Intellectual Property Rights in Technological and Business Innovation

With innovation and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) being the buzzwords nowadays, studies that centre on their importance and relationship are on the rise. Many are advocating the causal linkage between the two, as well as the policy implication that more protection of IPRs is warranted.

However, what exactly is innovation? How is the actual role of IPRs in technological and business innovation measured? Would there be any difference between industry sectors and across countries at various developmental stages? Before consensus on these issues can be reached, the alleged causation between IPRs and technological and business innovation can hardly be convincingly proven, repudiated, or qualified.

In search of the answers to these questions, the Centre for Cross-Border Commercial Law in Asia held a workshop on 14 October 2014 to examine the role of IPRs in technological and business innovation through interdisciplinary research from the perspectives of law, economics and business with a focus on Asia. It explored general theory analysis and empirical studies on two of the world’s most populous countries – China and India.

The workshop consisted of three sessions. The first session examined the general features and problems of IPRs, and proposals of doctrinal solutions. It began with Professor Reto Hilty’s (Director of Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Germany) deliberation on the functions and dysfunctional effects of IPRs and his reflections on loopholes and remedies. His warning against the detrimental effect of over-protecting IPRs was well-received by the audience. Vice Chancellor of the National Law School in India University, Professor Venkata Rao’s paper on “Technology and Business Innovation – Role and Value Measurement of IPRs” also suggested that more empirical studies were needed to establish a conclusive causal link between IPRs protection and increase in innovation.

The second session featured a trio of papers that culminated in a case study on China. Eminent law and innovation management scholars, Professor Liu Chuntian (Chairman of the China IP Law Society), Professor Liu Kung-Chung (Visiting Professor in SMU School of Law) and Professor Chen Xiangdong (from Beihang University School of Economics and Management) evaluated China’s 2008 National IP Strategy and its implementation. They also examined the strengths and weaknesses of Chinese IPR industries and what was lacking in China’s top-down efforts to transform itself from a world factory to an innovation-oriented country by 2020. Lastly, Professor Kenneth Huang from the SMU Lee Kong Chian School of Business dealt with knowledge adoption from reverse innovations in the China-United States (US) context through his analysis of 4,226 China-US patent dyads, which showed that the flow of technology was a two-way road.

The final session was a case study on India. Professor Uday Racherla from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, analysed how India had to strengthen itself in order to assume the role of a growth engine of the world. In her presentation, Professor Arathi Ashok from Cochin University of Science and Technology noted that in India “IP is not a major factor in promoting innovation and that its untimely interference can be counterproductive.”

The workshop concluded with a panel discussion chaired by senior practitioner Tan Tee Jim. Credited for promoting a stimulating dialogue, the workshop was attended by many academics and some 25 patent examiners from the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore.

Back to Research@SMU Issue 19 (Oct 2014)