As a proud student innovator at the University of Waterloo, intellectual property is a subject that is dear to me. As you may already know, the University of Waterloo is a hub for entrepreneurship and cutting-edge research. Its reputation is as such because of its intellectual property principles. At the University of Waterloo, whatever you discover/invent is yours. This is evident from the Policy Manual of the University of Waterloo, which states, “It is University policy that ownership of rights in IP created in the course of teaching and research activities belong to the creator(s).” What does this mean? How is this important? This article aims to answer these questions.
Intellectual property (IP) means different things to different people. Most often, IP is the ownership of intangible items born from the efforts of a person or a group of people. These include patents, copyrights, trademarks and other similar items which have the potential to have commercial value. IP has been more important in the past three decades than ever before. Since the onset of integrated circuits and computers, many industries have been developed which rely on IPs as their primary income generator. This enables the onset of low-infrastructure industries such as software and biotechnology companies. Intellectual property protection enables these smaller companies to flourish and has induced economic growth like never before.
IP has recently developed to be a primary gauge in nascent company valuations. A prime example of IP allowing financial growth is the IT industry. Let’s say that there is a hypothetical dude called Bob. Bob has a bright idea to make an app to do something that has never been done before. Bob proceeds to make this app and monetize it. Obviously, in order to do so, he files a patent and copyrights the logos (and other associated graphics). On the other hand, Steve is a freelance software developer who had the same idea two weeks later. Patents ensure that Bob has the upper hand due to his appropriately documented intellectual property. Additionally, copyrights ensure big companies like Nike™ are protected against competitors copying their products and marketing them (thus preventing piggy-backing on the already successful brands).
On the other hand, when do IPRs become completely ridiculous? There are several examples of people patenting ideas which are just remote concepts that may never materialize into a finished product. Eventually, when such inventions do occur, the actual inventors are possibly in a very bad position, especially in the field of biotechnology where this practice is widespread. For example, a pharmaceutical research firm filed a patent on a technique to extract an anti-fungal agent from the neem tree (Azadirachta indica), which grows throughout India even though Indian villagers have understood the tree’s medicinal value since long before. The company involved in the neem case insisted that, since the medicinal properties of the neem tree had never been published in a scholarly article, it could not be considered “prior art” (“prior art” refers previously known information that prevents an idea from being patented).
Another such occurrence is the patenting of DNA. One company in Brazil patented a sequence of nucleic acids for the conversion of sugars to ethanol. They used E. coli to obtain a yield of about 0.7% percent. At the same time, another company in India used S. cerevisiae and a slightly similar DNA sequence to obtain a yield of 18%. They were denied a process patent on the grounds that their DNA sequence was less than 10% different from the that of the Brazilian company. Hence, despite their revolutionary high yield, they weren’t able to monetize it.
IP protection is thus a double-edged sword. While it facilitates fair business practices, it can also be unfair when improperly used. Thus, it is necessary to have a competent patenting authority.
Leave a Reply