Analysis of Managing Innovation - Article Example

Analysis of Managing Innovation Introduction Over the years, issues of intellectual property has become a slippery slope that has contained few winners, and many losers. On the one hand, modern society depends on constant innovation and ingenuity in order to continue to progress as a civilization. On the other hand, few individuals have the resources to act upon their ingenuity when left to their own devices, so much research and development is done in a collective environment where the lines are often blurred as to who truly ‘owns’ the progress that is made. If a person feels that their mind and hard word are being used by others, they will tend to move away from the more creative projects that have served to advance many causes in civilization. In consideration of this reality, one must discuss the prevalence and function of institutions of higher learner. Such place of learning frequently contain the most brilliant minds that the world has to offer, yet there are still questions of intellectual property that arise from many of the findings that are discovered using university and college resources. As such, the fear is that many researchers will generate less out put if they feel they are not receiving the proper credit and rewards that are due them. It is consideration of this fear that Section 20 of the Patents Act of 1983 contains a proviso that addresses this very issue. This paper seeks to examine Section 20 and discuss the various ways that the provide is being implemented to help guide and further the prevalence of research and researchers existent in institutions of higher learning, and various research institutions, today. Rationale for Section 20 For the most part, Section 20 of the Patents Act of 1983 was an attempt to jump start a stagnant period consisting of a lack of quality research being generated by academic institutions. In essence, the goal was to realize more research output by promising the researcher that they will be adequately compensated for any developments that are obviously above and beyond the normal scope of their daily duties at the university or in a research facility. Institutions of higher learning have become highly competitive and seek to attract the best and the brightest from around the world to come under their fold. To accomplish this, many research institutions attempt to lure the best scholars with the promise of state of the art research facilities and access to a plethora of resources to be available as they require. In exchange, these same institutions have largely profited from the innovations uncovered by their research staff via a contractual obligation that such research largely remains the property of the academic or research institution itself. Naturally, some concepts and theories uncovered via research are more profitable than others. It is when that this profitability goes beyond an amount that is deemed reasonable to expect the research him or herself to part with that has become the center of the controversy. Over time, it appeared that many researchers were becoming frustrated with their seemingly lack of compensation for projects that were genuinely their own idea and were obviously going to result in a great deal of current and future profit for the academic or research institution. This reality has the tendency to decrease levels of intrinsic motivation on the part of the research to develop truly innovative ideas, thereby working to decrease quality output. In addition, it could create a situation where researchers would either leave the field altogether, or go into endeavors that were deemed to be more lucrative to them in the long run. As a result, it was necessary for the government to act and put into a place a provision that called for more set guidelines to be enacted that provided for certain financial compensation mechanisms for researchers whose work was deemed to have value in excess of what would be considered ‘normal’ in the scheme of their daily work routine. This, hopefully, has lead to elevated levels of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation whereby quality research output will be increased, thereby benefit all sectors of society in the long run. Practical Applications Naturally, the Patents Acts of 1983 applies specifically to Malaysia, but other research oriented countries have similar legislation as well. While there are many applications to demonstrate the need for section 20, perhaps it is most beneficial to discuss practical implications to the inventor, in order to best ascertain how individuals specifically benefit by this act. Section 20 is designed to enable researchers to benefit from patents that are attached to their invention, or discovery made during the research process. Under this new system, one does not need to apply to the United Kingdom for a patent to be granted, as the Patents Act of 1983, and the subsequent Patents Regulations Act of 1986 create a mechanism that allows such requests to completely fully within Malaysia. There are many discoveries that are made today that fall under this proviso, as well as some exceptions. To began, an invention or discovery that can be attributed to an individual must be something that is new and that has not been previously discussed or shown to other interested parties in Malaysia, or elsewhere for that matter. If such an invention were to later be shown to have value that can be directly attributed to the inventor(s), then section 20 of the Act would be activated and financial compensation would need to be discussed. In addition, the discovery made by an individuals, or a group of people working together, must involve some kind of inventible step. In other words, a researcher cannot claim something to be his or her own unique work if it is reasonable to assume that any average person with knowledge in that particular area could have come up with the results or conclusions. This is a critical component of section 20, as some academic and research institutions contain many professionals that could each come up with the same idea, thereby simply validating the effectiveness of the organization, but not necessarily reflecting one individuals own creative genius. If such a discovery were to be made, it would like to considered a matter of public domain, and not necessarily generate future value for any one person. Patents are also generated when a discovery is made that has an industrial application. As a global community, we are constantly evolving and changing. What is new and cutting edge today may very well be replaced in the future by an invention or groundbreaking theory that is even more revolutionary. If such a discovery is made, and can be directly be attributed to one individual, the practical applications in various industries can be actualized and financially lucrative. In this way, the individual would need to benefit under Section 20, as they have added something unique and of great value that others within, or outside of, the actual organization could not likely have ever accomplished on their own. An example of this would be an organizational psychologist the generates a new methodology that revolutionize the ways teams function within a corporate setting. As a result of implementing this strategy, it is proven that productivity increases noticeably in more than 90% of the case studies presented. This theory can be written about and become a corporate training model globally, all attributed back to the academic institute where the psychologist is employed. Because this psychologist