December "action"

So much promised, so little achieved...On this I speak of both the expert meeting of the British Academy project and the Cancun UNFCC discussions.

The December meeting had to be cancelled because of the weather - which as I write this has just returned...However, the expert team have submitted a really interesting range of written contributions, which we will be discussing off line, as we prepare our chapters for "Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change: Accessing, Obtaining and Protecting" , to be published by Edward Elgar. After this virtual work, we hope to meet again in April 2011.

At Cancun, little firm advance was made, see outputs here and comment here. From the technology side, the EGTT came to an end, and the Technology Mechanism was established. There is much discussion about different forms of funding and collaboration, which is of interest to the British Academy project team. But there is little which is clear, and IP continues to be the elephant in the room - see comment here cf some references to it in previous drafts, on which I have tweeted.

British Academy update

Time for an update on the project...

We've completed the joint working paper, now available on ssrn.

Our next expert meeting takes place in Edinburgh on 10 December 2010, and I'm delighted that in addition to the new names posted on the website we will also be welcoming James McLean of Burness and Kevin Houston of the University of Edinburgh. Also many thanks to Edward Elgar for issuing a contract in respect of the edited collection which will result next year, building on the December meeting.

Progress also on the public engagement side, with Patrick Harvie MSP and Adam Bruce, and hopefully a student activist from the University of Edinburgh to speak at "Who Controls Climate Change?" at the Edinburgh International Science Festival on (provisionally) 13 April 2011. Hopefully, the event will be accompanied by artwork from two Aberdeen primary schools - many thanks to them so far for your interest.

And from the substantive side, I've been honoured to have just spent a week as an Econoving Global Fellow at the Universud-Paris; discussing essential technologies with an ecological economist, a scientist and a legal theorist proved highly stimulating and challenging.

Latest instalment

So since last post, have moved house, have 2 different schools for kids, given conference papers and settled in well to Aberdeen. Apologies for silence other than a few tweets

Project team for the Climate Change British Academy project have all been working very hard - hope to have the final version of the working paper out in early October. Planning second expert meeting on 10 December 2010 in Edinburgh, including inviting new colleagues on board and trying to sort out art exhibition to go alongside it or public engagement event in 2011.

It's been fascinating exploring different perspectives on climate change and technology and having the chance/need to look in more detail at existing work in the field. I'll be intrigued to see the IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation - it seems to pull together a lot of the strands included in the project; but what might it say about IP?

And at my paper at SLS in Southampton we had a really interesting discussion on the relationship between the public interest and human rights - what comes first? Is one a tool for the other? Are both too important to be seen as tools? And how can they form part of the IP, control technology debate - in general and in relation to climate change.

So many developments....

Kids moving out of school, trying to move house, write a working paper, plan teaching for next year and suddenly interesting developments all over the place.

So, briefly:

1. ISPs are challenging to UK Digital Economy Act 2010 - see intial Out-Law commentary. The powerful challenging the powerful? What legal tools will they use to augment their points regarding scrutiny?

2., ECJ decision in Monsanto case regarding patentability of biotech inventions takes a narrow approach to interpretation of the Biotechnology Directive and finds that TRIPS has no impact on the interperation of the Directive . With this and the US Supreme Court decision in Bilksi (see recent tweet), is it becoming harder for patents to be obtained? What impact might this have on control of innovation and knowledge governance?

3. On which note, see (and do respond) to the survey, running until 30 July 2010 of the Oxford Taskforce on Global Knowledge Governance.

4. EU General Court upled the landmark ruling of the European Commission finding that AstraZeneca had abused a dominant position by the manner in which it had pursued patent applications and used the regulatory system - although it did reduce the fine. This decision suggests that what is now article 102 TFEU may indeed have an impact beyond the IMS/Microsoft- esque sagas regarding refusals to licence. How far might it go regarding raising enforcement actions? And standards?

And perhaps my favourite...

5. Thanks to IPWatch for noting that ACTA negotiators said that “ACTA will not interfere with a signatory's ability to respect fundamental rights and liberties”.....

Essential environmental technologies: first workshop

The first meeting of experts on this project was held in Edinburgh on 9 and 10 June 2010. Many thanks to all experts, and also to Lorna Gallacher and Katie Fitzgerald.

The slides and some written presentations are all on the "Publications and outputs" section of the website and I am preparing a first draft of our working paper, with excellent support from Katie.

Initial themes are two fold: if there is a technology which has a significant effect on climate change - either in relation to response or monitoring - then IP can have a strong impact, and the use of human rights and competition to address this may be of value; in most cases, however, new technologies are of much less value than changes in practices, use of insulation etc - so it is unlikely that many/any technologies will be essential. [NB we had fascinating discussions about the meaning of both "essential" and "technology".] Much might still be gained, however, by encouraging new forms of partnership and business models, to enable wider access to technologies which although not groundbreaking can play an important role. But does it all come down to the finance?

“Obtaining, protecting and using essential environmental technologies: a holistic analysis”

Marked lack of posts recently - other academic duties, work new project (of which more shortly), and a move to Aberdeen (although not my work self!) are my only excuses. And I have found twitter (@igftowardaccess) a bit of a temptation.

But the new project "Obtaining, protecting and using essential environmental technologies: a holistic analysis" (see website link above)is now well underway. My own working paper is complete, and our first meeting of experts takes place this week. I'll be using this blog (and the twitter account) to share my views on ongoing developments.

For now, I'm really looking forward to the meetings, and also to see what comes out of the UNFCC discussions in Bonn about IP will it get more attention that at Copenhagen? Also interesting see the Financial Times had a special report on "Environment and Intellectual Property"

World Intellectual Property Day 2010

As I did last year, I celebrated World IP Day by visiting Tynewater Primary School in Midlothian, just outside Edinburgh. Before Easter I met with Primary 2 (see University of Edinburgh news report) and yesterday I met with Primary 7. This group of talented 11 year olds embraced with ease the concepts of innovation and creativity and the concerns that can arise over IP's power to control technology.

From the inevitable starting point of awareness of "internet and movie piracy", I asked groups of students to develop their own new way of "Linking the World" - this year's WIPO theme. After an introduction from me which included the post through to books about aliens loving under pants (if you are a parent you will understand), 10 minutes of work produced:

-a flip watch on which you could talk to astronauts
-headphones through which (if you turned them on and accepted the "call"), a caller could read your mind
-a holographic phone
-massive speakers to be located in each country from which all other countries could hear discussion in that country - unless they were excluded, for example if there was concern about spies.

I then asked students if they would be willing to share their innovation. The students themselves raised (often using exactly these terms) questions of fairness, reward of investors, payment, terms for paying suppliers, manufacturing costs, raising a court action, network effects, alternative business models, the need for reward and the need to encourage future innovation and responsibility.

There was also deeper discussion about varying royalty regimes for schools and supermarkets, different attitudes to sharing technology for entertainment, education or medical emergency, sharing profits with charities and whether or not companies should be responsible for meeting demands for access to essential technologies - or should it be for governments.

An inspiring morning - many thanks to all involved. I suspect that this group of students contains future innovators, managers, engineers, lawyers and accountants. I also suspect that discussion as to the proper place of IP in society and innovation, in Scotland and elsewhere, will run and run.