Intellectual property a tool for PH development

IF you were asked to choose between an inventor or an innovator, who would you rather be?

While these two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, they are not the same.

An inventor is someone who can provide a novel solution to a problem, like inventing a new process for

drinking water.

On the other hand, an innovator is someone who puts a new idea, technology or product in the market to be used by society.

An inventor can be an innovator and vice-versa, but they do not always coincide. For example, a person can invent a new process of cancer treatment (which makes him an inventor), but another person can use that same process to be used as a smartphone application (which makes him the innovator).

An invention not utilized or put into the market remains a solution without application.

To innovate, the invention must

- ciety, the goal is not only to invent but to innovate.

- omy and the advent of the fourthh industrial revolution ( Industry 4.0), the challenge for government, industry, academe and society as a whole is to innovate to remain

evolving and technology-driven world.

As succinctly declared by Peter Drucker, “Every organization needs a fundamental skill: Innovation.”

It is argued that the intellectual property system, which protects inventions and creative works through patents, trademarks, copyrights to name a few, spurs innovation.

In turn, innovation fosters economic activity which can ultimately lead to national development. When managed properly, intellectual property can be a very effective tool in balancing the rights of the inventor on one hand and society on the other.

This critical balancing act falls largely in the hands of government which should promote policies conducive to product commercialization, technology transfer and respect for intellectual property.

The Philippines is in the right path towards fostering a culture of innovation through the enactment of two landmark legislations: (1) The Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293) which took effect in 1998; and (2) The Technology Transfer Law (R.A. 10055) which took effect in 2010.

The Intellectual Property Code placed the Philippines at par with our international neighbors by keeping our laws consistent with the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement.

On the other hand, the Technology Transfer Law made the Philippines in tune with the objectives of the Bayh-Dole Act of the United States with the main objective of fostering innovation by giving intellectual property ownership of government-funded projects to research institutions and universities.

In the area of enforcement, the Philippines was removed from the USTR Special 301 Report several years ago and continues to promise to curb intellectual property violations.

To provide a national strategy towards intellectual property protec-

in May 2017 embarked on a project to have a National Intellectual Property Strategy (NIPS).

Through the assistance of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), it launched a comprehensive government effort to map out strategies to foster creativity and innovation with the goal of making intellectual property a tool for national development.

It should be noted however that intellectual property is not an end but only a means to an end. It is only a tool. Its use depends on the objective of the owner.

In the hands of the good, intellectual property can be a very useful tool for fostering innovation and national development.

Otherwise, intellectual property can be used to abuse exclusive rights and restrict dissemination of knowledge and technology.

A careful balancing of interests for the common good is key to make intellectual property work towards its real objective of promoting inno-

The intellectual property system protects the inventor so that he can use it to innovate and directly ben-

to also become an innovator.