Innovation is often highlighted as the solution to everything, not least as the solution to meet the many challenges linked to sustainability. The problem is that today innovation has become a buzzword without substance, which leads to downright incorrect decisions, writes Christina Wainikka, policy expert for intellectual property rights.
April 26 every year is World Intellectual Property Day, instituted by the UN agency World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Each year they choose different themes and this year’s theme is the relationship between intellectual property rights and the global sustainability goals. Because of this, a lot of activities are happening around the world.
An event held this year was a joint arrangement between the European Commission (DG TRADE) and the US Patent Office (USPTO). The event was held in Brussels on April 26. I had the honor of being one of the representatives of the European business community, as a representative of BusinessEurope.
There were a few issues in particular that I wanted to raise. One question is, of course, how well chosen this year’s theme is. It is widely accepted that innovation is a key to achieving the sustainability goals. However, there were a few more perspectives that I wanted to raise, by talking about two men named Joseph and Josef. If you do not understand their role in history, there is a great risk that you will wander down completely wrong paths.
It is often the companies that play the key role when it comes to, for example, taking groundbreaking technical solutions from desks and laboratories to actual implementation.
The first person is Joseph Schumpeter. His contribution to innovation research, where the most important contribution came 90 years ago, is about what constitutes innovation. What he states is that there is a difference between ideas, research results, inventions on the one hand and innovation on the other. What makes something an innovation is that it is something that has been implemented, that is used. If you like, you can say that we cannot talk about innovation before, for example, an invention has been brought to a market.
That’s where companies come in. It is often the companies that play the key role when it comes to, for example, taking groundbreaking technical solutions from desks and laboratories to actual implementation. It is the companies’ efforts that make things go from idea to reality, to innovation.
This is also where intellectual property rights come in. Without intellectual property rights, it can be difficult for companies to see opportunities in investing in research. It can be difficult for companies to dare to invest in a researcher’s results to create a product if there is no underlying intellectual property right. In practice, intellectual property rights can also be the basis for commercialization, for example through licenses. It is then through intellectual property rights that the idea is brought to market at all.
The problem is also that if we have the world’s best solution but handle the rights incorrectly, no one may be able to take the solution to market. History is full of technical, ground-breaking, solutions that have not been able to reach a market at all because patent applications were made in the wrong name or because two people who jointly own a patent cannot agree.
What we should learn from Schumpeter is that we should not talk about innovation without thinking about intellectual property rights. When the mentioned Letta report mentions “innovation” 116 times and “intellectual property” 3 times, it shows a big problem, where Europe is heading in the wrong direction.
We should think more about Kohler because it is his efforts that allow intellectual property rights to be the basis of commerce.
The other person is Josef Kohler. He may not be as famous as Schumpeter, but he is one of the fathers of intellectual property law. In fact, he has been instrumental in us having the intellectual property rights we have. What he put particular emphasis on was that intellectual property rights should not only create exclusive rights, the aspect of intellectual property that we perhaps think of most often.
He also emphasized that intellectual property rights as a legal figure should enable collaborations. The various intellectual property rights must be able to be used by several people and that too at the same time. Consider a comparison with a chair. If the chair is occupied, it is. It is difficult for others to sit on the same chair at the same time. Patent law, copyright and other rights do not work like that. Just because a song is played on the radio does not prevent it from being played at a concert at the same time. Exactly at the same time, despite being covered by the same copyright.
We should think more about Kohler because it is his efforts that allow intellectual property rights to be the basis of trade. That it can be the basis for collaborations. That it can be the basis for realizing those ideas so that we can get a return on what will then become innovations.
It is telling that there are many international events on this day, but few Swedish ones. In Sweden, we have a problem with too few having these perspectives. In Sweden, there are few actors who pay attention to World Intellectual Property Day, but many who want to talk about innovation. For those who know Schumpeter and Kohler, those who use “innovation” as a buzzword without substance can be compared to hot air balloons. They fly away without really being able to control where they end up.
Intellectual Property StrategyInnovation
Tags: Innovation buzzword
-
