Clark David: Patents Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Patents Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Labour will be supporting this Patents Bill and I thank the Minister of Commerce for his contribution. There have been many Ministers who have contributed to this over the years. I think I am right in saying that its introduction dates back to the time of the Hon Judith Tizard in this House. It has been around a wee while. The bill has made steady progress and now we are here debating the final form but with more Supplementary Order Papers on the way. So it is a journey—it is indeed a journey.We support the bill because when we look at the purposes at its most fundamental Part 1 covers the purposes of this bill it says that “The purposes of this Act are to—(aa) provide an efficient and effective patent system that—(i) promotes innovation and economic growth while providing an appropriate balance between the interests of inventors and patent owners and the interests of society as a whole;”.So often when we debate these intellectual property issues we come back to the question about how the interests of society as a whole are protected. The debates around software patenting and innovation in that sphere often revolve around whether the interests of society as a whole are served by protecting inventors to an extent that may be beyond what is necessary to encourage innovation in that sector. There are plenty of people who say that innovation is rife in many sectors and that very little patenting or intellectual property protection is required. In other sectors when we think it through pharmaceuticals require a huge amount of investment when it comes to intellectual property. The billions of dollars that go into drugs that are of benefit to society as a whole simply would not be invested without the appropriate protections in place. That is why this kind of intellectual property law needs to find the right balance between the interests of the inventors what the incentives need to be to ensure that they do invest in stuff that is good for society as a whole and the benefit that accrues to society and whether it would be more or less depending on the incentives that are put in place.We could question some of things that are being debated in the leaked Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in the negotiations and the issue always comes back to whether the interests of society as a whole are being served by the changes that are proposed. The one that is in the public domain most often is the extension of Disneyland’s intellectual property protections and whether that is actually of use to society as a whole given that no new creative content is likely to arise from historic material.This bill itself—[Interruption] My colleague Clare Curran says—I do not know whether I heard her correctly—that that is a Mickey Mouse proposition but if not I am extrapolating and there may be some truth in that. Of course we do not know what the final shape of those arrangements will be and we are not privy to the negotiations. That is of course something New Zealanders are concerned about because we all want not only the interests of society as a whole but our national interests to be taken care of. Mr Lotu-Iiga I am sure would agree with me if he had the opportunity to speak on this matter.Part 1 covers those purposes the preliminary purposes that I mentioned striking that balance. It also mentions there in the opening gambit New Zealand’s international obligations and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights springs to mind for me. Those agreements are in terms of the World Trade Organization expectations what serve to make sure that international trade is looked out for and that we all as countries are encouraged to create new intellectual property—and that is good for society as a whole—broader than just national boundaries.These purposes in the bill look at the criteria for granting a patent they provide for procedures that allow the validity of a patent to be tested and they provide certainty for those patent owners and users of patent interventions. They address someMāori concerns relating to the granting of patents for inventions derived from indigenous plants. Of course Wai 262 is something that many members of this Committee will be familiar with from the debates over the years. It is something that is not finally settled and is something that I personally believe needs the attention of the Government. The failure of this Government to progress that matter fully is also a concern and it should be a concern for this House.When we look further into Part 1 we see that it covers the meaning of “novel” which of course is a simple and basic requirement of outlining what a patent is.Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a book. I know.Dr DAVID CLARK: My colleague Mr Mallard says he has read the book on what novel is about. It is the meaning of an inventive step so what it actually means to invent something new because of course if that is not defined correctly we can have people who are trying to claim that they have rights to something that again does not benefit society as a whole if it is something that already exists if it is something from which we already derive benefit and then somebody is seeking a private rent—seeking to make profit from something that does not belong to their own intellectual property contribution. That then is a net drain on society as a whole. So it is important that we lay out exactly what each of these things is.It also covers the meaning of “prior art base” and I would ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce to clarify that as I have not been particularly engaged in the discussion about the prior art base. I think the Committee would be interested to know exactly what that looks like in practice and what it means in those clauses that describe the prior art base. Then of course there are disclosures and the meaning of “useful” because we are talking here—to come back to those first principles—about what is useful for society as a whole.As I said from the outset Labour will be supporting this legislation. New Zealand’s existing patent law is in our view too generous to those people seeking patents. Too many corporations get monopoly rights and many are multinational corporations that can get patent rights to investors inside New Zealand that would not be protected overseas. We are pleased to see that this is being upgraded. It has happened over a long period of time being first introduced in 2008 by the Hon Judith Tizard as I said and it is still being debated actively today. But it is great to see the bipartisan nature of the debate here in Parliament.I will not speak for much longer. I am simply interested though in hearing further from the Minister about the meaning of “prior art base” so that the Committee can understand that a little better. It is also for my own ignorance on that matter that I might have it clarified by the Minister. Thank you very much.