Intellectual Property in Sri Lanka  - a scientist’s viewpoint Vijaya Kumar Industrial Technology Institute, Colombo. SLINT...
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) <ul><li>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>United Na...
Trade Related IPR  <ul><li>“ TRIPS” Agreement, 1995 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>World Trade Organization (1993) </li></ul></ul><...
TRIPS - Changes in the IPR environment   <ul><li>All sections to be accepted by WTO members </li></ul><ul><li>National/Mos...
IPR in Sri Lanka after TRIPS   <ul><li>Expected to conform by 2000 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Amendment - copyright to computer...
Can developing countries benefit from IPR ? <ul><li>Part of the New World Order </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No choice but to acc...
Developing   Country Concerns on TRIPS <ul><li>Computer Programs/Journals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Monopoly or near monopoly ...
Developing Country Scientists and IPR <ul><li>Funds for research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low - insufficient to generate IPR ...
Technology and Innovation are important for national development <ul><li>Important Component of Economic Growth  </li></ul...
<ul><li>Real world per-capita GDP grew by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average of 5% per century during 15/16 th  century  </li>...
<ul><li>Per Capita GDP 2007 (Source: HDR 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>High Income countries (Over $ 12,000) </li></ul><ul><ul><...
 
<ul><li>Countries with > 20 major inventions during period   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>England: first half of 18 th , and seco...
<ul><li>Newly Industrialised Economies – Korea, Taiwan   </li></ul><ul><li>Massive Investment in Science and Technology </...
Development Paradigm for developing countries Old Paradigm New Paradigm Low Labour Cost Abundant Natural Resources Knowled...
Patents Granted by NIPO, Sri Lanka <ul><li>Data not readily available </li></ul><ul><ul><li>www.nipo.lk  web site – no dat...
Patents granted by US Patent and Trade Mark Office to Asian country inventors Malaysia  93  98  131(15)  173(11) 168 Singa...
Utility Patents granted by USPTO (2004-8) <ul><li>Average no. of patents granted/year = 160,200 </li></ul><ul><li>Of which...
Knowledge Economy: Sri Lanka and its neighbours ?   <ul><li>How competitive are we ? </li></ul><ul><li>Economic competitiv...
World Economic Forum (WEF) Technology and Innovation Indicators   Innovation   Index Technology Readiness index India  27 ...
World Economic Forum (WEF) Core Indicators   Impacting Technological Readiness Firm level tech absorptn Prevalence of tech...
Knowledge Assessment Methodology (KAM) <ul><li>KAM is the average of four of pillars of KE developed by the World Bank Ins...
KAM – What is measured ? <ul><li>Economic Incentive and Institutional Regime </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incentives for efficien...
Knowledge Economy Index 2008 Rankings   KEI 2008 Rank 2008 India   3.12  100   105 Korea   7.68  31  28 Singapore  8.24   ...
KAM Spidergram-Sri Lanka,  Thailand ,  India
Strengthening Sri Lanka’s National Innovation System <ul><li>Human Resources in S & T </li></ul><ul><li>% of 17-24 age in ...
Strengthening Sri Lanka’s National Innovation System <ul><li>Research and Development </li></ul><ul><li>Gross Expenditure ...
Improving Patent Output <ul><li>Research should lead to Quality Patents </li></ul><ul><li>Even in US only a third licensed...
Improving Patent Output <ul><li>Jobs for graduates in productive/research sector </li></ul><ul><li>Provide incentives to f...
Improving Patent Output <ul><li>Initiatives to promote technological learning </li></ul><ul><li>Technological licensing wi...
Are we assured of success ?  <ul><li>Many pitfalls on the path to development </li></ul><ul><li>More difficult in a post-W...
THANK YOU
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Patenting 091117034825 Phpapp02

891 views
833 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
891
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The country’s competitiveness as solely based on low labor costs would eventually be unsustainable and soon vanished. As such, an alternative paradigm of the country’s development has been moving towards the knowledge for development. Ways in which science and technology infrastructures and relevant policy initiatives have been introduced.
  • The country’s competitiveness as solely based on low labor costs would eventually be unsustainable and soon vanished. As such, an alternative paradigm of the country’s development has been moving towards the knowledge for development. Ways in which science and technology infrastructures and relevant policy initiatives have been introduced.
