Minutes/Policy Development Committee Meeting/2014-01-22

Agenda

 * Welcome new members (Mozart)
 * Working groups (Mozart) — https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiFzeQ19ELxIdGRHbU9jam9kYWdzR2F1QmpuRGFQSWc&usp=sharing

Attendance

 * Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer (Chair)
 * Brendan Molloy
 * Andrew Downing
 * Trevor Dadson
 * Laura Killian
 * David Crafti
 * Bill McLean
 * Mark Gibbons

Apologies

 * Ben McGinnes
 * Daniel Judge

Welcome new members

 * Welcome to Laura, Trevor and Bill, new PDC members.

Working groups

 * PDC is now responsible for ensuring submissions to inquiries are made.
 * There is already one going on at the moment, which Frew is chairing — the TIA Act Review.
 * Put your name down on the spreadsheet to help with this and other working groups:
 * https://docs.google.com/a/pirateparty.org.au/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiFzeQ19ELxIdGRHbU9jam9kYWdzR2F1QmpuRGFQSWc&usp=drive_web#gid=0
 * There are also two other inquiries:
 * http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about-us/ip-legislation-changes/ip-laws-amendment-bill-2014/
 * Due 7 February.
 * http://www.communications.gov.au/online_safety_and_security/cyber_safety/Discussion_Paper_Enhancing_Online_Safety_for_Children
 * Due March 7.
 * Mozart will chair the IP Laws Amendment Bill working group
 * Bill will chair the Online Safety for Children working group
 * Mark will chair the Universal Education working group
 * Chairs should contact Mozart to set times for meetings.

Digital economy policy

 * We have many software people in PPAU, and our policies should be appealing to them as a base.
 * All of the policies we currently have that relate are indirect and/or reactive, rather than constructive.
 * Would like to start discussion about what a proactive policy would look like to optimise conditions in Australia to encourage the development of the software industry.
 * Might come out as a restructured collection of exisitng policy fragments.
 * Areas of interest: allowing reverse engineering for integration, supporting startup/cottage industry developments, patent changes (per existing policy), some kind of support for open source licence arrangements.
 * An appropriate place to kick off industrial policies.
 * Perhaps a $50 million dollar fund for startups.
 * Bring a business plan and capital can be provided to solid ideas.
 * Similar to the clean energy project, which turned out to be quite profitable.
 * Would need to be at arm's length from actual government interference
 * Not free money, it's capital to be repaid over time.
 * Fills a gap in that startups often can't get funding through banks and traditional means
 * Typically, the organizations that could afford the time/effort to build a solid case to get funds are large corporations.
 * This would only be for startups.
 * Like the HECS of business, long-term funding, with a relaxed, indexed repayment plan.
 * A broader digital innovation fund covering all types of digital startups might be better.
 * Renewable fund is making $300 million a year, easily enough to absorb the cost of failed startups if applied.
 * Put technical people in charge of evaluation instead of bureaucrats.
 * See motions.

Patents on life

 * Possible room to expand policy around patents o life and GMOs in the context of agriculture.
 * A major issue: "who controls the food, controls the people."
 * Some sort of agricultural diversity promotion policy.
 * Investigating the impacts of patents on seeds in the agricultural system.
 * Biodiversity-related.
 * We already have a policy to abolish seed patents.
 * A simple answer might be to declare that whatever a farmer grows on their land belongs to the farm, no caveats — IP can apply to designer biology, but not to constrain agricultural rights.
 * It's a complex issue, patents restrict farmers and scientists who want to do research with the seeds.
 * Also a breach of first principles of patent law.
 * Becomes complex if you try to define it in terms of what is and isn't patentable. Outcomes are better targets.
 * No patents on nature?
 * If it's designed, is it still nature?
 * It hasn't been designed, it's just been copied and recombined.
 * Once it grows it is part of nature.
 * Can you patent wood on the grounds that you "redesigned" it?
 * The patent comes from discovering how to combine things.
 * There's a problem with farmers being sued for seed spreading via wind.
 * Organisms are being constructed directly from basic amino acids
 * http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
 * Although Monsanto is a major player, there are many other seed/chemical companies in the seed patenting business.
 * If wholly constructed from base amino acids, does this mean no medical research relating to human genes or illnesses can be obstructed by it?
 * Unclear. Engineered viruses to treat humans are an example.
 * Perhaps a limit that a patent holder has no control past the point of sale.
 * This might encourage development of sterile seeds.
 * See action items.

Close meeting

 * See motions

Motions

 * MOTION: Focus on investigating policies to advance the opportunities for small to medium startup businesses in Australia to enhance the digital economy.
 * Put by: Mozart
 * Ayes: 7 (dcrafti, MarkG, Mozart, AndrewD, Trevor, BillM_, barefeetbee); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.


 * MOTION: close meeting.
 * Put by: Mozart
 * Ayes: 7 (dcrafti, Mozart, Trevor, barefeetbee, BillM_, AndrewD, MarkG); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

Action items

 * Laura to develop a proposed direction between now and the next meeting regarding agricultural impacts of seed patents.