INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
Objective of discussion
The aim of this essay is to critically review the reliability of the legal registration and protection system as it relates to protection of innovation ideas. The essay will specifically discuss about national and international protection system. Innovation as per Thumm (2013) is basically developing a new idea and putting it into practice. May (2013) states that it is crucial to restrict and protect innovations so as to develop a unique new value to customers. Innovations are protected by the legal registration and protection system. However, a number of innovations have failed to receive a legal cover. It is therefore vital to investigate how reliable the legal restriction and protection system is in protecting innovations.
There are a number of bodies bestowed with the responsibility of protecting and providing legal restriction in relation to innovations. However, this research will concentrate on the reliability of Intellectual property rights in relation to innovations and ideas. As such, the scope of the study will be based on two national protection system (copyrights and trademarks) and three international systems (IPO, IPO and WTO).
Method of discussion
This discussion will employ secondary data methodology. According to May (2013), secondary data methods are advantageous because they save time and resources. Additionally, this approach allows for easy access of information as one does not need to convince a respondent to take part in the study. This study will use the inclusion and exclusion criteria to collect data by reviewing books and journals. Only books and journals that are not older than five years will be reviewed. While collecting information from internet sources, words such as ‘innovation’ and ‘technology’ will be used.
Contextualisation of discussion
This study is important in the technology and innovation industry because while protecting emerging innovations, it will restrict development of a harmful technology or an idea that will prove more harmful than beneficial. It is important to investigate the reliability of legal systems so as to evaluate their capability in promoting development of new and improved products.
Generation Y constitutes 80% of the world’s population (Lemley, 2012). This generation is popular for being familiar with technology and hence they are easily able to come up with innovations. Therefore, doing this study in 2016 will greatly benefit their innovations.
Literature review
National protection systems
The National Protection Systems as per Chen and Zhao (2012) is an organization that describes different tasks given to the community as a whole in order to protect against brand piracy, cyber insecurity, hazards and threats. This body is bestowed with the responsibility of protecting communities, persons and the nation as a large. The national protection system is designed to protect against any risks that present themselves in ways that do not allow for growth of interest and aspirations (Acemoglu and Akcigit, 2012).
The government works hand in hand with the locals, state, private sector and non-governmental organization to maintain and deliver protection to the country while ensuring security to all legal operation that take place in the nation. The systems work under certain coordination of various section including; identifying protection missions and objectives, engage coordination partners, gather data, asses and analyze risk, evaluate and prioritize, implement protective activities and promoting continuous improvement (Acemoglu and Akcigit, 2012). Some of the examples of national protection systems include, National Cyber Security Protection System (NCPS) and Security and Protection System (SPS).
In relation to innovations, the national protection system is majorly faced with the issue of cyber security as it is hard to ensure that all cyber security is secured and that the nation is protected against malicious access, use and exploitation while protecting privacy, civil rights and other civil liberties. For example, National Cyber Security Protection System (NCPS).
The reliability of copyright in protecting innovations is still questionable (Thumm, 2013). With a technology driven world, it is very easy for individuals to access original work over the internet. Majority of people perceive the inability of copyright to enforce its laws online, as such they end up ignoring copyright statues when on web. Lemley (2012) contends that some groups of people reject the copyright laws and take an anti-copyright stand.
The ‘anti-copyright’ groups are evident all over net as seen from documentaries such as Good Copy Bad Copy and in Lawrence Lessig’s book entitled Free Culture. Chen and Zhao (2012) also argue that copyright is subject to a limited term just like any other intellectual property right. A formerly copyrighted work enters the market once its term is over anyone can freely use and exploit it.
Trademarks
A trademark is a signor symbol that distinguishes the product of one firm from other firms. The owner of a trademark may be a business, individual or a legal entity. Trademarks are usually located on the label, package, voucher or product and are even displayed in buildings nowadays for the sake of corporate identity. According to May (2013) trademarks can also be licensed to others, for example, Lego Group was given a license by Lucasfilm to lauch Lego Stars Warms.
Despite the legal restrictions governing trademarks, there is still increase in unauthorized usage. Thumm (2013) uses the term ‘brand piracy’ to refer to this unauthorized usage. Brand piracy involves trading and producing counterfeit consumer products. However, the trademark owner can file for trademark infringement in such cases Benoliel and Salama (2010). The two symbols that are associate d with trademarks include the registered trade mark symbol ® and trademark symbol™.
