The Price of Creativity: How Intellectual Property Law affects Innovation and Ownership

Introduction 

Inventions are at the core of innovation. In the current knowledge-driven economy, protecting these intellectual creations has become an essential part of economic growth, technological advancement and cultural development. While these inventions can be protected via patents, Intellectual Property (IP) law seeks to reward creativity by granting sole rights, but the extent to which it limits innovation remains widely debated. This essay will examine the dual role of IP law as both a barrier and incentive to innovate. 

Ownership and Access: A double-edged sword 

IP Law incentivises through exclusivity, patents, copyrights and trademarks grant time-limited monopolies that encourage investment in research and development. By sustaining a long-term Research and Development stage, Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] shows that copyright law protects authors from unauthorised commercial exploitation, incentivising the creation of original work. Ensuring commercial viability is one of the ways that many of our current greatest innovators have created the developments that impact our society on a daily basis. Toyota’s hybrid car technology was patented early on, giving it a competitive edge in the risky green technology sector, encouraging the long-term development of eco-friendly vehicles in a complex market. Through incentivised long-term investment, the company was able to grow this unique idea, later enabling licensing agreements with other companies. 

However, IP monopolies can restrict supply, control and inflate prices and delay the diffusion of innovation, specifically in developing countries. Dense layers of overlapping IP claims can deter subsequent innovation and trap newer inventors in costly litigation. These legal barriers consolidate market control by large companies. Unchecked exclusivity can suppress knowledge-sharing and limit equitable access, making ownership a contradictory and complex mechanism in the global innovation system. 

International aspects

While patents tend to be specific to the country or region of which it is granted, governed by the region’s government authority, innovators and companies that want to protect their technology in foreign markets seek parent protection on a global scale. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is one of the 15 specialised agencies of the United Nations, this of which has continuously supported their Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) concluded in 1970. The PCT is designed to make the process of obtaining patent protection in up to 152 distinct countries easier and less costly. 

Within a year of filing for patent protection in their own country, investors commence by obtaining patent protection in each of the markets in which they wish to sell their technology by filing a single international application. This process allows users to benefit from a common set of frameworks which have been agreed upon by all members of the Treaty, meaning that there is more legal certainty and can benefit from continuous assessment feedback. 

Many jurisdictions create their own treaties to prioritise their innovators, however, Moser emphasises that international treaties have “strengthened foreign-owned parents in developing countries” after rigorous studies were performed. The lack of support from developing economies, focused more on the primary sector rather than the quinary sector of the economy, has significantly reduced access to life-saving drugs and other essential innovations. 

Prominent examples of the duality of patents would be during the 1851 Crystal Palace Exhibition, where Switzerland and Denmark, countries without patent laws contributed a higher number of prize winning innovations per capita, as opposed to countries with patent laws. This may be a positive contribution to the concept of the removal of patents fomenting innovation, but patents are also used as a safeguard for health. In certain sectors such as inventions in pharmaceuticals, medical devices and chemicals, patent applications are usually paired with or precede regulatory review by internationally certified bodies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) , whose main purpose is to make sure all health-related creations are usable, safe and tested. 

Balance 

Finding a balance between total protection and barricading innovation is key in a forward-thinking society. Innovation can be fostered through unique processes, such as Cadbury’s milk chocolate formula, which was never patented, but its milk chocolate recipe was a protected trade secret, making it an iconic staple which was hard to recreate and even harder for competitors to replicate or reverse-engineer.

International foundations

Patents must be utilised when massive corporations intend to profit off of a plagiarized original idea, but collaboration is a key foundation to innovation. For example, the Open COVID Pledge, during the coronavirus pandemic committed to not enforcing IP rights on relevant patents to support the global pandemic response, allowing researchers and manufacturers worldwide to access technologies without legal barriers. 

Conclusion

Overall, IP law plays a crucial role in shaping the innovation landscape, but its impact is not one-dimensional. Patents provide essential incentives by offering inventors exclusive rights that foment growth through investment, On the other hand, the exclusivity that fuels innovation can also hinder it, as patents have high enforcement costs, and international asymmetries can restrict access to vital technologies. 

Intellectual property law must strike a balance between attributing fair ownership and barricading creativity, to prevent the risk of its use as a tool for monopolisation. 

References and Further Reading

“Tackling vulnerabilities in the supply chain of radiopharmaceuticals in the EU” (European Medicines Agency) 

“Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History” (Petra Moser)

“The Great IP Debate: Do patents do more harm than good?”(Science | Business) 

“Patent Cooperation Treaty”  (WIPO International) 

“Why is Toyota giving away its electrification patents” (Toyota UK Magazine) 

“Cadbury’s successful trade mark protection for specific colours: What does this mean for brands” (Morton Fraser Macroberts)

“European Patent Convention” (EPO org) 

“Innovation and Intellectual Property” (WIPO international)

“Ashdown v Telegraph GRoup Ltd”  (5RB Media and Communications Law)