  • The innovation sub-index is dealt with a country’s ability to innovate, therefore is crucial for countries that are close to knowledge economy. The technology readiness sub-index is taken into account the level of technology available to firms. Given technological non-core economies, the technology readiness sub-index provides a dimension on a country’s capability in technology adoption/technology transfer, copy and imitation. Thailand ranks 43 and 39, respectively, in terms of innovation and technological readiness. Compared to other East Asian countries, Thailand still lags behind Singapore and Malaysia whilst Japan and Korea rank higher than the selected East Asian countries. However, Thailand ranks higher than China in both innovation and technology readiness. Among non core technology-innovation economies, Malaysia ranks 1st in technology-transfer capability, while Thailand, and China rank 5th and 43rd consecutively.
  • Measures of economic competitiveness come from WEF and IMD rankings whilst that of knowledge economy takes the Knowledge Assessment Methodology (KAM) recently developed by the World Bank Institute
  • The innovation sub-index is dealt with a country’s ability to innovate, therefore is crucial for countries that are close to knowledge economy. The technology readiness sub-index is taken into account the level of technology available to firms. Given technological non-core economies, the technology readiness sub-index provides a dimension on a country’s capability in technology adoption/technology transfer, copy and imitation. Thailand ranks 43 and 39, respectively, in terms of innovation and technological readiness. Compared to other East Asian countries, Thailand still lags behind Singapore and Malaysia whilst Japan and Korea rank higher than the selected East Asian countries. However, Thailand ranks higher than China in both innovation and technology readiness. Among non core technology-innovation economies, Malaysia ranks 1st in technology-transfer capability, while Thailand, and China rank 5th and 43rd consecutively.
  • The innovation sub-index is dealt with a country’s ability to innovate, therefore is crucial for countries that are close to knowledge economy. The technology readiness sub-index is taken into account the level of technology available to firms. Given technological non-core economies, the technology readiness sub-index provides a dimension on a country’s capability in technology adoption/technology transfer, copy and imitation. Thailand ranks 43 and 39, respectively, in terms of innovation and technological readiness. Compared to other East Asian countries, Thailand still lags behind Singapore and Malaysia whilst Japan and Korea rank higher than the selected East Asian countries. However, Thailand ranks higher than China in both innovation and technology readiness. Among non core technology-innovation economies, Malaysia ranks 1st in technology-transfer capability, while Thailand, and China rank 5th and 43rd consecutively.
  • The innovation sub-index is dealt with a country’s ability to innovate, therefore is crucial for countries that are close to knowledge economy. The technology readiness sub-index is taken into account the level of technology available to firms. Given technological non-core economies, the technology readiness sub-index provides a dimension on a country’s capability in technology adoption/technology transfer, copy and imitation. Thailand ranks 43 and 39, respectively, in terms of innovation and technological readiness. Compared to other East Asian countries, Thailand still lags behind Singapore and Malaysia whilst Japan and Korea rank higher than the selected East Asian countries. However, Thailand ranks higher than China in both innovation and technology readiness. Among non core technology-innovation economies, Malaysia ranks 1st in technology-transfer capability, while Thailand, and China rank 5th and 43rd consecutively.
  • Patenting 091117034825 Phpapp02

    1. 1. Intellectual Property in Sri Lanka - a scientist’s viewpoint Vijaya Kumar Industrial Technology Institute, Colombo. SLINTEC Knowledge Seminar to Commemorate World Intellectual Property Day
    2. 2. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) <ul><li>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>United Nations (1967) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>International agreements existed on IPR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. Paris Convention (1883) - Patents, Trade Marks. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flexibility and Autonomy in enacting National laws </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sri Lankan IPR until 1979 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Laws based on British laws </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Signatory to Paris and Berne Conventions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Code of Intellectual Property Act No. 52 of 1979 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Similar to Western legislation – US assistance ? </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Trade Related IPR <ul><li>“ TRIPS” Agreement, 1995 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>World Trade Organization (1993) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>TRIPS - developed country norms on IPR </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Forced on Developing Countries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WTO members - accept agreement totally </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flexibility on IPR removed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Process patent in Pharmaceutical Industry- India </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Not properly negotiated </li></ul><ul><ul><li>US threat of trade sanctions on Brazil </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Marketed to developing countries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Promise of expanded trade, technology transfer </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unfavourable to developing countries ? </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. TRIPS - Changes in the IPR environment <ul><li>All sections to be accepted by WTO members </li></ul><ul><li>National/Most Favoured Nation Treatment </li></ul><ul><li>Copyright - Computer programs, Databases </li></ul><ul><li>Patents - 20 years minimum period </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Microorganisms patentable (Art. 27.3b) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Process patents disallowed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Process patents - allowed in Europe until ’70s </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Plant varieties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Patent or “Sui generis” system (UPOV) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Strengthen enforcement of IPR laws </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Costs high - US $ 300m, Brazil $ 30m. Who pays ? </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. IPR in Sri Lanka after TRIPS <ul><li>Expected to conform by 2000 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Amendment - copyright to computer programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Date extended – Seattle protests </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright, Patents – scope, duration extended </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Microorganisms patentable (Only transgenic) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unfair Competition, Trade Secrets, Test results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Geographical Indications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Layout designs of Integrated circuits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enforcement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compulsory Licensing, Parallel imports (Courts) </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Can developing countries benefit from IPR ? <ul><li>Part of the New World Order </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No choice but to accept </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contradiction between free market model and IPR </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Strong IPR promotes national development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Encourages inventors/ new technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compare innovation in USA/pre-1990 USSR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promotes FDI/Technology Transfer </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Only true if: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>They have a strong national innovation system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High national income, commercial environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stable political system to attract FDI/Technology </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Developing Country Concerns on TRIPS <ul><li>Computer Programs/Journals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Monopoly or near monopoly – not free market </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prices high for low income economies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reverse engineering discouraged </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Basis of Taiwan/Korea’s NIE status </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Process patents disallowed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Success of Indian pharmaceutical industry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protection of Test data </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Geographical indications-only Western products </li></ul><ul><li>Mainly enforcing IPR of non-resident firms </li></ul><ul><li>Level playing field – For IPR ? For enforcement ? </li></ul>
    8. 8. Developing Country Scientists and IPR <ul><li>Funds for research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low - insufficient to generate IPR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Private sector Research funding negligible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Costs include those for failed initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Weak National Innovation System </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of research staff, Venture capital </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Poor in commercialization (Incubators) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Human Resources in IPR Low </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Drafting of Patents- Claims, Patent examination </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High cost of IPR and IPR enforcement abroad </li></ul><ul><li>Developing country patents often for prestige </li></ul>
    9. 9. Technology and Innovation are important for national development <ul><li>Important Component of Economic Growth </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Schumpeterian Growth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Growth by increasing stock of human knowledge </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technological progress and changes in institutions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technological change should lead to sustained growth </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Important Factor in Improving Competitiveness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology and Innovation Perspective – </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Innovation and Learning at Enterprise / National Levels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Active Public Policies to improve Competitiveness </li></ul></ul></ul>
    10. 10. <ul><li>Real world per-capita GDP grew by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average of 5% per century during 15/16 th century </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Average of 17.5% during 17 th /18 th century </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>248% in 19 th century and 863% in 20 th century </li></ul></ul><ul><li>De Long, NBER Work Paper 7602 (2000) </li></ul><ul><li>High growth mainly due to technological change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Industrial Revolution (IR) – early 19 th century </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rapid growth mainly in countries influenced by IR </li></ul></ul><ul><li>- Britain, Western Europe and the USA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Events following IR responsible for higher growth </li></ul></ul>Schumpeterian growth
    11. 11. <ul><li>Per Capita GDP 2007 (Source: HDR 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>High Income countries (Over $ 12,000) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Norway ($ 63,918), USA, Most W. Europe, Australia, Korea, Singapore, Israel, some oil states. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Upper Middle Income ( $ 3500 - $ 12000) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Russia, Most Latin America/Caribbean, S. Africa, Malaysia </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lower Middle Income ($ 1000 - $ 3,500) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>China, Developing countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand, India </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Low Income (Less then $ 1000) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pakistan, Most African countries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Big variation in income only after 18 th century </li></ul><ul><li>Most prominent in latter half of 20 th century </li></ul>Wide variation in country incomes today
    12. 13. <ul><li>Countries with > 20 major inventions during period </li></ul><ul><ul><li>England: first half of 18 th , and second half of 19 th century </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Germany: Second half of 19 th century </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>USA: Second half of 19 th century, 1930-1965 & 1965-2000 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Immense European gains in 20 th century in spite of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collapse of international trade after 1914 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A costly depression in late 1920’s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Two disastrous world wars, Loss of colonies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>US domination </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Less involvement in World War II </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Loss of European colonies ? </li></ul></ul>Importance of Inventions
    13. 14. <ul><li>Newly Industrialised Economies – Korea, Taiwan </li></ul><ul><li>Massive Investment in Science and Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Transformed Agricultural to Industrial Economy </li></ul><ul><li>1980s – Model for many developing countries </li></ul><ul><li>How relevant is this model in the post-WTO world ? </li></ul><ul><li>Investment in S&T and Economic Growth </li></ul><ul><li>Direct correlation – Industrialised developed countries </li></ul><ul><li>Creation of useful knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Research & Development efforts of scientists and firms </li></ul><ul><li>Technological Learning, Spin-offs </li></ul><ul><li>Concept of Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation – Science, Engineering and Marketing </li></ul><ul><li>National Innovation Systems </li></ul>Exploiting Technology for development
    14. 15. Development Paradigm for developing countries Old Paradigm New Paradigm Low Labour Cost Abundant Natural Resources Knowledge + Labour + NR Unsustainable Dev. Sustainable Dev.
