The debate as to whether companies should be allowed to patent genes escalated this month with an Australian Senate committee holding public hearings on the topic. Gene patenting gives intellectual property rights over isolated gene sequences and their uses, if the chemical structure of the isolated sequence was not previously known. Input from scientists, lawyers and community groups around the country is shaping the dialogue on the pros and cons of gene patenting.

Those in favour say the identification of genes creates a new and practical use and, therefore, warrants legal protection. Those against the patenting argue that patents are designed to be a reward for invention and should not apply to the practice of simply identifying or isolating something that has always existed, particularly in the human body.

The Senate inquiry is to consider the impact of the granting of patents in Australia over human and microbial genes and non-coding sequences, proteins, and their derivatives, including those materials in an isolated form, with particular reference to the impact of patent monopolies on the provision and costs of healthcare, the provision of training and accreditation for healthcare professionals, the progress in medical research, and the health and wellbeing of the Australian people. It will also identify measures that would ameliorate any adverse impacts arising from the granting of patents over such materials, including whether the Patents Act 1990 should be amended, in light of the any matters identified by the inquiry; and whether the Patents Act 1990 should be amended so as to expressly prohibit the grant of patent monopolies over such materials.

One voice in the public debate is that of Francis Gurry, Assistant Director General and the Legal Counsel of the World Intellectual Property Organization, who states in relation to the effect of patenting decision on creating a viable biotech industry `... that's one consideration you always have to have, is what are you doing to your home industry if you are going to exclude patent protection? And the other is, how are you going to relate to your major trading partners? Because if you're not protecting things that they regard to be extremely important, then they're obviously going to regard you as a less hospitable environment in which to invest.'

Another key point in the argument is over whether genes can be termed inventions. According to Luigi Palombi, Intellectual Property lawyer and academic at ANU, `Strictly speaking, the patent monopoly should only be granted in respect of something that is an invention, and that's one of the things that this inquiry's going to be looking at - are genes in an isolated form - and by that I mean genes that have been removed from the human body or removed from their natural environments - are these inventions? And the scientific community seems to be pretty clear that they're not, and I'm certainly of the view, and I have been for many years as a patent lawyer, of the view that they are not inventions and cannot be inventions, because essentially they are identical or substantially identical to what exists in nature.'

On August 5 2009, Professor Ian Olver of the Cancer Council Australia addressed the Senate Inquiry advocating for patent law reform. Sally Crossing of the Cancer Voices NSW backed the view that current laws are out-dated and restricting the progress of cancer research. She added that `Cancer Voices NSW, in its role of representing the interests of people affected by cancer strongly supports an amendment of the Patents Act, to prohibit the granting of patents over such natural materials as human genes. Apart from the ethical aspects, the understanding of the role of genes in cancer is an exciting new field with enormous potential for us all. We do not want to see it compromised by patent monopolies over human genes, limiting badly needed opportunities in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of cancer (and many other diseases).'

This question has been simmering for several decades and is now being brought to the surface of a boiling pot `should private, profit-driven companies be allowed to gain exclusive control over knowledge about our genes.' The answer will have enormous implications for the scientific community, pharmaceutical research companies and patients alike.

Headline news in The Australian July 15, 2009 stated "Book prices to fall as trade ban tumbles". In a report by the Productivity Commission delivered on July 14, it was recommended that the federal government lift import restrictions on the parallel importation of books into Australia. This is to be implemented over 3 years.

Under current restrictions if a book is published in Australia within 30 days of being published overseas, retailers must buy their stocks from Australian publishers and are restricted from importing from an overseas market. Buyers often side step this process by buying online at cheaper prices. However, price is not the only issue for those arguing for the ban to be lifted. Many buyers want hard covers or limited editions that are just not available in Australia even though paperback versions have been published.

Advocates of "cheaper books" hail the Commission's decision as a win, while many authors, including prominent literary figures, such as Bryce Courtney, Peter Carey, Tim Winton and Nick Earls have spoken out against the decision. The commission received over 550 submissions outlining the various positions held by retailers, publishers and authors alike. According to The Australian, the Director of the Australian Society of Authors, Jeremy Fisher, submitted a 15 page report in which he commented that "removing the territorial copyright of books will simply destroy our literary culture."

