TLAW610
Technology and Law
Student Name:
Student ID:
Part- A
Answer 1: Compliance with the Australian Government’s regulatory framework is critical to
establishing a new Australian digital currency exchange. Digital currency markets in Australia
are regulated to ensure the authenticity, security and transparency of their markets and
prevent money laundering and terrorist financing It is important for start-up companies
follow these rules for long-term survival and success.
Australia’s Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (CTF)
applies to its digital currency exchanges. Digital currency exchangers are legally required to
register as a "digital currency exchanger" with Australian financial reporting authority
AUSTRAC (Chatain, et al., 2022). The exchange must provide detailed information regarding
its security measures, compliance procedures, and operations during registration. For start-
ups to comply with Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations, companies must implement
Know Your Customer (KYC) policies. In this role, we ensure customer identity, conduct risk
assessments, monitor transactions in suspicious transactions and alert AUSTRAC of any
suspicious activity. Further, customer information and transaction records need to be
auditable through comprehensive record-keeping practices.
One of the most important cases regarding the taxation of digital currencies, Seribu Pty Ltd v
Commissioner of Taxation [2020] AATA 1840 (Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 2020). As a
result of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), bitcoin gains and
losses are not subject to any foreign currency gains and losses. According to section 995-1 of
the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the currency of a sovereign nation other than
Australia is not deemed foreign by the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Thus, the
Australian Taxation Office (ATO)'s interpretation is based upon this definition, and
therefore, follows the aforementioned definition. For the tax purposes, cryptocurrencies
such as Bitcoin, which do not have any state regulation, are not considered foreign
currencies. Losses incurred in cryptocurrency transactions, such as those incurred in the
trading of Bitcoin, are not deductible.
Answer 2: For an online bank powered by AI to protect its customers, its founders must
recognize the potential risks. AI poses some risks to customers, and the following guidelines
can help minimize those risks:
Third-Party Vendor Management: An AI technology's dependence on third parties
poses a risk (Angle, 2022). To mitigate this risk, vendors should be evaluated and
selected in accordance with ethical guidelines. In addition to evaluating their
reputations, their histories, and their security measures, they should also ensure that
they comply with any applicable regulations.
Data Ownership and Privacy: AI implementation requires massive amounts of
customer data for collection and analysis. Ethics guidelines should prioritize the
privacy of customer data and the ownership of their data. An explicit and
transparent policy must be in place for data usage. Encryption and access controls
can be implemented to safeguard customer information. A regular audit and
assessment should be conducted to monitor compliance with privacy regulations.
Ownership Rights: AI can generate innovative ideas and valuable intellectual
property. A clear statement of rights should be provided in ethical guidelines
regarding AI-generated works (Miernicki & Ng, 2021). The bank or the founder of the
AI system should be able to control the intellectual property generated by the AI
system. Contracts and agreements should be clear to prevent disputes and to
distribute benefits fairly.
Costs: AI implementation can involve significant upfront costs. To prevent customers
from being unfairly burdened with such costs, ethical guidelines are critical. Banks
should disclose any additional fees/ charges associated with AI-powered services. It
should be avoided that pricing practices are discriminatory or predatory.
Cybersecurity: With AI and digital systems increasingly used, threats and
cyberattacks become more prevalent. A priority should be given to the security of
data and financial transactions in ethical guidelines. Implementing multilayered
security protocols and maintaining industry best practices are essential.
Part-B
Answer- 3: There is a comprehensive regulatory framework in Australia that protects the
rights of individuals to their intellectual property (IP) in order to foster innovation and
creativity in the digital age. A number of key laws and legal decisions contribute to the
framework, including:
Patents Act 1990: To qualify for a patent, the following criteria must be met: novelty,
inventive step, utility, and non-secret use. The purpose of patenting inventions developed
by digital businesses is to make sure that the inventions they make produce a practical,
useful outcome in addition to mere intellectual knowledge (Australian Law Reform
Commission, 2010). In the case of Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd (2015), the
Court ruled that patents are granted only for technological innovations, but not for business
methods or schemes.
Copyright Act 1968: The Copyright Act 1968 protects intellectual property rights in works,
such as software, digital content and media created in (Seidenspinner & Fitzgerald, 2013).
This work is not permitted to be copied, distributed or displayed publicly by the owner
female written permission. New section 115A has been added to Australia's Site Blocking
Act to allow owners of websites that infringe on the rights of their owners to seek injunctive
relief from internet service providers for blocking their sites. What is the website about
blocking measures, how they are implemented, many important cases have been decided
defining what internet service providers are and have obligations to do, such as Roadshow
Films Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2017) the matter.
