Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Peer To Patent Presentation To Ce Bit Conference 3 Nov 2010 2010v2ppt
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Peer To Patent Presentation To Ce Bit Conference 3 Nov 2010 2010v2ppt


Published on

Published in: Business

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Moving from safe closed data to open data sharing between government and citizens: a case study of Peer to Patent Australia 3 November 2010 Paulette Paterson
  • 2. My presentation Background: – IP Australia – The IP system, knowledge sharing and collaborative governance The ladder of citizen participation in government – Using peer expertise to assist decision-making ˜ The ‘modest proposal’ of Peer to Patent - crowdsourcing plus Web 2.0 Peer to Patent Australia trial – Identifying and managing opportunities to assist decision-making – Risk and collaborative governance – Lessons learnt
  • 3. IP system in Australia
  • 4. Responsible for administering Australia’s intellectual property (IP) rights system, specifically trade marks, inventions (patents), designs and plant breeder’s rights. Role:  creating a safe and secure environment in which to make the intellectual investment necessary to innovate and thereby encouraging research and development;  promoting the disclosure of discoveriespromoting the disclosure of discoveries and follow-on generation of ideas;and follow-on generation of ideas;  enabling firms to build brand value and business reputation which in turn contributes to improved consumer confidence; and  providing a legal framework in which to trade ideas. IP Australia
  • 5. What is a patent? A patent is a right granted for any device, substance, method or process which is new, inventive and useful. A standard patent gives long-term protection and control over an invention for up to 20 years. In return, patent applicants must share their know-how by providing a full description of how their invention works. This information becomes public and can provide the basis for further research by others -the generation of new and follow-on ideas. The Hills Rotary Hoist, launched in 1946. Image courtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald.
  • 6. Some Australian inventions  first full-length feature film (1906)  surf lifesaving reels (1906)  sunshine header harvester (1914)  speedo swimwear (1929)  rotary clothes line (1946)  wine casks (1965)  staysharp knives (1970)  racecam live television broadcast (1979)  wall-mounted Miniboil machines (1981)  dual-flush toilets (1982)  baby safety capsules (1984)  smartmodem (1992)
  • 7. Gov 2.0 and the Collaborative Governance of the Patent System Not a new idea - The Patent System is the legislated route to bring Information to Innovation Law | Policy | Technology
  • 8. "The fact is that one new idea leads to another, that to a third, and so on through a course of time until someone, with whom no one of these ideas was original, combines all together, and produces what is justly called a new invention." - Thomas Jefferson, Director of the 1st U.S. Patent Board Building on existing knowledge
  • 9. Opening up knowledge flows to drive innovation People need to share what they already know, in order to achieve more and to innovate. To do this they need communication channels, time and a social system. …..web 2.0 and 3.0 are helping to make those connections
  • 10. Crowdsourcing – calling in the cavalry Ordinary people possess extraordinary knowledge they are willing to share when it is easy to do so. ….and sometimes only if they are asked to.
  • 11. Gov 2.0 The first step towards a government that can cope with the complexities of the modern world might well be acceptance of the fact that it can’t do it alone. “Together we can accomplish what cannot be done alone” Beth Noveck, US Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open and Transparent Government
  • 12. Gov 2.0 and citizen expertise From e-government to collaborative government Increasingly governments broadcast a problem, issue or task on an interactive website that enables the community to collaborate on coming up with the best solution.
  • 13. Citizen expertise and democracy The information deficit as a democratic deficit Citizen participation and trust From CIPAST citizen participation in science and technology section=212&PHPSESSID=8c15a797 855d474b973c9a0f6a19387f
  • 14. The scale of collaboration Degree of collaboration What is involved? Highest level: high normative commitment to collaboration; often highest political/managerial risks Transformative interaction between network actors; substantive engagement and empowerment; search for high degree of stakeholder and inter-actor consensus and cooperation; coalition building by government and non-government actors Medium–high level: strong normative orientation; high level of political/managerial risk Strong engagement of stakeholders in decisions or policy process and implementation; devolving decision-making capacities to clients; more complex innovations in policy-delivery processes Medium–low level: operational forms of collaboration to ‘get job done’; some political/managerial risk Forms of co-production; technical improvements in delivery chains; assistance to comply with obligations; direct consultation with clients over delivery and compliance systems; systematic use of evaluation data; public reporting on targets informed by client preferences Lowest level: marginal operational adjustments, low levels of political/managerial risk Incremental adjustments using consultative processes; client discussions and feedback mechanisms; gaining information on needs/expectations of others O’Flynn, J & Wanna, J, 2008, Collaborative government: a new era for public policy in Australia?, ANU Press, Canberra, p. 4
