|
Clive Coker |
Good science is being produced in the UK and science infrastructure is being invested in at a rate that is growing faster than the general economy. This steadily increasing investment is consistent with the early stages of nurturing a knowledge-based economy.
Although some scientists have shown that their urge to publish can be greater than their desire to develop claims and protect commercial and novel ideas, there are indications that things are changing. I do not believe, however, that all science should be directed to produce short to medium term commercially exploitable ideas. I support the need for a balance that accommodates science that is not yet obviously applicable.
A part of my working life I really enjoy is being invited into research centres to explore possible industrial applications for scientific discoveries. However, it all too often appears that the more commercially minded units of these research bodies have been kept out of the loop. Discoveries are published, research funds are sourced from other nations, followed by more development funding, and only then does the innovation process start working its way up to full exploitation. Research centres with some technology exploitation function embedded at the department level do not miss so many of these opportunities. Regardless, some IP protection and exploitation expertise is best retained centrally in each major research institution.
Spin out companies have their role to play, however too often I see single patent companies that are almost always going to be more precarious than an equally new technology company with rights in four or more patents. More pooling of related patented know how across the boundaries of different research centres could mean fewer new technology spin out companies, however these would tend to live longer and prosper.
Research institutions would do well to make more use of the business representatives on their advisory or decision making bodies to help spot commercial opportunities. There should also be reward sharing between research institutions and their IP generating people. Having two or more millionaires on the research staff can bring about a marked shift in the culture of an organization.
To balance the exhortations to protect discoveries, the scientific community would do well to continue to focus on selecting only potentially commercial ideas as being worthy of protection. It would be a waste of hard won resources to patent ideas which, although novel, were of uncertain commercial value. Patenting for the sake of increasing an institution's score on some league table of IP generation and protection could lead to commercially viable ideas going unprotected should budgets for patenting shrink in real terms.
The ability to fully exploit its IP is not a direct function of a company's size but of its market position in its (often globalized) industry. Hence, a small knowledge intensive company that exports over half of its output can be more IP savvy than a company employing 10 times more people serving a less international set of customers. For this reason a one size fits all approach to supporting companies can be too simplistic. The small knowledge based exporting company may need more sophisticated IP support, whereas a larger company may benefit greatly from a general level of IP advice and yet be excluded from government support purely on the grounds of size.
The UK Patent Office's performance in supporting innovation is good whilst showing signs of improvement. In its global market it is punching at or somewhat above its weight. It is possibly erring on the side of providing good value to the taxpayer rather than providing competitive value to those filing applications and paying renewal fees. Increasingly I hear inventors asking if they should first file their applications in the UK or elsewhere. The Office is clearly aware that it operates in a global market and I would like it to offer patent and trade mark costs that make the UK an obvious place to do business. Just as manufactured exports are affected by the strength of currencies, then patent fees should be reviewed to keep them competitive with the alternatives.
Perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry's forthcoming Innovation Review will go some way towards enabling the UK IP regime to be competitive for more than just its home market.