Trade Marks Act 1995: This statute protects distinctive trademarks associated with digital
businesses, such as brand names, logos, slogans, and slogans (Trade Marks Act 1995, 2011).
To avoid confusion between their brands and those of others, digital businesses should
register trademarks.
The Australian regulatory framework has put in place several laws and legal judgements to
protect the intellectual property rights of digital businesses and ensure their protection.
However, it is worthwhile to note that there are ongoing discussions and challenges
regarding patentability in software and business methods. The Commissioner of Patents v
RPL Central Pty Ltd case has demonstrated the importance of carefully distinguishing
between technological innovations and business methods or schemes that cannot be
patented.
This existing regulatory framework can ensure that not only IP rights are protected, but that
businesses are also empowered to take proactive measures to protect their IP rights by
adopting proactive measures to ensure that their IP rights are protected. Within an
organization, businesses can manage vendor relationships in several ways, including
implementing internal policies and procedures, ensuring that data ownership rights and
privacy rights are clearly defined in contracts and agreements, and protecting their most
valuable digital assets with robust cybersecurity measures.
Answer-4:
A case involving human genes and patentability was referred to as D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics
Inc (2015) 258 CLR 334. The High Court of Australia ruled unanimously that Myriad Genetics
cannot claim patent rights for polymorphic and mutant forms of BRCA1 (Australasian Legal
Information Institute, 2015). Even though both the trial and the Federal Court had decided
that samples isolated from natural sources were patentable, the ruling found that isolation
from natural sources was insufficient for patent eligibility. The Court emphasised the
distinction between nucleic acid isolated from the cell and naturally occurring nucleic acid in
the claims as being for a product within the context of the invention described in the
specification. As a reference, the court referred to Association for Molecular Pathology v
Myriad, a case dealing with similar claims. Despite accepting cDNA as patentable, the
Supreme Court rejected the Myriad claims as the law of nature exceptions. The Federal
Circuit ruled in Association for Molecular Pathology v United States Patent and Trademark
Office that the products were more important than the information they contained. Based
on human intervention, they stressed changes in structure and function.
In addition to the practice of the Australian Patent Office, the ALRC Report, legislative
history, and the Government's response to the ALRC Report, the High Court reviewed other
factors. Parliament chose not to exclude gene sequences from patentability even though
these factors do not determine patentable subject matter. Both sides presented their
arguments during the hearing. Even in isolated form, nucleic acids cannot be used as a
patent basis by D'Arcy, since they differ no materially from cellular nucleic acids. Their
claims were argued to represent a product that consisted of a new and useful economic
effect created by an artificial state of affairs, highlighting the differences between a nucleic
acid isolated from a human cell and one isolated from it. Based on the Court's decision,
isolated nucleic acids covered by patents, including cDNA, created an economic benefit that
was artificially created. Nucleic acid isolation was emphasized for its economic value and as
a treatment for breast and ovarian cancer.
According to my opinion, the reasoning behind the High Court's decision is correct. The
patentability of isolated nucleic acid created through human intervention must be
distinguished from naturally occurring genetic material. The court made sure that patents
were granted to inventions that were truly a product of human creativity and provided
economic benefit by focusing on the structural and functional differences caused by
isolation. Further, it is apparent that the court's decision is aligned with the legislative
framework, being based on the legislative history and the fact that Parliament decided not
to exclude gene sequences from patentability, making the court's decision both appropriate
and justified.
References
Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 2020. AAT Bulletin, s.l.: s.n.
Angle, J., 2022. Third-Party Vendor Risk Management 2.
Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2015. D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35
(7 October 2015). [Online]
Available at: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/35.html?query=
Australian Law Reform Commission, 2010. An outline of the patent system. [Online]
Available at: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/genes-and-ingenuity-gene-patenting-and-
human-health-alrc-report-99/2-the-patent-system/an-outline-of-the-patent-system/
Chatain, P.-L., Willebois, E. v. d. D. d. & Bökkerink, M., 2022. Preventing Money Laundering
and Terrorist Financing, s.l.: World Bank Group.
Miernicki, M. & Ng, I., 2021. Artificial intelligence and moral rights. AI & SOCIETY, Volume
36, pp. 319-329.
Seidenspinner, T. & Fitzgerald, A., 2013. Copyright and Computer Generated Materials – Is it
Time to Reboot the Discussion About Authorship?. Victoria University Law and Justice
Journal, 3(1), pp. 47-64.
Trade Marks Act 1995, 2011. Trade Marks Act 1995, s.l.: s.n.
