A different perspective: KM and Intellectual property
13-Jun-05
A different perspective: KM and Intellectual property
Helen MARTIN
biopharmation@mail.dk
Introduction
We humans are by nature creative, greedy, imitative, and inventive – and a lot of other more or less pleasant things. Some of us are more inventive than others, and some have a strong instinct for which inventions can be used for monetary benefit. It is surprising how seldom the two are to be found in the same person… Out of this has arisen what is arguably one of the better examples of Knowledge Management – the identification and protection of intellectual property (IP).
This short article is not about the details of patenting which can be found explained very clearly at the various Patent Offices Internet sites. Because IP is intended to inform about what has been protected, it is in everyone’s interest to make the information freely available.
Rather, this is a superficial dip into the fascinating world of Intellectual Property, and it must be pointed out that it is a personal viewpoint. I am not against the practise of protecting one’s rights, merely intrigued as to what the future will bring.
Intellectual Property – what is it?
According to the Encarta1, Intellectual Property is “original creative work manifested in a tangible form that can be legally protected, e.g. by a patent, trademark, or copyright.” The following quote shows that Jefferson would not have approved of the concept …
From a letter to Isaac McPherson
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it... He who receives an idea from me, receives instructions himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should be spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Source: http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html#filos
However, modern life is competitive, and protecting one’s ideas is essential, the downside is that defending one’s right to the invention, trademark, and design, copyright is also becoming much more difficult and expensive…
Patents
“A patent for an invention is granted by government to the inventor, giving the inventor the right for a limited period to stop others from making, using or selling the invention without the permission of the inventor. When a patent is granted, the invention becomes the property of the inventor, which – like any other form of property or business asset – can be bought, sold, rented or hired. Patents are territorial rights; UK Patent will only give the holder rights within the United Kingdom and rights to stop others from importing the patented products into the United Kingdom.”
Source: www.patent.gov.uk
The site points out that in order to have a patent granted it must be a new invention; involve an inventive step; and be capable of industrial application.
Interestingly “Articles or processes alleged to operate in a manner clearly contrary to well-established physical laws, such as perpetual motion machines, are regarded as not having industrial application.”
And even more interestingly, you cannot patent the following
- a discovery;
- a scientific theory or mathematical method;
- an aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;
- a scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;
- the presentation of information, or a computer program.
Yet there are very many patents claiming Knowledge management. Judging by the titles, most of them seem to deal with software which can help with multiple documents searching, data-mining, indexing and document management. As another aspect of patents is an involved, detailed and often tortuous manner of writing, I have not read any of these, so this must definitely be put down as a personal opinion only.
Some new inventions or technologies are deliberately made known to the world. This is known as Defensive Publishing or Technical Disclosure. This may be done because the inventors want to give the invention freely for all to use, because they do not want to spend the money on getting their rights protected; or simply because the invention is already covered or partly covered by other patents and therefore cannot be patented. Technical disclosure ensures that nobody has the right to exclude others over the use of the invention, so major inventions are rarely treated in this manner.
The following definitions were copied from http://www.uspto.gov/main/glossary/index.html
“Design
Protection may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture
Trademarks
Protect words, names, symbols, sounds, or colours that distinguish goods and services from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods. Trademarks, unlike patents, can be renewed forever as long as they are being used in commerce.
Copyright
Protect works of authorship, such as writings, music, and works of art that have been tangibly expressed.“
Patents are legal documents and also one of the few printed matters that one can copy in entirety – they are not protected by copyright – at least so I was told by a patent lawyer.
IP & KM
On the surface, Intellectual property seems to be a very good example of KM. The information is carefully set out and publicly available. There are clear rules about using the information, who has generated it and what it can be used for. But looked at more closely it is not really so. The language is often hard to understand for the layman, and gaining IP rights is generally expensive, mainly because these rights are for a limited period of time: after expiry of a patents anyone can, in theory, make use of the idea, process or method.
Olaf Brugman 16-06-2004, discussing the European definition of KM wrote:
It appears to me that Europe adopts a concept of KM that is too limited from the start. KM is only to serve 'competitiveness'. A very materialist perspective. First of all, this definition will focus KM on hedging, hiding and protecting knowledge. In other words, it will focus on anything but dissemination of knowledge, on anything but integration and collaboration, on anything but combining competencies. Also, the concept inherently conveys the messages that the actor who is to apply or adopt KM is there for his own sake, failing to see that each actor plays a role in the larger scheme and processes of our society.
This is a very human and caring perspective which seems to me to apply equally to the world of IP.
Conclusion
From a purely personal point of view I wonder how long the world can control IP rights.