Author Kate Grenville wrote in her submission, "Changes to the current regulations to erode our copyright territories will have a devastating impact. Because of our small population, few Australian writers - even well-known and celebrated ones - make anything more than an extremely modest income from sales. Anything that will further reduce our income will see many of us forced to stop writing. At best, we will be forced to tailor our writing only to what overseas publishers and readers will buy, since our Australian publishers would be in decline."

Ben Atkinson, author of The True History of Copyright - the Australian experience 1905-2005 points out that the prohibition on direct importation by retailers is "simply a carry-over from British law originally aimed at Irish pirates, and it is antithetical to Australian interests." And Bob Carr agrees with this argument that legislation is holding the publishing industry back. In his column in The Australian, he said "After all the pleading and hyperbole from publishers, it's refreshing to see the commission acknowledge what actually happened in New Zealand when protection was removed in 1998 ... Just as with the opening of the CD market in Australia in 1998, prices will go down and royalties will go up, because lower prices means more sales."

Whilst there has been a lengthy and heated debate about the removing of restrictions - booksellers saying it will bring book prices down, and authors arguing that it is the death of Australian literature - there have been few voices of clarity and much misinformation suggesting that basic copyright protection is under threat. A specialist IP solicitor can help authors and publishers make sense of Copyright Law and protect their rights and creative work.

With changes in the global economy putting more people out of work, the number of people making the decision to begin their own business is on the rise. With this impetus towards creative thinking and the development of new websites and products, it becomes more important every day to consider "Brand Protection."

There are several components involved in the process of branding our product. The first thing to consider is Trade Mark Protection. In Australia, this is regulated by the Australian Government under Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia). Trade Mark protection begins with registering your Trade Name. Once this is done there are several other areas involved in protecting your brand that need to be considered. These include domain names, business names, and how to protect your Trade Mark internationally.

So you've started a new business or had an existing one for a while and have decided to take things a step further and register your Trade Name. The first thing to think about is how you are going to distinguish your products and services from others in the marketplace. What makes your product unique or stand out from the crowd? Perhaps, people have already started to define your product or service with positive feedback, or you might have come up with a way to identify your business that others can relate to. It is important to check that this name or brand identification is not already being used. It can prove difficult to register a common name or name of a place or well known person. Also, some words are protected by law and cannot be registered under the Trade Marks Acts of 1995. Remember the controversy over the word "champagne", and also the use of "UGG boots" as a brand name.

In order to find out if the brand name you have chosen can be registered and what to do once you get to this point, it might be wise to seek professional advice as goods and services are divided into a number of classes. You need to perform searches in the relevant categories to be sure your Trade Mark can be registered. IP Australia has set up a website with resources for searches. However, they give the following advice:

• Patent, trade mark and design searching is generally only carried out by specially trained persons and the interpretation of the search results is a matter of legal analysis usually performed by specialist advisers.
• The search facilities provided are not a substitute for searches conducted or advice obtained from specialist searchers or advisers.

Once you have your Trade Mark and you are on track with getting it registered, you need to consider the other places you are going to use your brand. Just because you have registered a Trade Mark does not mean you have the domain name, so this might be your next step. A domain name is a textual address that corresponds to a numerical address for an internet location. It would be great to get the domain name that has the same wording as your brand name, but be aware others might have already claimed this location. If an internet address has an ".au" after it, it is registered in Australia. You can find more information about the Australian registration of domain names at Australian Domains (http://www.auda.org.au/about/info/).  There is a guide for small businesses in relation to domain names at this site.

So, you have a registered Trade Mark and purchased a Domain Name - but your brand is not fully protected yet! Registering a Trade Mark is not the same as registering a business name. This can be a little confusing, but a business name is the name under which a business operates. Registration serves as a means of identifying the owners of the business. If the business structure you have chosen is as a sole trader, a partnership or a trust, and not as a company, then you are required to register your business name in the state or territory in which you will operate. You don't need to register a business name if you plan to conduct your business under your or your partner's, first name and surname. Where trading occurs in more than one state or territory, the business name must be registered under the laws of each one. Registration of a business name is compulsory and must be completed before the business starts trading. You can conduct a search to see if your business name is already registered at Business name searchhttp://www.search.asic.gov.au/gns001.html

Once again, you may need to get professional assistance with this part of the process. On registering your business name you will be provided with an ABN (Australian Business Number).