    15. 16. Patents Granted by NIPO, Sri Lanka <ul><li>Data not readily available </li></ul><ul><ul><li>www.nipo.lk web site – no data on patents granted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.wipo.org – Sri Lankan patents included in “Others” in WIPO trend analysis tables </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Other net sources) Sri Lanka 35% of 180 (2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2006 WIPO data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bangladesh 9.9% of 162 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>India 32.3% of 4320 (2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Thailand 10.5% of 1121 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Singapore 5.9% of 7393 </li></ul></ul>
    16. 17. Patents granted by US Patent and Trade Mark Office to Asian country inventors Malaysia 93 98 131(15) 173(11) 168 Singapore 485 377 469(125) 451(32) 450 India 376 403 506(143) 578(33) 672 Thailand 28 25 42 25 40 Pakistan 4 4 2 5 7 Bangladesh 0 0 0 1 0 Source: USPTO – includes utility, design and reissue patents 2006, 2007 No. of utility patents in parenthesis. Country of 1 st author Sri Lanka 3 1 3 3 2 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
    17. 18. Utility Patents granted by USPTO (2004-8) <ul><li>Average no. of patents granted/year = 160,200 </li></ul><ul><li>Of which Foreign patents 49% </li></ul><ul><ul><li>21% Japan. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6% Germany. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4% each Taiwan, Korea, Switzerland. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2% each UK, France, Canada </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mainly by Corporations: US 44%, Foreign 44% </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IBM 3400 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Samsung 2400 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Canon, Matsushita 2000 each </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hitachi, Toshiba, Sony 1450 each </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Universities, Research Institutes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>University of California Regents 350 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Industr. Techn. Res. Inst., Taiwan 220 </li></ul></ul>
    18. 19. Knowledge Economy: Sri Lanka and its neighbours ? <ul><li>How competitive are we ? </li></ul><ul><li>Economic competitiveness: </li></ul><ul><li>Technological and scientific capabilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>World Economic Forum Ranking </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Knowledge economy (World Bank) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge Assessment Methodology (KAM) </li></ul></ul>
    19. 20. World Economic Forum (WEF) Technology and Innovation Indicators Innovation Index Technology Readiness index India 27 57 Korea 8 16 Singapore 13 7 Malaysia 40 15 Thailand 43 39 Bangladesh 98 106 Source :WEF 2005 and 2006 (Rank out of 117 countries) Sri Lanka 69 85
    20. 21. World Economic Forum (WEF) Core Indicators Impacting Technological Readiness Firm level tech absorptn Prevalence of tech licensing Utility Patents India 19 7 56 36 27 34 Thailand 38 16 60 28 37 23 Bangladesh 76 83 81 105 99 62 Source :WEF 2005 and 2006 (Rank out of 117 countries) Sri Lanka 77 80 74 83 77 62 University Industry Collabortn Corporate R&D FDI & Tech transf.
