Your opinions matter - the editor of les Nouvelles sifts through the letters in his in-tray.
Here are just some of the recent correspondence together with the editor's responses.
December 2009
Speaking Up For IP: Greater Coordination And Greater Focus On Societal Benefits Needed*
By Adam Liberman
Dear Sir: I wanted to commend you on your feature story–“Fighting back against the IP backlash,” published in Issue 37 of IAM (September/October 2009, pages 47 to 55). The topic has yet to be faced up to by the IP community in other than an ad hoc fashion. It needs a coordinated and focused strategy to be successful in dealing with the growing anti-IP sentiment.
While addressing the “misconceptions surrounding intellectual property is important,” as mentioned by Bruce Berman, the fundamental issue is the extent to which today’s IP system creates or enhances societal benefits. Addressing that fundamental issue should be the principal focus of the above-mentioned strategy.
Identifying societal benefits, however, should not mean merely restating that the IP system provides the incentive framework for innovation; nor does it mean identifying commercial benefits or industry benefits, nor pointing out that there are “real contributions to RO!” from the use of IP. The reason that such responses are no longer enough is that today’s measures of value have ceased to be purely economic.
Addressing climate change and how to create sustainable clean energy alternatives is a clear example where the previously dominant economic fortress has fallen to the attack of the greater ideal of societal benefit–we (society) need these matters to be addressed and the economics of doing so is secondary.
A corollary relevant to the above IP responses is that just because there are economic benefits, this does not mean that there are societal benefits. A related but different reason for the attacks on IP is that unlike in the early 20th century when IP was associated with individual inventors and creators, today it is very much associated with big business, and in today’s economic environment big business is associated with abuses of societal trust.
I therefore agree with David Kline that “this is the most serious global debate about intellectual property as a social good or social bad that we have seen for 150 years.”
That being the case, I am of the view that the current discontent with IP and the IP system cannot be left to self-correction as part of any cyclical processes; it also cannot be left to purely economic responses or assertions.
Active intervention is required. Being passive or relying on self-evident truths is not in anyone’s best interests.
So what actions are required? Let me first comment and build on a number of issues and suggestions raised by the commentators in your feature story:
- In relation to IP education, it should begin in primary schools–note the Singaporean experience using a character known as “Detective IP”–continuing through high school–again note the Singaporean three-day IP Champion Camps–and should be a component of every university undergraduate degree in which IP is relevant to that degree.
- The language used to explain IP must be made more accessible to those who are not technically versed in the subject and IP’s benefits should not be spoken of purely in commercial terms.
- In relation to the fact that “it is still difficult to make the pro-IP arguments heard,” the relevant IP community should seek out credible spokespersons/champions, preferably those who come from the audience they are speaking to.
- In relation to educating the policy makers and “making the system more user friendly,” this is crucial. Certainly if I look at the Australian situation I would find it difficult to identify any politician on either side of the Parliament who has a genuine understanding of IP and its significance to Australia’s positioning in the global innovation framework. National IP-based societies and bodies should therefore seek to coordinate their approaches to government on these topics while recognizing that their interests are not in all respects identical. Additionally, for those countries that do not have a national IP strategy, coordinated lobbying for such a strategy will not only give a focus to the IP community in that country in relation to the government, but also require the government to be better informed in response.
In relation to the matters that are not raised by your commentators I make the following suggestions:
- The IP community should commission the development of an IP societal benefit index, by a credible institution or person.
Nowadays there all sorts of indices that are used to assess performance in various areas–e.g., innovation indices; consumer sentiment indices and so on. I am not suggesting that the creation of such as index will be an easy task, but its creation and development will firstly show that the IP community is serious about considering the societal impact of IP, and secondly allow the IP community to control the debate better. The development of an IP economic benefit index could also form part of any brief.
- The IP community should proactively seek out projects were IP can be shown to assist the wider community and it should gather 21st century stories of the contribution of IP to the welfare of society. Those activities and the benefits arising from them should then be presented to the wider community in a manner that that community relates to.
- The IP community should be much more proactive in suggesting improvements to the IP system than is currently the case. Using the Australian experience as a reference point, currently the two traditional awakening forces of the IP community are, firstly, the regular reviews undertaken by government into certain aspects of IP or the IP system and
secondly, unusual court decisions. Responding to such reviews invariably places pro-IP respondents in a defensive posture, rather than in a position of identifying and offering solutions to problems in advance. And it is to be kept in mind that responding to court decisions is rarely more than a competitive sport between rival professional adviser firms. IP think-tanks with both applied and academic skills may need to be created to undertake this proactive role.
- All published misinformation about IP must be responded to. All such responses must be balanced, respectful and capable of substantiation. Additionally, they must be presented in support of IP and not in support of an industry sector e.g., a research pharmaceutical position vs. a generic pharmaceutical position. Industry sectors will have their own advocates.
I do not seek to oversimplify either the problem or the solutions. I recognise that what I call the “IP system” are both very diverse, at least as to the subject matter of their content and their geography. However, it is my view that diversity does not lessen the need for better coordination in assessing, and a greater focus on addressing, the societal impact of IP and the IP system. It also does not lessen the need to communicate the benefits that arise from that impact in a manner which engages with the wider community.
During my year as President of LES International I have had an agenda item called “Speaking up for IP!”
Under that banner LES International has responded to three European reports and investigations that have an impact on the IP system in Europe. Additionally, we are assisting the Young Leaders Group of the World Economic Forum in developing their proposed Global Responsibility License.
That license is aimed at providing major patent and know-how holders with a framework to grant IP rights to developing countries. We have also encouraged our member societies to speak up for IP in their home jurisdictions. While LES International is doing its small bit to fight back against the IP backlash, greater coordination between the world’s leading IP societies with a greater focus on societal benefits of IP and the IP system, would certainly assist in the task at hand.
*This letter was also published in the IAM magazine November/December 2009 issue.
| 