Matthew Rimmer博士，知识产权（IP）和创新法教授Queensland University of Technology(QUT), has called for urgent reforms to Australia’s patent laws to give people the ‘right to repair’ consumer goods.
遵循一系列法院案件和澳大利亚人的报告Productivity Commission，，，，which has challenged the country’s product repair restrictions, Rimmer has proposed that these findings become crystalized within its patent law.
According to Rimmer, introducing competition oversight reforms could prevent firms from monopolizing aftermarket repair, while rapid advances in 3D printing are now necessitating such changes. Ambitiously, the Professor is also calling for the ideals behind the ‘制造商的权利法案，，，，’ and ‘iFixit Repair Manifesto”,体现在澳大利亚法律体系,but it remains to be seen if his calls will be answered.
澳大利亚的“维修权”
与许多国家一样，在过去的两三年中，关于澳大利亚消费者修复其错误商品的权利的辩论也在增加。在该国国会议员多次呼吁2019年尊重其选民的农业设备维修权之后，当时的正义和消费者事务临时，Shane Rattenbury要求生产力委员会对该问题进行调查。
However, the topic has proven multifaceted, as reforms not only raise IP problems, but ignite conflicts over copyright law, design protection and the wider ‘tethered economy.’ In fact, since the commission’s inquiry began, courtrooms around the world have been full of instances in which multinationals are suing for copyright infringement over minor repairs, making the issue monetary as well as ethical.
例如，就在上个月Apple诉讼against a Norwegian repair shop for doing just that, and while Australia’s courts have also been inundated with similar cases, its judges are starting to take differing views. In one of the country’s previouscases，，，，Seiko Epsonaccused one of its clients of infringing upon its copyright, by fixing rather than replacing one of its proprietary 2D printer cartridges.
Despite Seiko’s claim, the first Australian judge to review the case initially said that it raised issues of “patent exhaustion,” before a second ruling eventually went against the defendant, on the basis that the “modifications did not amount to repair.”
Taking these arguments into account, the Commission ultimately报告earlier this year that the country’s Copyright Act could be amended to include a ‘fair usage exception,’ to allow for one-off repairs, but stopped short of proposing the introduction of a ‘general defense,’ something Rimmer says is essential to “rebalancing the patent regime.”
Rimmer的改革建议
In an early edition of Rimmer’s paper, he has questioned why there’s a spare part defense under Australian design law but not its patent law, and claims that introducing one would allow consumers and SMEs to “repair patented inventions without fear of litigation.”
One way Rimmer recommends achieving this is via an amendment that requires compulsory licenses to pass a ‘public interest’ test, in which the needs of the public are balanced against those of the patent holder. In some of his other proposals, Rimmer also calls for theAustralian Competition & Consumer Commissionto more proactively break up aftermarket monopolies, as well as wider patent law reforms.
With regards to 3D printing, for instance, Rimmer’s report recognizes the maker movement’s potential in developing more cost and eco-efficient spare parts. He has therefore called for patent law to be “well-adapted” in order to meet the “fourth industrial revolution” head-on, by adopting the spirit of the Maker’s Bill of Rights and the iFixit Repair Manifesto.
Backed by a crafting magazine and repair firm, the two campaigns revolve around the idea that ‘if you can’t fix it, you don’t own it,’ and champion makers’ rights over the IP owners of consumer products. Given that the two documents call for reforms that effectively benefit their readers and businesses, their demands are logical, but also unlikely to be adopted due to their anti-regulatory stance.
That’s why Rimmer rounded off his study by identifying a “groundswell of support” for reforms in other countries around the globe, and imploring Australian leaders to take part in the wider debate, given 3D printing’s growing sustainability credentials.
“There has been an increased interest in right to repair amongst developing countries, [particularly in] making use of IP flexibilities to better take into account the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,” said Rimmer in his paper. “There should be international action on the topic in relevant forums such as the World Intellectual Property Organization, WTO and the UN Development Program.”
“While [my] paper has presented an Australian story about the right to repair, it’s clear that there is a larger international debate.”
A global repair debate?
Rimmer’s findings follow similar inquiries in the U.S and Canada, as well as the UK and other EU countries, into the role 3D printing has to play in striving for a more circular economy. Earlier this year, the EU actuallypassed new legislation通过欧洲议会，要求白色商品制造商在其产品推出后至少10年可用备件可用。
At the time, the 3D printing industry did highlight some concerns around IP protection and data security, but firms also fed back that the changes could help ease the introduction of the EU’s upcoming Ecodesign regulations, as well as potentially encouraging new clients to adopt in-house manufacturing and digitize their inventories to stay compliant.
More broadly, the right to repair debate has also raised concerns among IP holders that those with desktop printers will be able to replicate their patented property without paying for it. Again, EU-focused groups have covered spare part printing extensively recently, with the ECTA使其位置清晰3月，需要在“完全自由主义”和“设计权的排他性”之间找到平衡。
Rimmer’s full findings can be found in his research paper titled: “维修权：澳大利亚专利法和3D印刷。”
The nominations for the2021 3D Printing Industry Awards现在打开。您认为谁应该成为今年演出的入围名单？现在有你的发言权。
To stay up to date with the latest 3D printing news, don’t forget to subscribe to the3D打印行业通讯or follow us onTwitteror liking our page onFacebook。
为了深入研究添加剂制造，您现在可以订阅我们的Youtubechannel, featuring discussion, debriefs, and shots of 3D printing in-action.
您是否正在寻找添加剂制造业的工作？访问3D打印作业在行业中选择一系列角色。
Featured image shows the Queensland University of Technology’s law campus. Image via Dalhousie University.
