One of these lies in how the world manages the creation and ownership of inventions and concepts. A protectionist method of Inventhelp Vibe is made to protect and prolong the lifecycle of existing technologies, and enable innovators to capture the profits from their creations. In a paper published with colleagues from universities in Germany and India, we examined how this also makes it harder for new and more sustainable technologies to be developed and adopted. That explains why now there are other approaches being used to move key sectors to more sustainable systems and end this status quo.
Electric car manufacturer Tesla, has been doing just that. Tesla CEO Elon Musk “shocked” the world in 2014 as he announced that his company was joining the open source movement and giving away its patents at no cost. It is important to comprehend the rationale here. Why would a company that had worked so hard to produce and protect its technology from the global car manufacturer competitors suddenly give its technology away for free?
Tesla initially created a patent portfolio to safeguard its technology. However, Tesla’s concern that it would be overwhelmed once established car makers ramped up their creation of electric cars never arrived at pass. Instead, it saw the electrical car market stagnate at less than 1% of total vehicle sales. So Tesla changed its strategy from seeking to prevent others from building electric cars to seeking to encourage them into the market.
Portion of the reasoning here is that if more electric cars are made, then more battery recharging stations will be built too. This might make electric cars be a little more visible, as well as a more conventional choice. Tesla believes an open intellectual property strategy can strengthen rather than diminish its position because they build the size of the electric car market, and as a result, build its own share of the total automotive market.
This kind of careful control over Inventhelp Caveman Commercials at company level, maintained by policy-level awareness, can become a powerful way to support the same types of transitions to more sustainable technologies in other industries too.
Energy supply faces a multitude of difficulties: the depletion of natural resources; air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; nuclear risks; and security of supply. This type of water supply sector is fixed by water scarcity, pollutants, extreme environmental events such as flooding and costs associated with supplying water to communities in poor countries and remote communities. The agri-food sector, meanwhile, is under pressure to sustainably produce more food and also to address malnutrition in poor countries.
For such industries to navigate a path around these problems, new knowledge as well as the innovations that follow is going to be essential. And then in knowledge economies, intellectual property can either be an enabler or even an inhibitor.
In the event the ownership of intellectual property is fragmented in an industry, it can slow down technology innovation and uptake, including inside the electronics industry where multiple players own complementary patents. However, firms can instead start their innovation processes and depart from jealously guarded, internal cultures, where intellectual property is used to briaac and prolong lifecycles. This change may see knowledge sharing that leads to accelerated innovation cycles along with a more rapid uptake of sustainable alternatives within a sector: just what Tesla was longing for in electric vehicles.
This strategy to intellectual property, so-called “open IP”, is well advanced and mature in the software industry and healthcare. It provides given use of life-saving medicines to thousands of people, particularly in developing countries through patent pools, like the Medicine Patent Pool. This kind of project relies on multinational pharmaceutical companies sharing their Patent Helper, but small companies can also play a strategic roles in creating these new, more sustainable systems, and it’s its not all about open IP.