Some of the Post Offices are open outside those hours, including weekends, but will not operate as Sub-Offices during the extended hours.

Health care providers and the public seem to have little difficulty accepting that they must pay a royalty to the patentee of a pharmaceutical substance or a medical device, but many draw the line at any treatment or diagnostic test having a genetic basis. It appears that the basis for this disparity lies in the curious thesis of “my body contains genes, and some corporate should not be able to own them”. This story attempted to make the point that the patenting process does not interfere with an individual’s ownership of their own genes, but perhaps did not go far enough.

Typically, gene patents protect only a “substantially isolated or purified” form of a gene. This means that in order to infringe a gene patent, you must physically remove the gene from the body and purify it away from the millions of other biomolecules that co-exist in the body. Like most ordinary folk, I have no plans for converting my kitchen into a laboratory for such a purpose.

Alternatively, gene patents are directed to probes capable of binding to a particular gene sequence. In order to infringe this type of patent it is necessary to synthesize a nucleic acid probe against the subject gene. Again, I would prefer to keep my kitchen for cooking spaghetti.

In short, the ordinary person has nothing to worry about.

It is true that gene patents can be problematic in certain circumstances. For example, a commercial pathology laboratory seeking to identify whether a person has a breast cancer gene may need to use a patented probe. Before they use the probe they must seek a license from the patentee and generally pay a license fee. The fee is reimbursement for the company that identified the involvement of the mutant gene in breast cancer. Medical research is risky and expensive, and companies simply will not trouble themselves to embark on any research without the promise of financial reward. Importantly, this situation is no different to a patient buying an antihypertensive drug, or indeed a Dyson vacuum cleaner. The patentee is simply seeking reward for their research and development activities. In the end, it is of course the consumer who pays for the commodity. But hey, there’s nothing new about that.

In summary, it is incorrect to single out gene patents for special scrutiny. For any attack to be valid, it must be made against the patenting system a whole.

See CreativeFreedom.org.nz and our blackout protest CreativeFreedom.org.nz/blackout.html

Also this Wall Street Journal article sums it up pretty well
http://tinyurl.com/wsjs92a “How could a democratic government consider cutting off Internet access for people who haven’t been convicted of a copyright violation? Danny O’Brien, the international outreach coordinator at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that New Zealand changed its copyright law to be in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in the U.S., but then chose to interpret the language differently than the U.S.”

I do not understand why the Judgement was in favour of Anakin even though they are not the owner of Trade mark.

I am also confused that why Anakin only took on Chatswood BBQ king? I found that there is also an Hurstville BBQ Kig and an Epping BBQ King in Sydney and a few others BBQ KING interstate, plus more than a million BBQ King worldwide.

Does this judgement mean in future Gold King can register BBQ KIng as their Trade mark and keep on taking other business bearing the name BBQ King to court?

I am also confused about the date Anakin registered BBQ KING as trade mark which was after the other BBQ King restaurant operating their business. Should these BBQ King operations be notified when Anakin put in their registration?