AS an expert in Australian intellectual property, I am concerned that Neil Davidson published an inaccurate account of the High Court of Australia's decision on the plain packaging of tobacco products ("Plain packaging is far from being a clear-cut matter", Herald Agenda, August 23).
The High Court of Australia ruled by a majority of six to one that Australia's plain packaging regime did not constitute an acquisition of property. The judges were highly critical of the position of the tobacco industry in both oral argument and their written decision.
The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia emphasised that intellectual property law serves larger public purposes - such as the protection of public health. Even the dissenting judge observed that the tobacco industry was a purveyor of lies and death.
Neil Davidson neglects the ratio of the decision, and instead tries to produce an opposing position through the use of obiter comments about "takings". This provides a rather distorted image of the case and its reasoning. The public record should be corrected.
The High Court of Australia's decision highlights how national governments have the power to make use of flexibilities in intellectual property to address matters of public health.
Dr Matthew Rimmer,
Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Fellows Road,
The Australian National University,
Canberra.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article