What will happen in the future? Will only the big organisations have the clout to protect their rights? Can patents still do what they were designed to do? I do not think so. It will become as difficult to enforce IP rights as it has become to protect the rights of musicians whose works are copied and downloaded via the Internet; the breaking of copyrights by persons who happily photocopy huge chunks of books and articles; the many pirate copies of expensive fashion clothes and designs.
One thing I am fairly confident about is that altruism will not prevail – we humans will find some novel, inventive way of protecting our inventions, designs, creative ideas – but how?
1 Encarta. World English Dictionary. Bloomsbury Publishing: London, 1999.
© Helen Martin 2005
Knowledgeboard/ H-SIG Home Page
Details
Attachments: 1
-
KM & IP article.doc (45 Kb)Printing version13-Jun-05
- Author:
- Helen Martin
- Publisher:
- KnowledgeBoard
- Date:
- 13-Jun-05
- Categories:
- Human and Social, Human Side of KM
- Sections:
This article has been read 8725 times.
Tools
Member comments (17)
Share your views with other users: add your own comments to this item.
IP rights
Hi Jacques, Rajesh and Benoit,
Thank you for your comments which in turn raise interesting questions - it will be truly fascinating to see how IP rights develop.
We have just had a new development here in Denmark. A copy of all material with the .dk domain, which is published on eletronic communication networks MUST be deposited with the state electronic archives. Furthermore, so must all material from outside of Denmark which is aimed at a Danish readership. The data will be harvested electronically.
Do the other EU Nations have a similar legislation?
Helen
From ownership battles to owning up to life
Rajesh, your views are pointing in the same direction I was writing about this week on ownership. The personal ability to own up to whom and what each one is made of, in the context of co-operation, turns mathematics into the order of one plus one makes one. The organisation becomes an organism. We go from unlimited competing to completing so that as you point out, intellectual ownership no longer is a matter of who owns what but of what is the need, where and when? Intelligence owns up to intelligence and patent becomes a safe, ongoing stimulation and breathing of creativity and relevancy that pulsates healthy leadership to move with.
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) - Advanced Application of KM?
Hi Helen,
Thanks for the good and concise read.
The progressing initiatives on the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) may help find solutions to many of the present day issues related to Patents; but presently it may be a complex, time consuming and expensive procedure.
By year-end 2004 of PCT,
"One million technical advances publicly disclosed, fueling technology transfer and stimulating still more innovation".
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/million/index.html
PCT Statistical Indicators Report, May 2005
http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/pdf/pct_monthly_report.pdf
In my views, if such IP initiatives can find more cooperation among the national unions and industry-associations and forums, its a positive sign. So Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and similar ones may be considered as 'Advanced Applications of KM'. KM finds more life than its present image of making software KM-tools on Database Management packages and publishing.
>>
>> What will happen in the future? Will only
>> the big organizations have the clout to
>> protect their rights? Can patents still do >> what they were designed to do? I do not
>> think so. It will become as difficult to
>> enforce IP rights, etc.
>>
This will make us ask more questions on is it the 'Organizations(economy)' lead the 'nations' and 'national unions of interest' or the other way in the future? Is it growth of human civilization ('quality of life') independent of continents high priority (of organizations and nations) or is it 'showing the short living superiority (of organizations and nations)) over the weaker ones?'
In the long run, if there is days of the human civilization in the future when the whole world become the "Organization and nation together" taking care each -one and -other as "employee and citizen" and everyone loves to contribute more for the collective overall growth, then, in my personal views, the concerns of protecting the rights and ownership will change to how fast one (or group) can make the innovation reach to the masses around.
Once again thanks for the good article.
best wishes,
Rajesh.
KM sources and IP understanding
Funnily enough when you carry out an Internet search on “Intellectual Property and KM” the results you obtain most often lead to warnings which tell you, more or less, that intellectual property must be protected and that information about innovations must be kept as secret as possible. Is the KM world totally paranoid?
Could it be that one of the fundamental aspects of the system of patents, copyrights and so on, is being put aside? If intellectual property is protected it is because it is made known! If it were not officialized through the IP regulations it would become public just because of what is published or produced. Don’t forget that without the rules protecting innovations through patents and so on, it would be quite easy to just copy what has been put on the market (ever heard of back-engineering?).
Could it be that the management of innovation is lacking some perspective at the level of patenting in the KM populations? A dire misconception revealing a serious lack of information in that domain…
But of course a simple Internet search might not be absolutely trustworthy.
In anycase, thanks again Helen for bringing the subject under the spotlights of KB2.
Rights of one versus what is right or with it?
Hi Jaques, The enforcing of one's rights that you begin with, connects with the moral aspect you raise. The word moral, as you employ it in relation to the rights of an individual to his own work, is a matter of absolute. In the relationship between a Micheal Angelo or Leonardo D'a Vinci and those who got them to say ok, I'll do it, there had to be a way of interacting that respected, supported and stimulated the inspiration and the genius of the artist. O)therwise, there would not be their work to be seen. But at some point, the artist needed to deliver, as of a delivery of himself into thes ervice of his genius into talents and skills. Therefore, the way to safeguard the rights of the author, is to insure as a society that the author gets granted with all that is needed to carry out the aims and purposes of the particular authorship needed to bring on completion of its reasons and purpose of authoring. This way, in time, individual ownership will fleurish in communal, self-governing initiatine and ventures, away from the pressure of competition and with the benefit of humanity being recovered and enhenced at the office as well as home. As individuals, our rights are limited to the service we do. The true reward is to be and do what keeps the joy of living healthy. It is by going on serving in full integrity that what is right goes on spreading. The benefit of spreading welbeing and welfare is the reward. of our right to contribute to humanity.
Illegal substances
Hi Benoit
You raise an interesting point - but it goes to support my statement that it is very difficult to enforce one's rights.
Patents are published to inform about what has been invented and the process involved. In the case you mention, the rights of whoever worked out how to produce the mind-altering/destroying substance (if it was ever patented) are being abused. But what can be done to enforce the inventor's rights?
It really is a moral dilemma.
Suggestion
Helen, you ask: "What will happen in the future? Will only the big organisations have the clout to protect their rights?" Intellectual property rightsmakes sense to protect the knowledge that can go in the wrong direction. As a current example: Where we live, there is this receipe on the internet, made of house hold products which, once put together under the guidance of that knowledge, becomes crystal meth, they call it. Along with crack cocaine, it is the most destructive street power ever seen. From this example of a plague, to the isolated maniac who will spend a life time gathering the components for causing disasters of any kind? So the handling of securuty is where intellectual property rights is imperative. This is a matter of health in the socio-cultural environment. Security and the collective advancement of personal justice, peace and joy is where the ownership of knowledge needs to be framed. The context to fully participate, to enjoy and to celebrate making life better for everyone is the reward of the inventor. Of course, when profit is involved, then the inventor out to be granted all the freedom to proceed at will, with the support, into more inventions that will help him or her to fullfil the life time thread of contributions. The safety of sanctity must secure knowledge distribution, so that the open soure does not get poluted nor infected.
Bravo Wipo!
The WIPO (World International Property Organization) web site offers a very interesting, exciting presentation of everyday life seen through the eyes of a specialist of IP. It is called "Intellectual property in everyday life - a virtual tour"
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/athome.htm
That is when you realise we do not live in a simple three dimension world!
Copyright
I received the following additional information from Brian Hoolahan and think it may be of interest to others -it certainly is to me!
Hello Helen,
I read your piece on KnowledgeBoard which was a good description of how things are in the IP protection world. However, the power of 'Copyright' protection is a lot stronger then many imagine - although the problem has always been 'Prove Copyright existed at a certain point in time'.
The areas you mentioned that cannot be patented:
discovery;
scientific theory or mathematical method;
aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;
scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;
presentation of information, or a computer program.
Four of the five above can be protected by Copyright - or 'Authors Rights'. You do have Copyright but officially no real protection. This is however always down to a legal court to decide whether or not you have 'protection'. But the whole process of any copyright protection begins with the fact that you should be able to prove the origin of the copyright.
Brian C Hoolahan,
CEO, File-Reg International
bias
As a mathematician and an Englishman, call me biassed if you wish but I believe the world would be much the poorer if people paid a toll every english word they used or every time the idea of multiplication was applied.
In researching my father's biography of John von Neumann, this father of computing technology argued -and indeed practised - the same for evolving use of computers as a collaborative or networking tool linking more than any one person or one organisation. He believed most future learning patents should have maximum 90 days of life; since a group that could not make sufficient advantage in a highly networkled world out of being epicentral to an idea for 90 days clearly want actively interested in its communal practice.
It happens that almost all my work this year involves open source models and large worldwide contexts of sustainability where open forms of commercialisation seem much more vital than closed. We are very happy to openly benchmark with any others groups working in this area. I have mentioned Life Synthesis projects as one blossoimg area, with various universities prototyping these inventions as I write.
