This article raises an issue which is far more important than most people realise.

IP laws date back a couple of centuries now in English law, but when they were first proposed they were considered extremely controversial because they effectively represent the ownership of ideas, which is niether a natural nor intuitive concept. Ultimately, IP laws were only widely embraced because it was believed they would encourage creativity by rewarding the creative. This seems to have been forgotten now, and IP rights are now seen as a fundamental right. As originally concieved, IP rights were really a priviledge, granted to the creative, to encourage creativity for the public benefit.

The result is that many IP laws now permit outcomes whereby the public interest is not served at all. For example, IP rights are often aquired, not by those wishing to use the creative work, but by competition in order to remove it from the market place. IP rights very often effectively give rise to statutory monopolies, the creation of which needs to be compensated by a sufficient public interest. Our law makers appear to have lost sight of this at times.

While these concerns might seem trivial if we are talking about competing ideas for can openers, but what about competing medical technologies? IP laws whilst encouraging inovation in medical technology and pharmaceuticals, have also allowed pharmaceutical companies to restrict access to life saving drugs to only the wealthy. Without a doubt, because of the excesses of our IP laws, people have died of treatable diseases who might otherwise be alive today.

Whilst the concept of IP laws as an engine room for creativity is sound, many of the laws should be revised with the primacy of the public interest being kept firmly in mind.

Yes, its a real problem. But is it one that will be fixed. I haven't seen anybody arguing in support of the current patent system in ages. Well, the pharmaceutical industry likes it, but everybody else bar the patent trolls is howling in pain. The discussion has already moved beyond "is it broken?" to "how to we fix it?". In the case of software even the US patent office seems to be arguing for them to be ditched completely.

The current copyright laws have also gone too far. Copyrights lasting 120 years is plainly absurd. Still, no one cared while only businesses were effected. Now everyone can be a publisher, and so everyone is effected. This ridiculous growth in IP law happen on my generations watch, but its our internet savvy kids are the ones who are being pursed and sued because of it. I'd lay odds that when its their turn to make the rules the laws will be fixed.

The Framers of the Constitution opposed “RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION” that would by hindsight make a man a criminal where at the time he acted lawfully. Hence, I view Happy Birthday cannot be retrospectively extended to be excluded from use as such.

In 1985 I created the document “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” (To make litigation a more level playing field.) and published a book about it in 2003 which is used in all levels of Courts in both criminal and civil matters but never considered to seek royalties for it or to restrict usage unless I was getting paid, as to me it was in the interest of the General Public.

QUOTE
Because Australia does not have a national charter of rights that equally protects fundamental rights such as speech and privacy
END QUOTE

As the Framers of the Constitution stated;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Mr. CLARK.-
QUOTE
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE.

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE

On 19 July 2006 (after a 5-year legal battle) the County Court of Victoria upheld my constitutional submissions against the Crown (Commonwealth) where they were all left UNCHALLENGED by the Crown.
.
The issue therefore is how to apply constitutional powers appropriately. For this we need an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations.
.
My concern as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, Author and publisher is not people using my material that is an issue to me but they do not use plagiarism and as such acknowledge me as the author when using my material