  • 15. Context, purpose, choices and motivations of collaboration Context & purpose Choices or motivational possibilities Power dimension Coercive and forced collaboration Persuasive and voluntary involvement in collaboration Commitment level Meaningful & substantive collaboration Meaningless & cosmetic collaboration Strategic dimension Collaboration for positive & beneficial purposes Collaboration for negative/preventative strategies Means-ends dimension Collaboration as a means and process; stages, due process Collaboration as an end and outcome; shared results, outcome orientation Goal dimension Shared objectives; mutual intentions, consensual strategies and outcomes Competing objectives; different reasons for participating Visibility & awareness dimension Overt and public forms of collaboration; awareness of collaboration is high Covert and behind-the-scenes collaboration; unawareness of collaboration Problem applicability Collaboration on simple problems; simple objectives and responsibilities Collaboration on ‘wicked’ problems,; defying description and solutions O’Flynn, J & Wanna, J, 2008, Collaborative government: a new era for public policy in Australia?, ANU Press, Canberra, p. 5
  • 16. From Wikino mics to Wikigov ernment From Wikinomics to Wikigovernment
  • 17. Wikigovernment and Peer to Patent  Connecting the scientific community to the patent examination process  An experiment in using the tools of the social web to create models for participatory government.  The community is invited to augment the work of the official patent examiner by assisting with identifying “prior art”  Goal: improve the quality of issued patents by giving the patent examiner
  • 18.  Access to better information by means of an open network for community participation,  Social software tied directly to the legal and political process.  Designed to channel the right information.  Opportunity to engage directly with the patent office and be heard.  Final decision made by IP agency. Rationale
  • 19. Began November 2009 In association with QUT Pilot program to test the effectiveness of open, public participation in the patent examination process Business method/computer software focus Based on the work of the New York Law School between 2007 and 2009 Peer to Patent Australia (P2P)
  • 20. How Peer to Patent works
  • 21. How Peer to Patent works
  • 22. Patent Applications Posted 31 Registered Reviewers 129 Prior Art Submitted 106 •Trial conducted Dec 2009-Jun 2010 •Examiners surveyed Jul-Aug 2010 •Surveys evaluated Sep-Nov 2010 •Report to Minister Dec 2010
  • 23. What are the opportunities?  Applicants receive timely feedback from knowledgeable peers on prior art pertinent to their published application for a patent.  The burden of proof of inventive step is no longer on the patent examiner or the inventor alone.  Competitors see boundaries set by previously published inventions early in the process and potentially avoid conflicts.  Peer review gives more confidence that all prior art was considered and reduces uncertainty (aka potential litigation).  The global patent system potentially benefits from a more collaborative examination community and improvements in the global search environment.
  • 24. What are the risks?  Legislative underpinning and risk mitigation (collaborative governance)  3rd party issues  Relationship with collaborative partner (s)  Degree of community interest  “Official” versions of applications  Behaviour of peer community
  • 25. What’s next?  Further trial at USPTO (began Oct 2010) Post-Issue Peer-to-Patent (US)  Open Patent (US) Patent Commons  WIPO initiatives  Other IP rights
  • 26. What’s next?
  • 27. What have we learnt?  Risk minimisation through partnering, building on earlier trials and collaborative governance.  Change and communication management.  Even a conservative agency can conduct a groundbreaking trial.  Laying the foundation for more improvements to the IP system – from little things….
  • 28. What have we learnt?  Find the right people to participate  Allow for flexibility and evolution in approach  Focus on outcomes rather than process  Be prepared to be surprised
  • 29. Questions?
  • 30. Formore information visit Gov 2.0 showcase Or contact: Paulette Paterson Manager, Strategic Planning and Corporate Reporting IP Australia 47 Bowes St Woden ACT 2606 postal address PO Box 200 Woden ACT 2606 phone  +61 2 62832749   0423847089 (mobile) fax +61 2 6283 7999 email