At the end of the day if you take a system perspective to all life's holons being interconnected then closed IP is something that should not be the norm; it should have to prove why it justifies such a rule in context specific cases. Today's greatest intellectual risk -one that will prohibit any 25 country European Visions from being more than dreams - is to proceed with a globalisation that assumes closed IP is the norm.
Do lawyers have their own version of a hippocratic oath? If so, our networks around simpol wonder how they can square their oath with systemically destroying the planet wherever closed IP has that compound consequence. In the fall, we will be hosting a lawyer's expert debate on this and related topics in a committee room of the UK Houses of Parliament.
chris http://www.unseenwealth.blogspot.com
A little question...
Hello!
Coming accross the following statement by Seneca (the Roman philosopher, 5BC-65AD): "The best ideas are common property.", I was wandering how this could apply to the various issues raised in your text. Then it seemed obvious: ideas are not objects, you can use them to create objects (tools, clothes, gadgets, things, books, paintings, films...), but they should not be patented, that is they are not "patentable".
Is it the way the legal profession see it? Do lay people see it that way too?
What are the "things" which cannot be patented?
IP
Hi Chris,
thank you for that link. I knew nothing of their involvement in this matter. It will be really interesting to see what comes of their initiative.
RSA campaigns on this issue
The Royal Society of Arts has an interesting campaign and eminent network on this issue at http://www.ipcharter.org
Dilemmas
Thank you, Helen, for accurately describing some of the dilemmas in IP.
Best wishes, Olaf.
On the spot
Hi Helen,
congratulations on putting both sides of such a fundamental argument so neatly. And on highlighting one of the hardest lever of knowledge sharing: we still don't have a good way of preserving IP rights in a knowledge sharing environment. We often can't even get people to quote each other properly.
As Jefferson says, once you tell, everyone knows. So too many times, knowledge that could be of a practical use to many (but has little chance of generating a return to the originator that way) just doesn't spread.
Maybe one way to protect IP would be better information. The problem, right now, is not so much misuse (final user takes knowledge and creates value, then doesn't retribute) as misatribution (intermediary gets the concept, sells implementation to final user, doesn't retribute). A first step toward ending that would be knowing where the concept really originates, and where the real expertise is.
Just ideas :-). Thanks for a good read, and best regards,
Miguel
The Economics of Innovation... and not only...
A very good idea to reset the innovation theme within a more economic frame than that of the “merely going ahead” syndrome. All the processes involved are also linked to the public enforcing of regulatory laws which make the struggle for life more socially acceptable. IP regulations are the necessary tools of the knowledge society, a society with the desire to avoid permanent chaos and the domination of unfair deals. The best way to ensure diffusion of knowledge and its sharing for the benefit of all.
Relativity of IP and of the times we are in
Helen,
You informed us in July that all of the Danish Kingdon...(please read Helen's post bellow)
Now that many big Internet related events have happened such Habitat Jam, Bill Clinton's conference, Yahoo signing an agreement with China's government to co-operate in the controls of the Internet and so on, I think that it makes the timing right to revisit your post.
The "MUST" that you use to emphasise the authoritariain tone of the legislation is where democracies are in need of the individual's awareness and comitment to the communal responsability of maintaining each for him/herself's personal growth up to date with the whole.
In Canada, we are in the middle of a federal elections after only 18 moths of minority government. We are rocked by a sponsorship scandal related to our national fabric, our national unity.
To get re-elected, the Prime Minister is using 2 words in the same promise to straigthen everything out: "TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY".
My 2-way question to him is: "Will transparency be done well enough to be the governing accountability or shall we need a secret layer to make sure that the transparency is transparent enough to be accountable, therefore once more preventing renewal and missing the opportunity for honesty-integity-lucidity-resposability-liberty to become the basis for -DATA -> INFORMATION -> KNOWLEDGE -> INTELLIGENCE -> WISDOM -> STRATEGIC POWER?
If transparency is well developed and implemented, should transparency not be the accountability we need?
In practice, we're either only building a machine that'll always force humans to adapt values to its demands instead of growing in the values of being human.
Personal and communal open source inter-transparency is needed to become the antidote to the rule of ignorance and of indifference that exist to form black holes forces that go on sapping the common sense needed between the public and the private sectors of most democratic societies.
These black holes find their strength into the historical zone known to governments as official secrecy and known to organise crime as the code of silence.
This state of affair is so naturally ingrained that we call it security forces and intelligence.
These black holes need the Personal Sector to emerge from the right home disciplines of PKM and to mature along with open source KM from home to school to work and always under the rule of home's truth and love,
Regards,
Ps: Like a song, some parts are repeated to massage the sore spots...
Do the other EU Nations have a similar legislation?