Tag Archives: innovation policy

Can the U.S. compete with China without a focused innovation policy?

More nations today have an innovation policy than do not – that is except for the U.S. 

The U.S. not only has no centralized innovation and intellectual property policy, it has no real strategy for making IP rights more meaningful and American businesses more competitive in the wake of initiatives from China.

Some believe it is not the job of policymakers to tinker with free-markets or favor certain industries. Well, that may have worked in the past, but with China committed to dominating global innovation – and with unlimited capital – the U.S. must reexamine its strategies.

What it is not supposed to do is assume that it is business as usual.

The United States has a tendency to repeat past mistakes, such as in the case of so-called “Japan, Inc.,” which devastated the auto and electronics industries with more advanced products. It is currently contending with China, which has approximately ten times the population of Japan and has quadrupled its investment in technology over the past decade.

“US innovation policy: Time for a makeover,” a fresh take on dealing with competition in the Intangible Investor, can be found in the July IAM magazine, out this week, here.

Innovation policy in the United States is mostly a series of suggested strategies and directives from several government agencies and industry organisations primarily designed to address foreign IP infringement (i.e., theft). It is often tied to science and economic policy, and is typically reactive – not proactive.

“Better innovation policy not only permits established industries to compete,” says the Intangible Investor, “it facilitates success for the next generation of inventors, authors, designers and software developers. It also helps to supply context for a confused and wary public susceptible to false media narratives – intellectual property is not the enemy, nor are rights holders and lawyers.”

Enforcement is Not Policy

Trump’s anger about China IP violations, justified or not, does not constitute an innovation policy. Innovation policy is not just about enforcement or supporting the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) curriculum for the next generation of inventors. It is about understanding the current economic and political context and responding as a nation.

“The FAANGs, and others, who dominate the competition and monetize their customers’ information, often without permission, realize they are increasingly symbols of bad business behavior,” Bruce Berman wrote recently in IP Watchdog. “The heat they feel from regulators in Europe and the U.S. will continue to rise.

“IP infringement will come to be seen as an increasingly important part of their bad behavior. The timing is perfect for them to step back and step up and show the leadership they heretofore have ignored regarding IP rights. Movement toward a responsible IP middle ground – a less entrenched position that recognizes others’ rights and actively conveys a greater willingness to share successes, not only defend them, will help to inform a meaningful IP policy.”

Quick-Reading Guide

For further background on U.S. innovation policy, read a timely and insightful perspective on U.S. innovation policy from James Goh, a young Wharton student from Singapore, “Primer: Innovation Policy in the United States.” 

For a linked quick-reading list about innovation and IP policy from the Center for IP Understanding, go to page 4.

Image source: q3research.com; breakinggap.com

 

 

Rep. Collins speaks from IP experience at CIPU-GIPC innovation policy forum

On Tuesday an open briefing was held in Washington to better understand U.S. innovation and IP policy. Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA), a supporter of strong and certain IP rights, launched the event with a personal account of his exposure to IP rights growing up in rural Georgia. 

He said that a number of his relatives and neighbors were chicken farmers, “some of whom invented new and more effective processes to produce and process eggs and poultry that were protected under IP law.”

The keynote comments of the Congressman were part of a program, “Innovation Policy and Intellectual Property: Building on a Strong Foundation,” held by the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU), an independent non-profit, and the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), a division of the United Stated Chamber of Commerce.

House Judiciary Committee

Congressman Collins is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and also is on the sub-committee for the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. He was a sponsor of the recently enacted, and broadly supported Music Modernization Act, which passed the House 415-0, and has developed and supported other IP-friendly legislation. “IP is a part of the fabric of the nation,” he said. “American freedom is tied to an effective IP system.”

Other presenters included CIPU board member Marshall Phelps, former Vice President of IP Business and Strategy at Microsoft and prior to that at IBM. Mr. Phelps also served as head of Government Relations for IBM in Washington in the 1980s, and previously was head of Asia-Pacific. He spoke about the threat to technology posed by “Japan, Inc.” in the Eighties, and how the U.S. was able to surmount the threat with the right combination of incentives.

“The threat to IP and innovation from China is real,” said Phelps in his introductory remarks, “but too much policy and the wrong incentives can create bigger problems. Making patent certainty a higher priority should be the first priority. Putting IP properly on the balance sheet would help, too.”

Manny Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel of IBM, also a CIPU director, and president of the Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) Education Foundation, was a panelist, as were, Alan Marco, former USPTO Chief Economist, Rob Atkinson, a pro-IP economist and President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), and Professor Adam Mossoff, an IP scholar and policy expert at George Mason University Scalia School of Law.

Among the goals of the panel was to explore:

  • What is U.S. innovation policy?
  • How does it relate to intellectual property?
  • Who should be responsible for it?
  • How should success be measured?

Audience Response

One the audience members asked if the Supreme Court, with Oil States and several other decisions, was “anti-IP.” The panel did not believe so, but thought that SCOTUS members may be poorly informed about the purpose and use if IP rights.

Another audience member stated the false narratives around phrases like patent “trolls” were part of a long-term “public relations campaign” that has seeded anger and hostility toward IP rights in general. He thought a sustained educational initiative could help to make the role of IP clearer for various audiences.

Image source: GIPC


%d bloggers like this: