What do the scenarios mean for IP holders?

The four possible future worlds indicate that substantive changes and shifts in thinking will be required if the system is to survive and thrive. In each scenario, the issue of balance between incentives through patents and free competition has been addressed in differing ways. Any perceived changes are likely to affect smaller IP holders with less resilience very differently to the bigger players with more resources at their disposal. Yet for all parties, the ability to recognize and adapt to change will be a key factor for future success. Although the views expounded in these scenarios do not represent in any form those of the EPO, they are – like all good scenarios – designed to portray a set of challenging, relevant and plausible stories of possible futures.

Market rules

In the business world of Market Rules, big is beautiful. As patent applications continue to increase, institutional moves, driven by the demands of business lobbying, are made to harmonize the system. IP rights become stronger and more enforcement takes place at the global level, so ensuring that big players with deep pockets and large patent portfolios increasingly dominate the market. In fact, a comprehensive theory of patent value emerges, with considerable empirical evidence which strongly indicates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts: the true value of any patent lies not in its individual worth, but in its aggregation into a collection of related patents – a patent portfolio. Cross-licensing deals between owners of patent portfolios into leave newcomers with even less opportunity to succeed. Every now and then a smaller player will try to leverage his patents, aided by the emerging IP intermediaries; but without financial and legal clout, this option is not one for the faint hearted.

Whose game?

In the geopolitical world of Whose Game?, governments use IP to pursue different goals in a struggle for global trade dominance. In certain key sectors, IP rights are controlled by the state as the race for supremacy in sensitive technologies intensifies. As the cutting-edge of technological supremacy and its related IP moves eastwards, the old powers struggle to maintain their position until finally two divergent trade blocks with high external trade barriers emerge, each with its own distinct IP rules and practices. The challenge here will be for IP holders to find a way to safely navigate this volatile and politicised world.

Trees of knowledge

In the green societal world of Trees of Knowledge, civil society becomes increasingly engaged in the IP debate as questions around the public benefits of IP gain traction. Public interest significantly shapes the agenda of the so-called commons debate, and imposes limits on patentability and copyright in many areas. These restrictions encourage the use of open source technology and hamper the advance of those technologies with ethical considerations that are questioned by society. This creates uncertainty around technology acceptance for IP holders, limiting the ability to attract investment in certain areas. Funding shortfalls are partially met by governments and philanthropic organizations, but decisions regarding research priorities are vulnerable to political lobbying.