Although Lemley (2012) views that trademarks can be a vital asset for organizations and means of reaping returns from innovations, Chen and Zhao (2012) argues that trademarks do not necessarily protect innovations. This may be due to the fact that novelty is not a requirement when obtaining trademarks. The extent to which a trademark owner may prevent brand privacy depends on whether it is a registered trademark, whether it is popular and the similarity of the products. Protection such as goodwill or business reputation are mostly attached to unregistered trademarks. It is vital to note that trademarks are territorial and apply only to the specific nation.
International protection system
With the failing reliability of national protection systems to safeguard innovations, it is crucial to have an international protection system. While national protection systems only cover territories, international systems cut across a nation’s boundary (Portes and Walton, 2013). International protection systems may be signed treaties between two countries or more.
IPO
International Protection office provides exceptional security to innovations and ideas to on members across different nations (Dinopoulos and Segerstrom, 2010). The protection provided is independent of the existence of national protection in the member country in which the country was created. As such, the office ensures that the maximum duration is granted for each national security system such as copyright. The rules of international protection office are as a result of consensus by member status.
There is however a tendency of powerful nations to lead majority of consensus in the international protection office. As a result, the developing countries are left out and not well presented at the international protection office. Odagiri (2010) contends that fairness and equality should be promoted at the international protection office to allow for transparency and fairness in legal restriction and protection systems.
WIPO
WIPO is a UN agency that began in 1967 with the sole purpose of encouraging creativity and providing legal restriction and protection to intellectual property in the whole globe. With its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, WIPO has 187 member nations and administers 26 international treaties. In 2011, WIPO established the first Word Intellectual Report regarding ‘Changing Face of Innovation.’ (Benoliel and Salama 2010). Additionally, WIPOnet is a worldwide information network that seeks to links more than 300 offices related to intellectual property in all member nations. It is also crucial to not that WIPO’s Intellectual property services is a product of WIPOnet.
WIPO plays a crucial role in internet governance. It works closely with ICANN to set its UDRP policy which deals with violation claims over names of domain. As such, it helps to give provisions that gives trademarks the power to get a new domain name as long as they register early. WIPO is also faced by a number of problems that reflect on its unreliability to protect innovations. Firstly, it is affected by the problem of undemocratic setting. Despite the fact that WIPO promotes equality by allowing one vote per country, it is always the wealthy countries whose opinions matter (MacQueen et al 2010).
The second issue is the problem of private interests trumping public interest. WIPO has the primary obligation of promoting the world public interest, a responsibility that appears to be in jeopardy. WIPO’s mission is to protect intellectual property rights, however since intellectual property are usually private investments, WIPO only promotes private interests and mainly those of major works such as large pharmaceutical firms.
Thirdly, WIPO is faced with the issue of transparency. Majority of decisions are done behind closed doors as opposed to an official setting. Most of their legal information is not available over the internet for legal experts or journalists to comment (Davis, 2012).
WTO
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an interstate organization that controls international trade. According to Nielsen et al. (2010) WTO controls trade by providing a framework for negotiations and a dispute resolution process in order to enforce its members to WTO agreements. WTO supervises implementation, management and operation of the covered agreements. It also gives a ground for negotiations and solving misunderstandings.
It also the responsibility of WTO to review and enforce the national trade policies to ensure they are adhered. Through technical cooperation and training, WTO assists the developing countries to adjust to its rules. Benoliel and Salama (2010) state that the operation of WTO is guided by five principles namely non-discrimination, transparency, reciprocity, safety valves and binding & enforceable committees.
Non-discrimination consists of national policy treatment and most favored nations (MFN). These two are listed in WTO’s rules on intellectual property but their scope and policy varies between countries. MFN requires a WTO member to register the similar trade conditions on all trade activities with other WTO members, for example, if a member grants one a special favor in trade, he/she must do the same to all other WTO members. National treatment views that product imported to a nation are treated the same way as domestic goods (no favors).
According to Hargreaves (2011), the principle of reciprocity shed light on a need to have access to better markets abroad and a desire to reduce the scope of misuse of terms that may arise due to MFN rule. For example, if a nation gains by negotiating rather than from initializing unilateral liberalization, then the principle of reciprocity ensures that such gains will materialize. In binding and enforceable commitment, a nation can only change its bindings after negotiating with its trading partners.
Transparency means being open, as such, WTO members are required to maintain businesses allowing for the review of management decisions that influence trade, notify trade policy changes to WTO, respond to information requests by other members and to publish their trade regulations (Dinopoulos and Segerstrom, 2010). Transparency in WTO members is facilitated by the Trade Review Policy. The last WTO principle is safety valves. This principle entails restricting trade whereby the WTO agreements allow members to take measures to protect both the surrounding health (animals and plants) and public health (human beings).
