Intellectual Property: Saving the World and Saving Your Ideas

Richard Jefferson, John Wilbanks, Phil Weilerstein, Dave Robinson

I wrote a blog post last week in anticipation of today's discussion on intellectual property. It's a topic that I've been interested in for some time, and I was looking forward to seeing what sort of themes would arise when experts on the topic got in front of a room of inventor-entrepreneurs.

The discussion didn't disappoint. The panelists were Richard Jefferson of Cambia, John Wilbanks of Science Commons, Phil Weilerstein of the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance, and Dave Robinson (Bright Simons unfortunately couldn't attend).

The discussion was animated and even heated at times. Richard began by saying that the patent system was designed to support sharing and reuse of ideas, not restrict it. The first patent administrator was Thomas Jefferson, and according to Richard, early 1800s patents were administered with a "legal nod and a wink." If you could demonstrate Thomas Jefferson the novelty and use of your idea, then he'd grant you a patent. The purpose, Richard says, was to bring explanations of new technologies into the public domain; the temporary monopoly inventors would be granted on their inventions was a side effect.

According to Richard, patents can still be a major resource for social entrepreneurs. "You can look at scientific journals, and they might tell you that something is happening or that something would be cool, but they don't necessarily tell you how to do something. In most jurisdictions, patents have to give you the recipe." Moreover, since patents are country-specific, you can reuse inventions for free in developing countries where they're not patented (this point got an audible "ooh" from the room).

John Wilbanks is the vice president of science at Creative Commons and head of Science Commons. John echoed many of Richard's points, adding that intellectual property policies have shifted too far in favor of owners. John sees Science Commons as a way of combating that disparity: scientists can allow their research to be used and disseminated freely as long as the users adhere to certain rules defined by the rights-holder. According to John, this methodology doesn't prevent inventors from making money licensing their ideas.

David Robinson, an attorney who works with social enterprises, took a more pragmatic approach. "As a social entrepreneur, you have two responsibilities, to your mission and to your need to make money to sustain your mission. If you've created something, then you want to control it." David argued that not patenting your inventions can leave them open to exploitation by people who don't share your mission and values. He also pointed out the importance of investors in the equation: "They don’t care that you’ve invented it. So what? Investors want to know how much you control it."

Phil posited that patents are right in some cases and not in others, but urged inventors to understand and consider the decisions they're making. "As an inventor or a social innovator, you have the responsibility to inform yourself about your rights and opportunities."

Phil said that inventors shoudn't just think about how to protect their work; they should also think about why. He gave the example of Xtracycle, a company that his organization had worked with. Xtracycle bikes were developed to assist the transportation needs of people in developing nations. The designers considered leaving the idea unprotected so that anyone could use it; instead, they decided the license the product in the US. Now, the funds from domestic Xtracycle sales allow them to help people in the developing world build their own bikes. The result is an economically viable company that's achieving a great social mission.