World Intellectual Property Report 2011

More documents

Recommendations

Info

One solution is for firms to pool their patents, sharing them with other patent holders and sometimes licensing them to third parties as a package. Patent pools are not a new collaborative practice; they have existed for more than a century. The available data point to their widespread use in the first half of the 20th century (see Figure 5). In the period after the Second <strong>World</strong> War, the more skeptical attitudes of competition authorities drastically reduced the formation of new pools. However, this has again changed in the last two decades, with a new wave of pools emerging, especially in the ICT industry where patent thickets have proliferated. Figure 5: The ICT industry dominates the recent wave of patent pools Number of patent pools by industry 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Other Communications Transportation equipment Packaged software Scienti c instruments Metal products Chemicals Petroleum re ning 1910s 1920s See Figure 3.4. 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s Electrical Machinery 1980s 1990s 2000s As in the case of R&D alliances, there is a compelling case that patent pools are not only beneficial to participating patent holders, but also to society. They enable the introduction of new technologies and promote the interoperability of different technologies. The latter aspect is especially important where technology adoption requires standard setting. Indeed, patent pools are often formed as a result of standard-setting efforts. Notwithstanding their benefits, leaving the formation of collaborative ventures to private market forces may not always lead to socially optimal outcomes; firms may either collaborate below desirable levels or they may do so in an anticompetitive manner. Market forces may not always lead to desirable levels of collaboration… Insufficient levels of collaboration – whether in the production or commercialization of IP – may arise from conflicts of interest between potential collaborators. Fears of free riding, risk shifting and other forms of opportunistic behavior may lead firms to forgo mutually beneficial cooperation. Differences in business strategies between specialized R&D firms and “vertically” integrated R&D and production firms can add to negotiation gridlock. In principle, the failure of private markets to attract optimal levels of collaboration provides a rationale for government intervention. Unfortunately, the available evidence offers little guidance to policymakers on how such market failures are best resolved. This is partly because the benefits of and incentives for collaboration are highly specific to particular technologies and business models, and also because it is difficult to evaluate how often potentially fruitful collaboration opportunities go unexplored in different industries. Some governments promote collaboration among firms through fiscal incentives and related innovation policy instruments. In addition, there are incentive mechanisms for sharing patent rights – for example, discounts on renewal fees if patent holders make available their patents for licensing. However, as greater technological complexity and more fragmented patent landscapes have increased the need for collaboration, there arguably is scope for creative policy thinking on how best to incentivize the licensing or sharing of patent rights. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY 13
eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY … and they may sometimes result in anticompetitive practices The problem of anticompetitive collaborative practices seems to be easier to address from a policymaker’s viewpoint. Such practices are generally more observable, and authorities can assess the competitive effects of collaborative agreements on a case-by-case basis. In addition, some consensus exists about the type of collaborative practices that should not be allowed or that, at the least, trigger warning signs. Nonetheless, evaluating the competitive effects of specific collaborative agreements remains challenging. Technologies move fast, and their market impact is uncertain. In addition, many low- and middle-income countries have less developed institutional frameworks for enforcing competition law in this area – although they are likely to benefit from the enforcement actions of high-income countries, where most collaborative agreements with global reach are concluded. How to harness public research for innovation Universities and PROs play a key role in national innovation systems. Beyond their mission to educate, they account for substantial shares of total R&D spending. They also perform most of the basic research carried out in their countries. This is especially so in middleincome countries; for example, the share of universities and PROs in total basic research is close to 100 percent for China, 90 percent for Mexico and 80 percent for the Russian Federation. Close interaction with public research helps firms to monitor scientific advances that are likely to transform technologies. It also facilitates joint problem solving and opens up new avenues for research. Public-private knowledge exchanges occur through a number of channels. One is the creation of IP in the public sector that is licensed to firms for commercial development. 14 Public policies have encouraged the commercialization of scientific knowledge… The last three decades have seen the emergence of targeted policy initiatives to incentivize university and PRO patenting, and subsequent commercial development. Almost all high-income countries now have institutional frameworks to this effect. One general trend has been for universities and PROs to take institutional ownership of the inventions researchers generate, and to pursue their commercialization through TTOs. More recently, a number of middle- and low-income countries have also explored how technology transfer and the development of industry-university collaboration are best promoted. … leading to rapid growth in patenting by universities and PROs Accordingly, there has been a marked increase in patent applications by universities and PROs – both in absolute terms and as a share of total patents filed. Figure 6 depicts this trend for international patent filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system. High-income countries have been responsible for most of the university and PRO filings under the PCT. However, such filings have also grown rapidly in certain middle- income countries. Among them, China leads in terms of university applications, followed by Brazil, India and South Africa. Compared to university patenting, the distribution of middle-income country PRO filings is more concentrated. Chinese and Indian PROs alone account for 78 percent of the total. They are followed by PROs from Malaysia, South Africa and Brazil. National patent statistics confirm the prominence of university patenting in China; they also reveal a high share of PRO patenting for India (see Figure 7).
Page 1 and 2: WIPO Economics & Statistics Series
Page 3 and 4: Foreword
Page 5 and 6: AcknoWledgements This Report was de
Page 7 and 8: eXecUtIVe sUmmARY Throughout human
Page 9 and 10: eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY Assessing the tru
Page 11 and 12: eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY While only limite
Page 13: eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY Such learning can
Page 17 and 18: eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY Universities and
Page 19 and 20: tAble oF contents cHAPteR 1 The cha
Page 21 and 22: TAble oF ConTenTS cHAPteR 3 Balanci
Page 24 and 25: Chapter 1 the Changing faCe of inno
Page 64 and 65:
Chapter 1 the Changing faCe of inno
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 76 and 77:
Chapter 2 the eConomiCs of intelleC
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108:
Page 111 and 112:
Chapter 3 BalanCing CollaBoration a
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 140 and 141:
Chapter 4 harnessing publiC researC
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
AcRonYms ASTP Association of Europe
Page 186:
For more information contact WIPO a
show all

World Intellectual Property Report 2011

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?