[A2k] The case for a World Innovation Policy Organisation
Georg C. F. Greve
greve@fsfeurope.org
Tue Apr 14 08:00:13 2009
--
FYI, new article.
[Permanent URL: http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=321]
The case for a World Innovation Policy Organisation
Good innovation policy requires understanding of the regulatory impact
of each policy instrument individually, as well as knowledge about the
interaction of different instruments. It is therefore necessary to look
at the whole spectrum available within each instrument, as well as be
aware of how other instruments may be empowered or invalidated through
interaction. The future of the [1]World Intellectual Property
Organisation (WIPO) will largely depend on how well it manages to
incorporate the full spectrum of its own policy instruments into its
operations, and how it manages to address the interaction with other
fields.
From 27 April to 1 May, the [2]3rd Committee on Development and
Intellectual Property (CDIP/3) will be convened at the WIPO
headquarters in Geneva. As the years of discussions about the potential
incorporation of a "[3]Development Agenda" into WIPO have highlighted,
these issues are important to the majority of the Member States. The
resulting CDIP as well as WIPO's [4]Strategic Realignment Program are
now well under way, and the upcoming CDIP/3 is the right time and the
right place to discuss how to incorporate these issues into WIPO. The
way to achieve this is to bridge the communication gap within
governments, and to involve all stakeholders.
Innovation, the process of applying new ideas for the benefit of
society, is often quoted as an overarching policy goal and the basis
for many regulatory initiatives. Areas that have bearing on innovation
include education, finance, health, market, competition, and others.
While many of these areas also have other policy goals, some areas are
driven primarily by innovation, such as exclusive rights, in particular
copyrights and patents.
So when the [5]Report on the International Patent System by the
[6]12[7]th[8] Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP/12)
discusses promotion of innovation as basic rationale for the patent
system, it touches upon the root of WIPO's purpose as an agency of the
United Nations. Simultaneously there are those who focus primarily on
anecdotal evidence of parties that derived benefit from the patent
system and consider economic analysis of the innovative effects
unnecessary.
The fundamental conflict arises due to different assessments of the
relevance of this anecdotal evidence, typically based on different
agendas and motivations. From a systematic perspective, this anecdotal
evidence is largely irrelevant, since it is in the nature of exclusive
rights or other privileges that parties so privileged will derive
benefit from them. These parties, including those acting as the
professional mediators and facilitators of that benefit, naturally tend
to put higher emphasis on this anecdotal evidence, especially where the
anecdote affects them personally.
The common mechanisms described in the [9]conclusions for the WIPO
SCP/13 tend to give increased weight to these mediators and
facilitators in the process, who sometimes find themselves speaking on
behalf of Member States without guidance from other parts of industry
and governments. This tradition of policy setting on behalf of the
privileged parties by their facilitators and mediators gave rise to
criticism in the past, describing the situation as a feudal system in
which one part of society enjoyed privileges over the rest of society.
After initial debates about the Development Agenda discussed whether
WIPO should address these issues, the CDIP and the Strategic
Realignment Program now need to find concrete answers to the question
how WIPO can be brought back in line with the public interest.
This is unlikely to achieve consensus unless all governments put higher
emphasis on effective and pragmatic innovation policy because
innovation policy always requires a weighing of interests, and
sometimes instruments are mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed.
An example of such a conflict and its ramifications is discussed in the
IP-Watch Inside Views article "[10]Innovation Policy: The Balance
Between Standards and Patent Regulation."
There are promising first approaches to a more holistic understanding
of innovation policy, such as the [11]Innovation & Regulation chair,
created jointly by the Ecole Polytechnique, Telecom ParisTech and
France Telecom. Its joint workshop with [12]Vox Internet II about
"[13]Technical Regulation of the Internet: From Standardization to
Behavioural and Societal Norms" on 31 March 2009 in Paris focussed on
standardisation issues in Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) and the Internet, in particular. [14]FSFE's contribution to the
workshop "[15]Considerations on Innovation and Competition Policy"
provides an overview of how various areas that relate to innovation and
competition policy interact with each other. The recording of the
corresponding talk was also kindly made available by the organisers as
[16]Ogg Vorbis and [17]MP3 file: [[18]Download as OGG] [[19]Download as
MP3]
Unfortunately a more systematic approach to innovation policy is
comparatively rare, and often receives no consideration for the
positions of Member States at WIPO. Instead, it is quietly assumed by a
significant portion of participants to the meetings that more is always
better, resulting in statements that would like to see limitations and
exceptions or the impact of WIPO's policies on other areas of
innovation policy banned from discussion at WIPO. Following this
position would make it impossible for WIPO to fulfil its mandate,
because it is not possible to maximise all instruments simultaneously.
