Intellectual Property and Innovation
Intellectual Property
Intellectual property comprises of new creations that are legally branded as property. Various legal tools exist to safeguard property rights, and they include patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets (Andersen, 2006). The legal right accorded to properties facilitates the owners of creative works and inventions to earn a living and at the same time improve the well-being of the society. Owners of property rights may be individuals or institutions recognized by the government. There must be checks by the regulatory authorities to help strike a balance between the needs of the intellectual property owners and the society. These checks prevent the misuse of intellectual property and also help to ensure sustainability of such creative works.
Innovation
In light of the protection of an inventor’s novice ideas and creations, one aspect that often elicits concerns is that of innovation. Blackburn (2011) defines innovation as a process that translates an invention to a new product or services that seek to serve the emerging needs of consumers. In this regard, there is a continuous debate about the impact of intellectual property laws on innovation. In response to this, intellectual property only seeks to protect a creator’s work from being misused at the expense of the owner. In essence, the intellectual property provides a stable foundation for innovation. The granting of exclusive rights by the government is undertaken to incentivize discovery upon the reveal of information about creation to the public. Other individuals can improve on the original work of the creator and create their versions of the invention about the needs of the public and at the same time benefit from their work.
Legislation involving intellectual property also reduces the transaction costs involved between the creator and his/her respective industry. As a result, the owner can provide quality information to the industry about the product without compromising idea ownership. This also provides a flawless kickoff for other individuals to improve the nature of the creation thereby spurring innovation. According to Blackburn (2011), intellectual property legislations effectively increase a firm’s market performance. This aspect is often witnessed in small firms where entrepreneurs receive higher valuations of their businesses. As a result of industry competition and low survival possibilities of new businesses, intellectual property can be leveraged to encourage innovation in their respective industries in light of the benefits accrued to the creator.
On the other hand, if the application of intellectual property laws is misused, such situations often culminate to the rise of a ‘patent thicket.’ This strategy is often used by firms which seek to discourage competition. For instance, Samsung and Apple are constantly engaged in grueling patent wars in an attempt of preventing the usage of any design element of their product, especially in mobile phones. More recently, Apple was awarded a $548 million cash payout for Samsung’s infringement of the company’s patents (Reisinger, 2015). The patent strategy can be harmful to innovation when it is not used in a productive manner.
It is important to encourage continuous innovation to keep on adding value to inventions already in place. The policies that govern intellectual property rights such as patents must openly protect researchers who do not replicate existing creative works. On the other hand, the policies should punish those who disregard the intellectual property rights. However, broad intellectual rights such as software patents can be an impediment to innovation since new creators are likely to encroach on existing patents unintentionally thus increasing chances for lawsuits.
References
Andersen, B. (2006). Intellectual property rights: Innovation, governance and the institutional environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Blackburn, R. (2011). Intellectual property and innovation management in small firms. New York: Routledge Publishers.
Reisinger, D. (2015). Samsung will pay Apple for damages – but wants cash back. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/12/04/samsung-pay-apple-patents/
