sutton044

Dangling at the end of a column that appeared in the October 6th issue of The Economist (“Bought and paid for”) are the following provocative words-- To a growing extent, the productivity gap between technologically advanced firms and laggards suggests anti-competitive behaviour rather than the superior innovative capacity of top firms. Productivity-enhancing innovations are supposed to spread, raising growth and incomes. That they no longer seem to accomplish this reflects barriers to competition that are supported by powerful firms, including non-compete clauses, overly tight intellectual-property rules and an accommodating attitude to acquisitions by market leaders. It seems ever clearer that, when corporations open their wallets to politicians, the public loses. I say “dangling” because most of the piece (relying in part on a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research by Ufuk Akcigit , Salomé Baslandze , and Francesca Lotti ) is devoted to the question of what happen...

There was a time when national IP offices were cozy little operations, dealing with the registration of patents, trademarks and designs. Various national offices did a better or worse job at this, but all agreed- the task of the IP office was ….well, mostly technical and administrative. No one came looking for guidance on how the fruits of protected IP was meant to filter through the greater world of business and industry. No more. While not the stuff of racy headlines, one of the most important dynamics running through the IP world is how national IP offices are coming to terms with this expanded role, easily defined in the abstract, but surprisingly challenging to implement. Against this backdrop, this Kat felt the undercurrents of uncertainty that characterized the First Plenary Session (““Anchoring Innovation: The Future of IP Organisations”) of the 2018 edition of Singapore’s nonpareil IPWeek @ SG . This Kat was not able to attend this year, but the Intellectual Property Office...