Perhaps the real question is - will the Chinese trip up the dancers by insisting on changes in intellectual property protections for new green technologies - and do the European and American negotiators want a deal so badly that they might trade off IP in order to get China to sign on to verifiable numerical targets? Up to now, western negotiators have called it a mere ploy by the Chinese - but Chinese and Indian demands on IP have made it into the official draft negotiating text. For example, the draft text states that “Specific measures {shall}{should}be established to remove barriers to development and transfer of technologies from developed to developing country Parties arising from the intellectual property rights(IPR) protection, including: (a) Compulsory licensing for specific patented technologies.” In laymen’s terms - some countries in the developing world, led by China and India, want free access to patented - or future patented - technologies developed by European and American companies.
Both European and American politicians have talked extensively about the importance of green technology and so-called ‘green collar’ jobs as key drivers of economic growth, noting that the current economic recession is a particular opportunity for these industries. For example, U.S. President Obama has proposed investing $15 billion in green technologies to create up to 5 million green-collar jobs. The American Solar Energy Society predicts that by 2030, industries with green-collar jobs could provide up to 40 million American jobs and generate up to $4.53 trillion in annual revenue. EU Commissioner Verheugen has emphasized repeatedly that discovering new technologies to fight climate change is Europe’s competitive advantage and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has similarly called for an international “Green New Deal”.
Renewable energy and other companies engaged in climate mitigation want to have China and other countries utilize their technologies - but on fair terms. The catch is, European and American companies cannot take the risks to invest in new research and development if they can’t be assured that their new discoveries will be protected. And if this scenario plays out at the UNFCCC negotiations, who is going to hire all those green collar employees and generate all that annual income that governments can then turn into tax revenue?
It may be a negotiating ploy - but it is one that needs to be taken seriously now. Industry is aware of the challenge. On May 20th in Washington, DC, a new coalition was launched called the Innovation, Development and Employment Alliance (IDEA). The coalition will work with policy makers and international stakeholders to safeguard intellectual property rights that encourage research and development investments, create jobs, spur economic growth, and will (hopefully) lead to technological solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While IDEA is not just about green technologies (the focus is on all research-intensive sectors), the immediate concern is what negotiators will decide on in order to secure a deal in time for a signing ceremony in Copenhagen this December.
]]>Why? Because technology innovation marches on. Companies in Europe, the United States and in the fast developing countries of China and India are pouring Euros, Dollars, Renminbi, and Rupees into discovering the next greatest climate saving breakthrough. EU Commissioner for Industry Günter Verheugen has said on a number of occasions that the EU must maintain and enhance its competitive advantage in climate change technologies. U.S. President-elect Obama has proposed investing $15 billion a year in green technologies. And the Americans and Europeans are not alone. In August 2008, Ernst & Young’s renewable energy country attractiveness indices moved China into the top 5 most attractive countries for investment in renewable energy. In fact, firms in China, India and Brazil are among the world’s largest producers of environmental goods for solar, wind and biomass power production. For example, China’s Suntech and India’s Tata BP Solar are top global suppliers of photovoltaic (PV) cells.
Investment in eco-innovation could be a win-win-win scenario: a win for economic growth, a win for high-quality jobs, and a win for the environment. Just this week European Trade Union leader, John Monks, said it is time to pour money into green jobs calling on the EU to invest in green industries and jobs. An article published by the American Solar Energy Society predicts, in an admittedly aggressive scenario, that by 2030, industries with green-collar jobs could provide up to 40 million American jobs and generate up to US$4.53 trillion in annual revenue.
But I emphasize the word could because threats to innovation in environmental technologies exist. One of the biggest threats is the notion that incentives in the form of intellectual property rights somehow hinder innovation and limit transfer of technologies to the developing world. In fact the opposite is true. Weakening existing IP protections would eliminate incentives for future research and create uncertainty for the many businesses in developed and developing countries alike that have already invested hundreds of billions of dollars in climate saving technologies and production. An effective and viable climate change treaty starts with negotiators enshrining clean energy technology and strong intellectual property rights as part of the solution, rather than a problem or a bargaining chip. The key to any international agreement on climate change is that it must include global participation and strong intellectual property rights to spur the use of clean energy technologies worldwide.
Eco innovation, green tech, green collar jobs — no matter what you call it, incentives to keep the drive alive are key to meeting climate goals.
]]>The EIT’s goal is to bring universities into public-private R&D partnerships called “Knowledge and Innovation Communities” or KICs to create new commercial opportunities. Commission President Barroso himself admits that the EU needs to catch up to the US noting that there is an 85% gap between the US and Europe in business funded R&D. To me, the real question is: why is there still an 85% gap? Let’s face it, business invests in R&D where it can be rewarded for its investment. That means creating the kind of business environment that stimulates ideas for inventors, business opportunities for entrepreneurs, and financial reward for investors – even the risky kind like venture capitalists. An important part of that business environment is protecting the intellectual property that is generated by the investment in R&D. That may seem obvious to some, but there is a lot of talk in some quarters that IP should not be protected and that it, in fact, hinders innovation.
A quick look at some U.S. numbers makes it difficult to overstate the value of IP to the U.S. economy. American intellectual property currently accounts for some one-third of the market value of all U.S. stock – $5 trillion-$5.5 trillion. That total is equivalent to 42% of America’s GDP and greater than the GDP of any other economy in the world. IP-intensive industries including pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and information technology recently accounted for 17.3% of all U.S. economic activity. As information and specialized knowledge become more important to both the European and American economies, IP will take on an even greater role.
I applaud the new EIT but, as the British like to say, “mind the gap”.