WTO allows for fairness in decision making process because it is a rule-based, member driven body. WTO resolutions are instituted by governments of member states and the outcomes are the consultations among all the countries members to the body (Dinopoulos and Segerstrom, 2010). A vote is taken where consensus cannot be reached. Odagiri (2010) however argues that activities of consensus dominate a decision making process. Additionally, disputes are settled using set rules, practices and procedures as highlighted in the ‘Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) published on the ‘Final Act.’
WTO has received various criticism based on its ability to protect innovations and ideas. Firstly, despite the non-discriminatory principle that governs WTO, the body has been accused of widening the gap between the poor and the rich. Malbon et al (2014) argue that WTO doesn’t manage global economy equally, its activities are more inclined to the wealthy states and multinational companies thus hurting developing nations which ultimately have led to negotiation powers. For example, developing countries are hurt by the anti-dumping measures allowed against them and also the fact that majority of developing countries lack the ability to follow negotiations.
Secondly, the issue of labor and environment is greatly ignored by WTO. WTO should address the link between trade and labor market. Thirdly, WTO’s decision making process is governed by more active participants who represent more diverse goals and interests. It would be better if a small steering committee would be developed in member nations so as to delegate responsibility for discussions on trade issues among member nations.
Conclusion
At national level
The national protection systems are not reliable in relation to protecting innovations or ideas. Copyrights lack the ability to enforce its rules on the internet and as such original material can be easily distributed by anyone over the web. Copyright is unreliable because it protects only the expression of idea and not the creative work. Additionally, copyright is subject to limited time and as such, former protected original material can easily be exploited by anyone once its protection term expires.
Trademark is no different from copyright in relation to inability to protect innovations. Despite the trademarks rules, there is still increased unauthorized usage. Trademarks do not necessarily protect innovations because novelty is not a requirement when obtaining trademarks. Additionally, unregistered trademarks can only attract protection of the business reputation or good will. It is therefore vital for countries to amend their national protection systems in relation to innovation and ideas so as to come up with a system that promotes and provides protection to creative works at all costs.
At international level
International protection systems such as IPO, WIPO and WTO have proven unreliable in providing legal restriction and protection in relation to innovations. These bodies are governed by discrimination and inequality (Dinopoulos and Segerstrom, 2010). This is evident in the way they widen the gap between the rich and the poor by favoring innovations and ideas from members of developed countries while giving less considerations to those in developed countries. Majority also favor big innovations like major companies. As such, ideas and innovations from those in developing countries may be easily exploited as they are not prioritized by the international protection systems.
International protection system should encourage input and participation from diversity of ideas and not allow a single country to control world policy on a particular subject. Additionally, the missions of international systems should recognize that different nations are at different developing stages and us such should develop a mission that promotes education and personal empowerment. By doing this, they will not only encourage growth of innovations but also provide adequate protection and legal restrictions.
References
Acemoglu, D. and Akcigit, U., 2012. “Intellectual property rights policy, competition and innovation.” Journal of the European Economic Association,10(1), pp.1-42.
Benoliel, D. and Salama, B.M., 2010. “Towards an intellectual property bargaining theory: the post-WTO era.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 32(1).
Chen, D. and Zhao, H., 2012, “March. Data security and privacy protection issues in cloud computing.” In Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (ICCSEE), 2012 International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 647-651). IEEE.
Cornish, W., Llewelyn, G.I.D. and Aplin, T., 2013. “Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks & allied rights.”
Davis, J., 2012. “Intellectual Property Law” Core Text. Oxford
Dinopoulos, E. and Segerstrom, P., 2010. “Intellectual property rights, multinational firms and economic growth.” Journal of Development Economics, 92(1), pp.13-27.
Hargreaves, I., 2011. “Digital opportunity: a review of intellectual property and growth: an independent report.”
Lemley, M. A. (2012). “intellectual property and shrinkwrap licenses.” S. Cal. L. Rev., 68, 1239-1705.
MacQueen, H.L., Waelde, C. and Laurie, G., 2010. “Contemporary intellectual property: Law and policy.” Oxford University Press.
Malbon, J., Lawson, C. and Davison, M., 2014. “The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary.” Edward Elgar Publishing.
May, C., 2013. “The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures?” (Vol. 3). Routledge.
Nielsen, T.D., Cruickshank, C., Foged, S., Thorsen, J. and Krebs, F.C., 2010. “Business, market and intellectual property analysis of polymer solar cells.” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 94(10), pp.1553-1571.
Odagiri, H., 2010. “Intellectual property rights, development, and catch up: An international comparative study.” Oxford University Press.
Portes, A. and Walton, J., 2013. “Labor, class, and the international system.” Elsevier.
Thumm, N., 2013. “Intellectual property rights: national systems and harmonisation in Europe.” Springer Science & Business Media.
