Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Exploring the Possibilities of Utility Models Patent Regime for Grassischolar_mains Innovations in India


Affiliations
1 Centre for Studies in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, School of Social Sciences, Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat - 382030, India
 

Patents are considered to be the most authoritative rights which incentivise the knowledge producer. However, the current patent system is criticised by many scholars for favouring the formal sector industries of the economy having a large market and resources for commercialising their innovations. Today there are many innovations which emerge from the informal economies of the low-income nations like India which consists mostly of imitation and adaptation of the existing technologies. Many of these innovations fall short of the strict patentability and non-obviousness criteria. Further, the costs associated with applying for the patents discourage many innovators from the informal sector to make use of these rights. The ‘grassischolar_mains’ innovations in India represent the informal sector innovations which have been developed by poor people at grassischolar_mains to provide solutions for their own problems. With a view to promote and foster grassischolar_mains innovations, this paper studies the potential of ‘utility models’ as a tool to protect the innovations in the informal economy of India. By analysing the patenting data of grassischolar_mains innovations in India and conducting interviews with the grassischolar_mains innovators, the study finds that the existing IPR regime in India fails to protect all the incremental and minor innovations emerging from its informal economy.

Keywords

Patents, Utility Models, Informal Sector Innovations, Grassischolar_mains Innovations, Paris Convention, Trips Agreement, Jugaad, International Labour Organisation, Malaysian Foundation for Innovation, National Innovation Foundation, National IPR Policy.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Spinello R &Bottis M, A Defence of Intellectual Property Rights, 2009.

  • Andersen B, If ‘intellectual property rights’ is the answer, what is the question? Revisiting the patent controversies, Economics of innovation and new technology, 13 (5) (2004) 417-442. Mazzoleni R & Nelson R R, The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: A contribution to the current debate, Research policy, 27 (3) (1998) 273-284. Machlup F & Penrose E, The patent controversy in the nineteenth century, The Journal of Economic History, 10 (1) (1950) 1-29.

  • Maskus K E, Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy (Peterson Institute), 2000.

  • Bhaduri S & Kumar H, Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to innovate: Tracing the motivation of ‘grassischolar_main’innovators in India, Mind & Society, 10 (1) (2011) 27-55.

  • De Beer J, Fu K, & Wunsch-Vincent S, The Informal Economy, Innovation and Intellectual Property-Concepts, Metrics and Policy Considerations, 2013.

  • Trouiller P, Torreele E, Olliaro P, White N, Foster S, Wirth D & Pécoul B, Drugs for neglected diseases: A failure of the market and a public health failure?, Tropical Medicine & International Health, 6 (11) (2001) 945-951.

  • Shiva V, The Neem Tree-A Case History Of Biopiracy (The Third World Network), 2006.

  • Borowiak C, Farmers’ rights: Intellectual property regimes and the struggle over seeds, Politics & Society, 32 (4) (2004) 511-543.

  • Noble D F, America by design: Science, Technology, and the Rise Of Corporate Capitalism (Oxford University Press), 1977.

  • Suarez-Villa L, Technocapitalism: A Critical Perspective on Technological Innovation and Corporatism (Temple University Press), 2012.

  • Mansfield E, Patents and innovation: An empirical study, Management Science, 32(2) (1986) 173-181.

  • Bessen J &Meurer M J, Patent failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk (Princeton University Press), 2008.

  • Janis M D, Second tier patent protection, Harvard International Law Journal, 40 (1999) 151.

  • Boztosun N, Exploring the utility of utility models for fostering innovation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (2010) 429-439.

  • Hart K, Informal income opportunities and urban employment in Ghana, The Journal of Modern African Studies, 11 (1) (1973) 61-89.

  • International Labour Organisation (2018), Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture (third edition), Geneva.

  • Gupta A K, Grassischolar_mains innovation: Minds on the margin are not marginal minds, (Random House India), 2016.

  • Rao S S, Indigenous knowledge organization: An Indian scenario, International Journal of Information Management, 26(3) (2006) 224-233.

  • Bhaduri S, Prince Claus Chair on Development and Equity Inaugural Lecture, Retrieved from: https://www.iss.nl/news_ events/iss_news/detail_news/news/5374-frugal-innovation-bythesmalland-the-marginal-pcc-inaugural-lecture/ (2016)

  • Srinivas S & Sutz J, Developing countries and innovation: Searching for a new analytical approach, Technology in Society, 30 (2) (2008) 129-140.

  • Chataway J, Hanlin R & Kaplinsky R, Inclusive innovation: An architecture for policy development, Innovation and Development, 4(1) (2014) 33-54. Srinivas S & Sutz J, Developing countries and innovation: Searching for a new analytical approach, Technology in Society, 30 (2) (2008) 129-140.

  • Radjou N, Prabhu J & Ahuja S, Jugaad Innovation: Think Frugal, Be Flexible, Generate Breakthrough Growth (John Wiley & Sons), 2012. Birtchnell T, Jugaad as systemic risk and disruptive innovation in India, Contemporary South Asia, 19 (4) (2011) 357-372.

  • Agnihotri A, Low-cost innovation in emerging markets, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23 (5) (2015) 399-411.

  • Gupta A K, Grassischolar_mains innovation: Minds on the margin are not marginal minds, (Random House India), 2016. Kumar H & Bhaduri S, Jugaad to grassischolar_main innovations: Understanding the landscape of the informal sector innovations in India, African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 6 (1) (2014) 13-22.