]]>Women are, and will become, an even greater force in the economy as societies, companies and national governments focus on ways to increase women’s engagement in science and technology, knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and the digital future. A 2007 study by McKinsey and Company entitled “Women Matter” highlighted an important fact: Europe can expect a shortfall of 24 million people in the active workforce by 2040. But, if there is a greater effort to bring more women into the workforce, the shortfall could be only 3 million.
While there is much talk about promoting innovation and supporting innovators and entrepreneurs; there is an undercurrent of debate ranging from scrapping the current system for protecting creations of the mind; i.e., the intellectual property rights system, to keeping the status quo, warts and all. How can influential networks such as the Paris-based “Women’s Forum for the Economy and Society” or the London-based “Global Women Inventor and Innovators Network” promote entrepreneurs, innovators and knowledge workers while at the same time respond to growing societal demands?
Not only do we need policies which support economic growth but policies that support the growth of ideas and creativity, areas where many women excel. The Women’s Forum for the Economy and Society, which brings together leading women (and men) in business, government and academia, could be an ideal stage for an honest exchange of ideas, testing some new ones, and where solutions to promoting and protecting innovation and creations of the mind are genuinely valued. Too often these questions are discussed in limited forums where honest debate is not encouraged and positions are reflected in a pre-scripted set of talking points. Perhaps French Finance minister Christine Lagarde and the other EU finance ministers will discuss not only structural reforms at their next meeting on September 12-13 in Nice, but meaningful ways to ensure Europe’s competitiveness well into the 21st century……
]]>But France didn’t see the only IP action in the last few weeks. The nexus of technology, consumers, business, government, and the courts is becoming a high-profile issue all around Europe with May and June easily being deemed ‘IP event circuit’ months. To quickly recap, May started with the European Patent Office Forum on environmental technologies in Slovenia and the month accelerated with DG Internal Market’s “High Level Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy” in Brussels. The International Anti-counterfeiting Coalition and the US-EU IP working group held meetings in Berlin, and the World Health Assembly met in Geneva to debate access to medical technologies.
June was no different. France hosted a conference on “Copyright and Counterfeit in the Digital Economy”, a transatlantic collaboration coalition hosted an anti-counterfeiting workshop for SMEs in Brussels, DG Trade held a stakeholders briefing on a future Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and Athens hosted an international conference on “Copyright Policies and the Role of Stakeholders”. At the same time the European Parliament held hearings on the state of implementation of the EU IPR enforcement directive. All the while, various EU DGs, EP committees, and Councils debated how to jump start EU spending on research and development, innovation and technology transfer.
It’s plain to see that there is no lack of ‘activity’ on this topic. However, during the Athens copyright conference a member of the audience asked an interesting question “what is the philosophical goal of EU IP policy – what is the vision?” No one in the 200+ room had an answer. In the absence of an answer, perhaps the French courts will decide….
]]>In May, French Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot-Narquin, went head to head with the Brazilians charging that Brazil’s moves to break patents [one compulsory license and threats of more] is not simply a health policy but part of an industrial strategy to favor local firms. While this is an opinion held by many developed countries, give the French credit for saying it out loud.
Earlier this month, a French court in Reims, found eBay France complicit in the sale of counterfeit goods, namely two fake handbags bearing the Hermès trade mark. eBay was held jointly liable with the seller of the goods, for € 3,000 -worth of sales, and ordered to pay € 20,000 in damages. Look closely the next time you think your getting a good deal on eBay…it might just be too good of a deal.France (and French companies) aren’t the only ones in Europe which intellectual assets to protect. In fact, the Eurostat data mentioned above, shows that Stockholm (Sweden), Brabant Wallon province (Belgium), Inner London (UK) and Utrecht (Netherlands) had the largest proportions (around 28%) of people employed in all science and technology occupations in their regional workforces. So, despite waffling in the European Parliament, and competition among various European Commission directorates; will the EU make protecting intellectual property a Europe-wide banner issue? In the meantime, Vive la France!
]]>Given the integration of the transatlantic economy and the number of innovative companies with deep roots in both markets, it’s important that policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic not develop new policies and regulations in isolation. So, with America’s economy and stock markets continuing to give everyone heartburn; it makes me wonder what America’s Presidential hopefuls are thinking when it comes to fostering an innovative economy? Does anyone know? It would be easy to say “of course the U.S. candidates support innovation–who doesn’t” — but does that mean they are prepared to champion the policies that turn election promises into action?
]]>For those who have been following the Intergovernmental Working Group talks taking place at the World Health Organization it brings back reminders of many of the arguments made by certain delegations eager to strip IP protections from innovative medical technologies. On May 19, WHO delegates to the World Health Assembly convened and will continue to argue over a number of issues which could impact innovation in the medical technology sector. While there are many worthwhile issues being discussed at the WHA such as how to increase R&D for medical technologies; there remain several controversial proposals that could undermine the existing R&D system (e.g. provisions impacting competition law and pricing mechanisms, the current patent and clinical data protection rules, interference with bi-lateral trade) to name a few.
My hesitation about the discussion at the EPO climate change event in Slovenia is not the topic—it’s certainly an important one—nor the one of the key conclusions — yes, the patent system probably is the best way to encourage new climate-saving technologies—but the sense of ‘policy panic’ that filled the room. New policies should not be made on a whim or in panic mode. If (and that is a big IF), new policies to promote new discoveries are needed; policy makers must consider the potential side effects. The consequences of new IP protection schemes or patent alternatives should be fully explored. For example, what would be the impact on innovative companies and the high quality, high paying jobs they support, especially small and mid-sized firms whose business model may rest on the ability to market and protect one new discovery? If a new discovery can’t find its way to the marketplace, it may remain just that, a great idea gathering dust on a shelf, instead of an idea that entered the marketplace, rewarded the inventor—and, by the way, helped save the planet.
]]>