Monday, June 09, 2003

The Royal Society in the UK have produced an interesting new report "Keeping science open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of science". It emphasises the fundamental requirement that for science to thrive, there needs to be "a free flow of ideas and information" and that IPRs can interfere with this through encouraging a climate of secrecy. "The merits of universities actively obtaining IPRs, as opposed to disseminating knowledge and allowing industry to protect its developments, are not well documented and would be worthy of further study in the UK." It highlights the damgers of the overreaching effects of unbalanced intellectual property laws and given the distinguished panel of people who put the report together, including the late Roger Needham, merits considerable thought.

The Introduction gives a taste of the direction of the report in its opening paragraphs:

"Productive scientific research requires free and rapid flow and exchange of information. The presence or process of securing formal intellectual property rights (IPRs) may restrist this flow, and thus can impede or conflict with the effective development of science.

Yet IPRs can simultaneously encourage innovation by leading to reward, and permit publication by scientists in industry of information that would otherwise be withheld. IPRs can therefore increase actual information availability, flow and use, and thus the rate of progress of science. Achieving the right balance between the encouragement of innovation and information flow, and the extent to which restrictions need to be inherent in IPRs, is an important issue of public policy. Many believe that the current balance is not optimal and additionally is eroding the area of common knowledge that is the very foundation of science. We have therefore considered whether there could be improvements in the way intellectual property law, its interpretation and it use impact on science."

The summary concludes (p.vi):

"There are some overarching aspects of IP law that are as relevant today
as they have ever been. One is that the law does, by its nature, confer
exclusive rights on the rightholder in exchange for well-defined rights
for society. A good balance provides just sufficient incentive to
encourage research and development by potential rightholders but retains
a high level of benefit for society.

Advances of technology and commercial forces have led to new IP
legislation and case law that unreasonably and unnecessarily restrict
freedom to access and to use information. This restriction of the
commons in the main IP areas of patents, copyright and database right
has changed the balance of rights and hampers scientific endeavour. In
the interests of society, that balance must be rectified."

No comments: