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

Meeting Minutes This document is a record of a meeting. Do not edit this document without contacting the relevant group first.

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

Minutes

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.