  • Prahalad C K, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid (Pearson Education India), 2006.

  • Joshi R G, Chelliah J & Ramanathan V, Exploring grassischolar_mains innovation phenomenon through the lived experience of an Indian grassischolar_mains innovator, South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 4 (1) (2015) 27-44.

  • Seyfang G & Smith A, Grassischolar_mains innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda, Environmental Politics, 16 (4) (2007) 584-603.

  • Suthersanen U, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries (No. 13). International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), 2006.

  • http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/utility_models/utilit y_models.htm (accessed on 12 August 2017).

  • http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/summary_paris.html (accessed on 12 August 2017).

  • Suthersanan U, Utility models: Do They Really Serve National Innovation Strategies? Forthcoming in Josef Drexl (ed.), The Innovation Society & Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, 2018.

  • Juma C, The gene hunters, Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seeds (New Jersey: Princeton University), 1989.

  • Kumar N, Intellectual property rights, technology and economic development: Experiences of Asian countries, Economic and Political Weekly, (2003) 209-226.

  • Krasser R, Developments in utility model law, IICInternational Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 26 (6) (1995) 950-963.

  • https://www.dpma.de/docs/service/veroeffentlichungen/jahresberichte/dpma-jahresbericht2010.pdf (2010).

  • Grosse Ruse-Khan H, Utility model protection in Pakistan – An option for incentivising incremental innovation, A Study for the WIPO (2013).

  • IP Australia, IP Statistics (accessed on 3 September 2016).

  • Review of the Innovation Patent System – Issues Paper, Report, August 2011. https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/sites/g/ files/net856/f/issues_paper_innovation_patent_system.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2016).

  • Rongyang Z, The legislation for utility models and their examination and approval: On improving the system of patent for utility model, China Patents and Trademark, 73 (2) (1997).

  • Wei D, On the simultaneous filing of patent application for invention and patent application for utility model, China Patent and Trademark, 28 (2) 1996.

  • De Beer J & Wunsch-Vincent S, Appropriation and Intellectual Property in the Informal Economy, (Cambridge University Press), 2016, 232-295.

  • King K, Jua Kali Kenya: Change & Development in an Informal Economy, 1970-1995, (Ohio State University Press), 1996.

  • Juma C & Ojwang J B, Innovation and sovereignty: The patent debate in African development, African Center for Technology Studies Research Series, (2) (1989).

  • Kraemer-Mbula E & Wunsh-Vincent S, The Informal Economy in Developing Nations, (Cambridge University Press), 2016.

  • Bull C, Daniel S, Kinyanjui M & Hazeltine B, A study of the informal metalworking sector in Nairobi, The Informal Economy in Developing Nations: Hidden Engine of Innovation, (Cambridge University Press), 2016, 100-145.

  • Kraemer-Mbula E, Informal manufacturing of home and personal care products in South Africa, The Informal Economy in Developing Nations: Hidden Engine of Innovation, (Cambridge University Press), 2016, 146-193,

  • Essegbey G O & Awuni S, Herbal Medicine in the informal sector of Ghana, The Informal Economy in Developing Nations: Hidden Engine of Innovation, (Cambridge University Press), 2016, 194-231.

  • Hua L, Jiang Y & Lin Y, Grassischolar_mains innovation, characteristics, status quo and suggestions, International Conference on Innovation and Management, 2010, 2048-2053.

  • Zhang L & Mahadevia D, Institutional architecture for grassischolar_mains innovations: A case of Hua County, China, Innovation and Development, 2 (1) (2012), 175-188.

  • OECD, Boosting Malaysia's National Intellectual Property System for Innovation, (2015).


Abstract Views: 231

PDF Views: 152




  • Exploring the Possibilities of Utility Models Patent Regime for Grassischolar_mains Innovations in India

Abstract Views: 231  |  PDF Views: 152

Authors

Gautam Sharma
Centre for Studies in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, School of Social Sciences, Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat - 382030, India
Hemant Kumar
Centre for Studies in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, School of Social Sciences, Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat - 382030, India

Abstract


Patents are considered to be the most authoritative rights which incentivise the knowledge producer. However, the current patent system is criticised by many scholars for favouring the formal sector industries of the economy having a large market and resources for commercialising their innovations. Today there are many innovations which emerge from the informal economies of the low-income nations like India which consists mostly of imitation and adaptation of the existing technologies. Many of these innovations fall short of the strict patentability and non-obviousness criteria. Further, the costs associated with applying for the patents discourage many innovators from the informal sector to make use of these rights. The ‘grassischolar_mains’ innovations in India represent the informal sector innovations which have been developed by poor people at grassischolar_mains to provide solutions for their own problems. With a view to promote and foster grassischolar_mains innovations, this paper studies the potential of ‘utility models’ as a tool to protect the innovations in the informal economy of India. By analysing the patenting data of grassischolar_mains innovations in India and conducting interviews with the grassischolar_mains innovators, the study finds that the existing IPR regime in India fails to protect all the incremental and minor innovations emerging from its informal economy.

Keywords


Patents, Utility Models, Informal Sector Innovations, Grassischolar_mains Innovations, Paris Convention, Trips Agreement, Jugaad, International Labour Organisation, Malaysian Foundation for Innovation, National Innovation Foundation, National IPR Policy.

References