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.