In medicine, Paracelsus is often paraphrased having said that "the dose
makes the poison." This principle holds true also in policy. More is
not always better, and even if made with the best of intentions,
over-regulation will stifle innovation. Only through a balanced
approach that considers exclusive rights alongside exceptions and
limitations, as well as alternative approaches of using exclusive
rights regimes to foster innovation, e.g. [20]Free Software, will WIPO
be able to meet future challenges.
The weighing of various innovation policy instruments will also have to
include the impact that instruments have on each other. This requires a
perspective of the entire toolbox of innovation policy that goes beyond
the individual tool available to or maintained by any individual
organisation. Good innovation policy has to go beyond partisan thinking
of the tool manufacturer, because if all you've got is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail.
So there will be situations where another instrument should prevail
over exclusive rights in order to maximise innovation and the public
benefit. As a UN agency, WIPO has a mandate to serve the greater good
of humankind. Its role cannot be to maximise the benefits and
privileges of a small group of society, or to avoid reconsidering
privileges that have been granted in order to avoid upsetting the
privileged group that finds those privileges highly profitable. The
be-all and end-all of WIPO's work is to which extent the granting of or
exceptions from these exclusive rights serves society at large.
To achieve this, the WIPO secretariat depends upon the WIPO Member
States for guidance and priority setting. All change must therefore
come from the Member States, which currently seem split down a line
defined by "20th century big industry" interests. It should come as a
surprise that Group B, the group of developed countries, as well as the
European Union are speaking out against inclusion of competency on Open
Innovation Models, Free Software and Open Standards. At the same time
many EU Member States individually and all of them jointly through the
European Commission in its [21]IDABC and [22]Framework Programme
activities have recognised the importance of Free Software and Open
Standards for innovation and economic growth. The United States reaps
the benefits of companies that are increasingly built upon Free
Software and Open Standards, or at the very least see them as part of
their strategic portfolio. Google, HP, IBM or Red Hat are well known,
but others like Adobe, Intel or Oracle also made significant
investments into these areas over the past years.
The disconnect between what Member States preach at WIPO and what they
practice at home can to some extent be traced back to tactical
considerations, but not be explained by tactics alone. There is an
obvious disconnect within governmental departments, and a lack of
engagement from industry, in particular, which has not briefed its
government sufficiently on the benefits that local industry of
developed countries can reap from a WIPO that can offer the full range
of Free Software, Open Standards and Open Innovation Model competency
alongside its traditional arsenal of exclusive rights.
These activities would for instance complement what EU Member States
are already doing within the [23]Open Source Observatory and Repository
(OSOR), extending cooperation, resource sharing and innovative
incentives across an even wider group of countries. It would also help
facilitate the growth of international economic cooperation between
local industries. The resulting increase in trade, economic activity
and innovation would be to the benefit of all WIPO Member States in all
stages of development.
WIPO has an extensive network of technical assistance activities with
global reach and direct connection to the policy setting branches of
most governments in the world. Adding competency on Free Software, Open
Standards and Open Innovation Models to WIPO would put this competency
at arms length for most policy makers around the world.
Finding an institutional approach to providing this competency at WIPO
would certainly be a worthy endeavour for the upcoming [24]3rd
Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP/3).
References
1. http://www.wipo.int/
2. http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=17382
3. http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/
4. http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/strategic_realignment/
5. http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=116324
6. http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=15486
7. http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=15486
8. http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=15486
9. http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=302
10. http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/02/26/inside-views-innovation-policy-the-balance-between-standards-and-patent-regulation/
11. http://innovation-regulation.enst.fr/en/the-chair/presentation.html
12. http://www.voxinternet.org/
13. http://www.voxinternet.org/spip.php?article279&lang=en
14. http://fsfeurope.org/
15. http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=309
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
18. http://download.fsfeurope.org/audio/20090331-Greve-Paris.ogg
19. http://download.fsfeurope.org/audio/20090331-Greve-Paris.mp3
20. http://fsfeurope.org/projects/wipo/fser
21. http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/
22. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/
23. http://www.osor.eu/
24. http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=17382
--
[ Content of type application/pgp-signature deleted ]