Theme 7-2: Capacity, Institutions and Innovations for Sustainable Development--Poster Sessions
Description
Grassland farming is becoming more technically advanced leading to improvements in productivity, environmental outcomes and animal welfare. As a result, farmers have an increasing range of new innovations being made available to them. The question examined here is whether widespread uptake of new innovations by farmers is more effective when driven by marketing through dedicated paths to market where the intellectual property (IP) is controlled or through multiple paths to market where there is no IP control?
The role of IP in stimulating the development, manufacture and sale of new technologies is hotly debated. For plant breeders and patent owners, strong IP protection offers an effective form of security; and more importantly brings returns on investment through licences and commercialisation arrangements. When launching new products IP protection not only provides legal security but is confirmation that the product is unique, distinctive and of value. Some view IP rights as a way to foster innovation and invention by encouraging individuals to develop/invent new ideas from which they can potentially gain a return. Without the ability to capitalise on their work innovators have little incentive, other than an altruistic motive, to produce any invention.
However, there is an opposing view that patents and plant variety rights are “killing freedom to operate and crushing science with rules”, and in so doing are stifling innovation rather than encouraging it. Some believe that IP rights holders abuse the system to unfairly extend their monopoly on a technology and prevent others from using it to the benefit of the industry and the economy as a whole. We propose to examine the value and motivations for IP protection, and examine the different forms of IP protection available. Case studies will be used to show how IP protection may be a benefit or disadvantage to grassland farmers.
Included in
Intellectual Property Protection – Stimulating or Constraining Innovation and Technology Transfer?
Grassland farming is becoming more technically advanced leading to improvements in productivity, environmental outcomes and animal welfare. As a result, farmers have an increasing range of new innovations being made available to them. The question examined here is whether widespread uptake of new innovations by farmers is more effective when driven by marketing through dedicated paths to market where the intellectual property (IP) is controlled or through multiple paths to market where there is no IP control?
The role of IP in stimulating the development, manufacture and sale of new technologies is hotly debated. For plant breeders and patent owners, strong IP protection offers an effective form of security; and more importantly brings returns on investment through licences and commercialisation arrangements. When launching new products IP protection not only provides legal security but is confirmation that the product is unique, distinctive and of value. Some view IP rights as a way to foster innovation and invention by encouraging individuals to develop/invent new ideas from which they can potentially gain a return. Without the ability to capitalise on their work innovators have little incentive, other than an altruistic motive, to produce any invention.
However, there is an opposing view that patents and plant variety rights are “killing freedom to operate and crushing science with rules”, and in so doing are stifling innovation rather than encouraging it. Some believe that IP rights holders abuse the system to unfairly extend their monopoly on a technology and prevent others from using it to the benefit of the industry and the economy as a whole. We propose to examine the value and motivations for IP protection, and examine the different forms of IP protection available. Case studies will be used to show how IP protection may be a benefit or disadvantage to grassland farmers.
