Thanks Bugsy for putting your arguments forward. I do not consider them scary.
Can you please identify which points of mine you include as irrelevant under “much”? I’m intrigued.
As for Ian, he doesn’t consider himself a winner. He still lives in the same smallish house and rides his bike to work. He was originally vocal in his opposing of the “gene patents”, and has not changed his mind, he just sees the proposed amendments for what they are – too broad. He has identified that the proposed changes would have meant that his vaccines to prevent cervical cancer would not have arisen if under the proposed system. He sees that as a poor outcome for Australia. He is not an idiot nor driven by greed.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “many, such as The Royal College of Pathologists of Australia that don't support many of the amendments as they stand but fully support the intent of the bill and believe that ongoing process of refining the amendments should take place”. I have underlined the important bit i.e. everyone that has a clue knows that the amendments are too broad.
You did see my point 3 didn’t you that diagnostic patents will not even be affected by the proposed amendments?
I think you are missing the point about Amgen. Their market is not in pharmaceutical compounds per se but in protein based therapies and they are not making noises. If their therapeutics come off patent there is no longer any point coming into a market for 20 million people, with no protection, to be undercut by generics.

To sum up my position:
1. I don’t have a problem with removing “gene patents”. There aren’t many of them left; you can’t get them now anyway. Big deal.
2. But, the proposed amendments are way too broad. Even the researchers, pathologists, clinicians who have done their research can see it. In their current form they will negatively affect the provision of healthcare in Australia.
3. Why are they so broad? Because those proposing the changes don’t know enough about patent law or the science behind it (you need years of experience in both).
4. The problem of refining the proposed amendments is that it is a very difficult process of selecting the correct wording to amend s 18 of the Act because you are trying to predict what will happen in the future and remove negative outcomes that you can’t foresee. Hence the current dilemma.
Unfortunately for Heffernan, when reading through the Senate submissions it seems that many of the “well informed people” though wanting to knock off gene patents (all power to them), see the amendments for what they are. Possibly that’s why they are not laughing.

Thanks for the link Bugsy, and the good comments donut. If the title had been more wisely chosen, some posters may not have missed the point of the argument. This amendment will not effect the current (in)ability to patent gene sequences.

From the submission of the he Group of Eight (Go8) leading Australian universities:

"The current patents act 1990 specifies that a patentable invention has to be: a manner of manufacture, novel, involve an inventive step and useful...the requirement for an inventive step should be sufficient to ensure that discoveries cannot be the subject of granted patents."

I agree that rather than amending the language to exclude specific patents (biologicals in this case), the language should emphasize the intended point of patents, to protect novel, useful inventions. This way we won't be playing catch up in another 10 years time when we have a new products which cannot be easily defined or predicted. I can think of many potential products from my field of work which will not be defined by the proposed amendments. Most likely they will cause more trouble that we currently have.

Ok, so everyone agrees on the intent of the amendments. It appears that most people agree that there should be amendments.What is in issue is that some of the submissions consider some of the wording of the amendments is too broad.

That may be the case, and that should be nutted out. However, I truly think that the patent system as a whole has been thoroughly abused in recent times and has outlived it's usefulness. However, I don't think that this warrants calling the proposer of the amendments 'a joke' (even if he is).

You want to know which bits of your arguments are irrelevant? Ok, the history of patent winners and medicines that made it through the patent system is irrelevant. There are plenty more that didn't because they weren't lucrative enough to bother, or couldn't make it through because someone held a patent on a part of the invention. It's what Nassim Taleb would call the 'cemetery of silent evidence'. That Dr. Frazer does not consider himself a 'winner' is also largely irrelevant.

There also seemsm to be contradictory argument in what you have written. On the one hand, you say that companies won't invest because of generics undercutting them, but then say that generics won't come in because they will have to do the testing to meet regulatory approval. You also have stated that research has not been stifled because researchers haven't been prosecuted as they are considered too poor to worry about and it would damage company reputations etc. This acknowledges the fact that they could be persued and stopped in their tracks if the patent holders wanted to. I consider this a very uncomfortable position for a researcher to be in, even if they are unaware of it.
It is for this reason I will continue to support open access whenever possible.

Thanks Bugsy for your comments.
Regarding your new points I have the following questions/comments:
“I truly think that the patent system as a whole has been thoroughly abused in recent times and has outlived it's usefulness”. Can you please cite specific examples and I will consider them on individual merit.
Heffernan is a joke (or the devil – in his own words). Since when is putting isolated DNA in a vector considered “bureaucratic mumbo jumbo” (Heffernan). I have tried to explain this issue with the proposed amendments with another politician involved but who has no background in patent law or science, and they just didn’t get it.
I don’t understand this whole “patent winner” thing you keep referring to. Seems a relative or abstract concept to me. Many patent holders set up companies that go nowhere through running out of money or poor management. I don’t see them as winners.
Your comment “or couldn't make it through because someone held a patent on a part of the invention”. Please cite examples so I can consider them on their merit. I have never heard of Nassim Taleb but I will look him up as he sounds intriguing.
Sorry that I confused you but it’s not a contradictory argument. Whether innovative or generic company, you need to firstly obtain regulatory approval in Australia for a new product which is far more onerous and costly for the first applicant because any other applicants (generics) largely cite the first applicant’s results when seeking their later approval. Secondly, you need to develop a market which includes large advertising and marketing costs to convince doctors, pharmacies, clinicians, hospitals to use your product instead of what they were already using/doing. Depending on the product, this can be a very labour intensive and costly exercise

Therefore, if an innovative company doesn’t enter Australia with a new product X, then a generic would have to incur these costs in gaining approval and developing a market for their version of X. Except they won’t do that because they don’t have any way (patent) to stop a further generic coming in after them who can avoid most of the regulatory approval costs and enter an already developed market for X. Why is this a problem? Because the first generic has to recover their costs for gaining approvals and marketing and so naturally they will have to cost their product X higher than what the second generic has to. That’s why the generics don’t do it (at least in Australia). Hopefully that removes any confusion.
“This acknowledges the fact that they could be pursued and stopped in their tracks if the patent holders wanted to”. Yes, this is correct. I didn’t say otherwise. I just explained why it doesn’t happen. If you read the Senate submissions by IP Australia you will see that they and IPTA recommend amending the Act to include research provisions that will ensure researchers cannot be sued.
(I have more to say but I won't be allowed to for the next 24 h - will return soon)