created something through his research that has substantial value, however, he should be compensated well above his own benefits package at the university. This proviso has enabled such academic thought to flourish institutions of higher learner because scholars now understand that their thoughts and ingenuity will be rewarded if it is found to be of great value, and it is found to be a unique invention or result of research that has not previously been replicated or discovered. Patents covered under this proviso must also be capable of a definition, and should be unique in terms of its technical features. It should also be supported by a thorough description that demonstrates why the invention or research discovery should be directed attributed to the individual, and not solely the institution. If these can be proven, and there is perceived value, then the proviso of Section 20 dictates that the researcher should receive the lions share of the credit. In essence, an invention or innovation in Malaysia is patentable if it is novel or new. This is often referred to as ‘newness’ in academic and research based institutions. In addition, an invention or annotation is patentable if it involves an inventive step that would not have been obvious to another person having similar skills in the same discipline. Finally, an invention or innovation is patentable if it has a direct application to industry, which entails that can be useful in nearly any type of industry, including those with a basis in agriculture. There are, however, certain inventions and innovations that cannot be patented, and therefore would not be covered under Section 20. This does involve certain discoveries, scientific theories, and mathematical methods. It is on this basis, to a large degree, that section 20 was added. Scientific theory and mathematical genius are the cornerstones of academic achievement achievement, but without a way to properly attribute such work to an individual has left many researchers to not truly focus on expanding their work. With the inclusion of section 20, however, this is no longer that case as proper credit and incentive must now be provided, irrespective of whether or not a patent can actually be issued. Patents also cannot be issued for any biological process that result in plant or animal varieties, or to be used in the production of plants or animals. The exception here is for man-made living micro organisms, micro biological process, or the production of such a micro organism process. Such discoveries could potentially be financial lucrative, not mention highly beneficial to society as a whole. As a result, it is important that research and academic institutions provide incentives to their scholars to continue working towards innovations that can truly impact future generations in countless ways. Without this incentive, the danger of this not occurring is very real, providing a solid basis for the insertion of Section 20 as a proviso within the scope of the Patents Act itself throughout Malaysia. It is also important to note that certain methods used in the treatment of the human body, or animals for that matter, are not patentable. This includes surgical or therapeutic techniques, and any diagnostic methods that will be used on humans or animals as well. This is significant because much of the advancement we have seen in the field of medicine in recent years comes from medical teaching and research facilities. While these particular discoveries may not be patentable, as they are viewed to be necessary to the survival and well-being of the human race, they still fall under Section 20. Without such medical advancements, the global community would suffer immeasurable harm. It is imperative that great efforts be undertaken that motivate and encourage researchers to continue to search for breakthroughs in their respective fields of expertise (Patent 2014). When a researcher signs a contract with a given institution, there are usually certain stipulations about what they should be attempting to do, and what will be done with the work once it is accomplished. In many cases, however, the economic value of what is uncovered by an individual or team exceeds anything that could have been imagined at the time the contract was signed. In these cases, as have been mentioned, Section 20 requires that the individual or team be adequately compensated in an ‘equitable’ manner. Both parties must agree on this compensation, or an arbitrator will be assigned. Examples abound of why and how Section 20 has proven itself to be necessary. Scientific breakthroughs are obviously one key component of this, but so are theories and related techniques that can certainly be patented, or that garner some type of economic value. Section 20 requires that such individual be compensated for their work. Conclusion Malaysia is not alone in this struggle of continued ingenuity and innovation. Issues of intellectual property has become an issue that is being dealt with by research and academic institutions on a global basis. On the one hand, modern society depends on constant innovation and ingenuity in order to continue to progress as a civilization. On the other hand, few individuals have the resources to act upon their ingenuity when left to their own devices, so much research and development is done in a collective environment where the lines are often blurred as to who truly ‘owns’ the progress that is made. If a person feels that their mind and hard word are being used by others, they will tend to move away from the more creative projects that have served to advance many causes in civilization. In consideration of this reality, one must discuss the prevalence and function of institutions of higher learner. Such place of learning frequently contain the most brilliant minds that the world has to offer, yet there are still questions of intellectual property that arise from many of the findings that are discovered using university and college resources. As such, the fear is that many researchers will generate less out put if they feel they are not receiving the proper credit and rewards that are due them. It is consideration of this fear that Section 20 of the Patents Act of 1983 contains a proviso that addresses this very issue. This paper seeks to examine Section 20 and discuss the various ways that the provide is being implemented to help guide and further the prevalence of research and researchers existent in institutions of higher learning, and various research institutions, today. The proviso discussed in this report is being actively implemented at research institutions and institutions of higher learning throughout Malaysia today in an effort to generate higher levels of research output. This is having success because it has directly improved the extrinsic value that many researchers and scholars feel is placed on their work, and has served to motivate them to excellence. When research becomes stagnant, the advancement and development of society begins to deteriorate. For Malaysia to continue on its path to global success, it must retain some of the best and brightest minds in respective industries. Failing to do this would result in a likely migration of great scholars from research institutions and institutions of higher learning to go elsewhere in the region, or even outside of Asia. The proviso in Section 20 of the Patents Act of 1983 is designed to prevent just such a phenomenon from occurring, while at the same time generating new innovation and ingenuity. Works Cited “Patent”. Patent, N.p., n.d. Web. 05 May 2014. Read More