Grant Shoebridge wants what's good for Grant Shoebridge, not for Australia

Summary: Shelston IP wants exactly the opposite of what's good for Australia; it just wants what's good for itself, yet it habitually pretends to speak for a productive industry (nothing could be further from the truth)

THE corrupting influence of the patent 'industry' (notably law firms) is often mentioned here in relation to the USPTO. It also appears as though the patent 'industry' has leverage over Battistelli, which helps explain the EPO's suicidal (self-destructive) path. We'll write about that later today.

"...we have a pretty good idea (and record) of who lobbies who, when, and what for."Over the years we wrote about 200 short posts or long articles about patent policy 'down under', especially as it relates to software patents in New Zealand and in Australia (IPONZ and IP Australia, respectively). This means we have a pretty good idea (and record) of who lobbies who, when, and what for.

“Given the current substantial uncertainty that exists regarding how the proposed objects clause will be implemented, this draft legislation will be keenly anticipated and Shelston IP will keep you advised of developments.”
      --Grant ShoebridgeOver the past few years we've seen Shelston IP pushing patent extremism and software patents 'down under' e.g. [1, 2, 3]. They weren't quite so active until a few years ago. Nowadays they are lobbying IP Australia to become a patent maximalist (or a 'patent-printing machine') rather than a patent examination office, having noticed that the commission associated with productivity advised against software patents and policy adapted accordingly. Just before the weekend Grant Shoebridge from Shelston IP had another go at it:

In this first of two "patentable subject matter" articles, I will consider IP Australia's proposals in relation to the introduction of an objects clause and its seemingly significant potential impact on Australia's patent eligibility threshold.

[...]

The next stage in the introduction of an objects clause into the Australian Patent Act will be the preparation of an exposure draft of the legislative amendments together with a draft explanatory memorandum on the intended purpose and interpretation of the objects clause. Given the current substantial uncertainty that exists regarding how the proposed objects clause will be implemented, this draft legislation will be keenly anticipated and Shelston IP will keep you advised of developments.

Notice that last sentence; these people actually believe the law exists just to serve them and it's for them to decide on. How arrogant an assumption. They don't even produce anything.

What IP Australia needs to understand (and hopefully does already) is that firms like Shelston IP are foes of productivity; they derive power and income from litigation, disputes, threats of litigation, and escalating disputes. Whatever they suggest on the subject of patents is counterproductive to productivity. In a sense, one might as well just say that IP Australia needs to listen to what Shelston IP wants and then implement the exact opposite of what Shelston IP suggests. ⬆