>LawFont.com</title>
	<link>http://www.lawfont.com</link>
	<description>an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:35:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>ACTA and transparency</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting comment from Michael Geist today on transparency and ACTA &#8211; making the argument that the failure to reveal text is far from normal in relation to plurilateral or multilateral agreements.
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/20/acta-and-transparency/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Creole/Oreo biscuits</title>
		<description><![CDATA[There was a recent news story about Coles changing the name of a product line of biscuits from &#8220;Creole Creams&#8221; as a response to criticisms that the name was racist.
The more interesting aspect to the story &#8212; not commented on anywhere that I could find &#8212; was why Coles might have chosen the name &#8220;Creole [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/13/creoleoreo-biscuits/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Protectionism maintained</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Minister for Innovation has decided to ignore the Productivity Commission&#8217;s recommendations, and not to change the Australian regulatory regime for books introduced by the previous Labor government. In other words, publishers get to keep their territorial exclusivity for books, and the government thinks we should all get e-Readers instead (seriously, that&#8217;s practically in the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/protectionism-maintained/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>More on ACTA</title>
		<description><![CDATA[A few more news stories on ACTA including one from the ABC. 
Perhaps more interesting (not for what it says, but how it says it) is DFAT&#8217;s latest update on the negotiations. 
First, there&#8217;s this:
A variety of groups have shown their interest in getting more information on the substance of the negotiations and have requested [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/more-on-acta-2/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>More ACTA commentary</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Jamie Love on the Huffington Post here.
EFF here.
Howard Knopf here.
Nic Suzor/Electronic Frontiers Australia here.
New Zealand Herald here.
Atlantic here.
The IDG here.
Intellectual Property Watch here.
I would endorse the view expressed in the letter reproduced on the Huffington Post:

The only rationale for keeping the proposed ACTA text from the public is to suppress criticism and critical thinking about [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/06/more-acta-commentary/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Geist on ACTA</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Geist has a new report on ACTA here, with some discussion of the potential inclusions in an internet text. Nothing that would surprise an Australian, given our experience with the AUSFTA. 
I do, strongly, agree with Michael here, when he notes that:
On the international front, it provides firm confirmation that the treaty is not a [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/04/geist-on-acta/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>ACTA: here we go again?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s that time again. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (“ACTA”) negotiators are gathering again, this time in South Korea. ACTA has been off the radar for a little while now, overshadowed by other IP developments.  But now we’re up to the 6th round of negotiations, and, it would seem, interesting times await: according to the agenda [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/04/acta-here-we-go-again/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Kookaburra sits in the courtroom</title>
		<description><![CDATA[There have already been a few articles about the Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited case. 
The first thing to note is that the decision is just on a preliminary question. This is a procedural device used where it is likely to help save the court&#8217;s (and parties&#8217;) time and [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/07/31/kookaburra-sits-in-the-courtroom/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Manufacturing Generic Pharmaceuticals in Australia?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[I was interested, the other day, to see this Online Opinion article by Nick Gruen (Club Troppo) on Australia&#8217;s pharmaceutical industry and the idea of manufacturing generics for export. The basic point of in Nick&#8217;s post is that investment in the manufacture of generic biologics in Australia is being prevented by Australian patent law and [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/30/manufacturing-generic-pharmaceuticals-in-australia/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>This is interesting news: CSIRO wins settlement of wifi patent case in US</title>
		<description><![CDATA[SMH has the story here.
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/23/this-is-interesting-news-csiro-wins-settlement-of-wifi-patent-case-in-us/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
