Old era in intellectual property is coming to an end

In ‘Towards a new era of intellectual property: from confrontation to negotiation’, the group suggests improvements in the role of IP in biotechnology innovation, based on a seven year-long study of the field.

The central conclusion is that policy-makers and business leaders must help to shape to a new era of intellectual property, both to stimulate innovation and broaden access to discoveries.

The research was funded by Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and lead by Richard Gold of McGill University, Montreal, as the Principal Investigator.

Out with the Old, in with the New

Old IP is characterised as the current, but waning era of IP, in which companies and universities seek ever greater amounts of IP in order to protect themselves from others. It involves constructing increasingly higher walls around knowledge and controlling it tightly.

New IP is the emerging era in which IP is understood within the entire context of innovation. It stresses sharing and collaboration instead of increased protection, leading not only to greater levels of innovation, but better access to new products and services.

“The current system, ‘Old IP,’ rests on the belief that if some IP is good, more must be better,” says the report. “But such thinking has proved counterproductive to industry, which in health fields has seen declining levels of innovation despite increasing stakes in intellectual property. The era of Old IP has also proved counterproductive to the world’s poor who await advances in health and agriculture long available to the global elite.”

The report says a ‘New IP’ era that focuses on cooperation and collaboration is slowly emerging and notes that the best, most innovative activity occurs when everyone – researchers, companies, government and NGOs – works together to ensure that new ideas reach the public, but are appropriately regulated and efficiently delivered to those who need them.

Making the transition to New IP

Several things are needed to complete this transition.

First, there needs to be greater trust. A lack of trust has blocked collaborations to deliver medicines to the world’s poor, has led to ineffective legislative reform and has delayed the rapid introduction of new technologies. Independent trust builders who educate and encourage dialogue between industry, government, researchers and NGOs are essential.

Second, there needs to be more and better communication. The stakes are high, so the level of our conversation about IP and science and technology policy needs to be raised as well.

Then new models are needed that offer better ways to develop and deliver biotechnology products. Established companies need to help their counterparts in low and middle income countries to get financing and sell their inventions. Researchers, industry and NGOs need to work together to develop creative ways of sharing the knowledge that will lead to the next generation of products and services.

Enhancing science, technology and engineering: Most low and middle income countries, as well as indigenous peoples, face a major challenge in developing and maintaining scientific capacity. Before these countries and communities think about profiting from innovation, they need to enhance training, including in IP, better retain researchers and construct laboratories.

Cross-cutting thinking: IP has too long been looked at in isolation from other elements in the innovation system, leading to a poor understanding of IP’s role in innovation. Researchers need to work across disciplines and bring together industry, users, government and scientists to understand how IP actually works in context.

Data and metrics need to be improved, says the Expert Group. Current measures assess the wrong things about IP. “Unless we figure out what it is we want from innovation and how to measure it, we will not break out of the vicious cycle of Old IP,” concludes the report.