Re: nothing in Australia law says the applicant for a patent must be human
> Undoubtedly true. But I guess this means that the precedent now applies to all other laws too.
Well, no, as the Federal Court is for Federal laws, not State laws. In Australia (like the US), states are soverign, therefore they have their own laws that the federal government has no authority over - except in those areas the constitution grants the federal government authority. Therefore this ruling only affects federal laws.
However many laws, even federal laws as well as state laws, use 'persons' or 'natural persons' in the laws. Where a 'natural person' is defined as being an actual human being, thus excluding legal-fiction persons (i.e. corporations), and 'persons' is 'legal' persons, i.e. humans, corporations, other entities specifically blessed with personhood.
From this article, it appears that the Australian patent legislation, a Federal law, did not include the terms 'person' or 'natural person', but used the word 'inventor' instead.
Therefore any Federal laws - since the Federal Court is for federal laws, not State laws - that specifiy 'person' or 'natural person' are not affected, only those laws (which could be substantial) that do not specify those entities or do not have specific exclusions otherwise, could in fact be affected.
However, it should be noted that the Federal Court is not the top-level court in Australia. It is the equivalent in the US of District Courts - although Australia is small enough to only have a single Circuit, it's not large enough to have been split up into the Circuits like in the US - and thus can be appealed to the Australian High Court which is the highest court of Australia, equivalent to the US Supreme Court, sorry, not sure what the UK equivalent is. Therefore until - and if - it is appealed and overturned in the High Court, it would set a precedent for Federal legislation, but not for State legislation.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