    21. 22. Knowledge Assessment Methodology (KAM) <ul><li>KAM is the average of four of pillars of KE developed by the World Bank Institute (WBI): </li></ul><ul><li>(1) economic and institutional regime, </li></ul><ul><li>(2) educated and skilled population, </li></ul><ul><li>(3) national innovation system, and </li></ul><ul><li>(4) dynamic information infrastructure. </li></ul><ul><li>KAM is designed to help countries assessing their strengths and weaknesses in making transition to knowledge economy. </li></ul>
    22. 23. KAM – What is measured ? <ul><li>Economic Incentive and Institutional Regime </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incentives for efficient use of existing and new knowledge and the flourishing of entrepreneurship </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Education and Training </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An educated and trained population can create, share, and use knowledge well </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Innovation and Technological Adoption </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An efficient innovation system of firms, universities, research centres etc. can tap into global knowledge, adapt to local needs, and create new technology. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ICT Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Good ICT infrastructure facilitates communication, dissemination, and processing of information. </li></ul></ul>
    23. 24. Knowledge Economy Index 2008 Rankings KEI 2008 Rank 2008 India 3.12 100 105 Korea 7.68 31 28 Singapore 8.24 24 20 Malaysia 6.06 4 8 48 Thailand 5.44 60 53 Bangladesh 1.49 128 133 Source :WEF 2005 and 2006 (Rank out of 117 countries) Sri Lanka 4.16 82 91 Rank 1996
    24. 25. KAM Spidergram-Sri Lanka, Thailand , India
    25. 26. Strengthening Sri Lanka’s National Innovation System <ul><li>Human Resources in S & T </li></ul><ul><li>% of 17-24 age in Universities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sri Lanka 4%, Pakistan 4, India 10, SE Asia 28-44% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sri Lanka - Undergraduate age high, Admissions low. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Encourage private education in S & T ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of degree? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>% GDP spent on Education – Far too low : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sri Lanka 2.1, Pak 2.3, India 3.7, S. E Asia 4.2- 7.4%. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pakistan programme-Increase investment by 1500% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Researchers in R & D per 1 m. population </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sri Lanka 208, Pak, India 120-160, Thai/Mal 350-500 Korea 2400, Singapore 7000 </li></ul></ul>
    26. 27. Strengthening Sri Lanka’s National Innovation System <ul><li>Research and Development </li></ul><ul><li>Gross Expenditure on R & D/GDP: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sri Lanka 0.14, Pak-India 0.6-0.9%,Thai 0.24, Mal 0.7, Singapore 2.2, Korea 2.6 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Private Sector ERD/GDP (or Business ERD/GDP ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sri Lanka 0.01, Pak 0.02, India 0.1, Thai 0.09 Malaysia 0.5, Singapore 1.3, Korea 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Domestic production of technology not facilitated </li></ul><ul><li>Low technology innovations, No defence research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High Military expenditure, 4% of GDP </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Licensing of technology, FDI low (privatization) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Political stability. Private sector not vibrant enough </li></ul></ul>
    27. 28. Improving Patent Output <ul><li>Research should lead to Quality Patents </li></ul><ul><li>Even in US only a third licensed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Even less commercialized, still less high royalties </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>US Government $ 37b on R & D $1.3b royalties (2002) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>7700 patents, 4700 licensed, 450 start-ups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Can low income economies afford this expense ? </li></ul><ul><li>Mere increase in GERD/GDP will not work </li></ul><ul><li>Recruiting quality research/support staff </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Investment in Human Resource Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All successful development processes emphasize higher education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase spending on higher education in S&T </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Democratise access of education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Same investment - Brazil15% Korea 60% coverage </li></ul></ul></ul>
    28. 29. Improving Patent Output <ul><li>Jobs for graduates in productive/research sector </li></ul><ul><li>Provide incentives to firms providing such work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobilize governments’ S & T demands (technological public procurements) from local firms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Innovations- encourage Univ.-Industry interaction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Focus on the renewal of traditional industries by infusing new technology </li></ul><ul><li>The alternative is continuous brain drain </li></ul><ul><li>Young people will go where there is demand </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We can’t afford not to train to highest possible level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We also can’t afford to lose them afterwards. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Retaining people is more strategic and probably more difficult than training them. </li></ul></ul>
    29. 30. Improving Patent Output <ul><li>Initiatives to promote technological learning </li></ul><ul><li>Technological licensing with involvement in R & D </li></ul><ul><li>Inputs from technology savvy expatriates </li></ul><ul><li>Foreign Direct Investment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May improve if political situation stabilises </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Increase investment in R & D – GERD/GDP </li></ul><ul><li>Funding may become available with end of war </li></ul><ul><li>PERD/GDP more important than GERD/GDP </li></ul><ul><li>Private sector research more likely to generate patents </li></ul><ul><li>Provide incentives for private sector research </li></ul>
    30. 31. Are we assured of success ? <ul><li>Many pitfalls on the path to development </li></ul><ul><li>More difficult in a post-WTO TRIPS World </li></ul><ul><li>Too much emphasis on Patents/IPR </li></ul><ul><li>Many myths regarding patents promoted by politicians, policymakers and management gurus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing countries with a little effort can exploit IPR for their benefit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research, whatever the budget would lead to patents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All patents from good research will generate income </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Local firms are eager to invest in locally produced technology </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Even some scientists believe in these myths </li></ul><ul><li>R & D is a hard slog. We need luck as well ! </li></ul>
    31. 32. THANK YOU

    ×