In 1984, Don Lamberton wrote a two-page disclaimer to a review of the Australian patent system, pointing out that there was nothing economic about the review and that it simply pandered to special interest groups. Some 30 years later, the Productivity Commission has been given a shorter time frame (one year) and a broader remit (all intellectual property). This paper reviews the issues addressed in the Industrial Property Advisory Committee (IPAC) review of 1984. Since it was completed, substantially more empirical evidence has become available, while room for policy improvement has been curtailed by international trade treaties. While the Productivity Commission will take a sound economic approach, the breadth of its remit may prevent full appreciation of the critical issues in patent policy. This paper considers the options remaining to the Commission to recommend improvements in the national interest. Whether these will be taken up depends on the priority given to the interests of small but powerful lobby groups.

PAGES
431 – 443
DOI
All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Issues
Also in this issue:
-
Automated plagiarism
-
Generative artificial intelligence in qualitative analysis: a critical examination of tools, trust and rigor
-
‘Foreignize yourself’. What has translation to do with innovation? A translation studies approach to hybrid innovation
-
From tools to symbols: exploring the complex nexus of smartphones in Bangladesh
-
Impoverishing peer review