Background

1
Background

• The excessive fragmentation of IPR may impede
  innovation
• To overcome the tragedy of the anticommons, a
  solution is the for innovators to share their
  IPRs
• A co-operation between several innovators
• on allowing access to their IPRs
• in order to facilitate innovation in the
  technological area delimited by the agreement.
• ? CIPR
• Some examples
• Cross-licensing
• Pooling public research patents
• Patent pools in standard setting
• Open Source Software
• Some remarks
• In the case of Open Source Software, the
  cooperation strategy is not defensive
• In all cases, it is not about suppressing the
  IPR, but leveraging them to implement FTO
  (mapping, enforcement, licensing mechanisms)

2
Project and methodology

• A transverse framework based on two modules on
  CIPR in agro-biotech and OSS
• A descriptive framework that goes beyond the
  basic anticommons story
• Focusing on open CIPR
• Inform industry and public research actors, and
  to contribute to the promotion and improvement of
  open solutions among them

3
A transverse framework

• A transverse, and therefore completely new
  approach of this topic,
• so far CIPR have only been studied on a
  restricted industry/sectoral/antitrust basis
• Crossing experiences can be valuable
• Two modules for now,
• OSS and patent platform in agrobiotech
• Capture a large part of the open CIPR

4
To provide empirical knowledge

• Open Source Module
• Empirical data on licensors/OSS firms
• Econometric works
• Agrobiotech Module
• Interviews
• Legal texts

5
Besides and beyond overcoming the anticommons
CIPR have dynamic and qualitative effects
6
From closed to open CIPRCharacterizing
models of innovation

• closed most cross licensing agreements
  between firms
• Formal definition of openness in CIPR
• Specific clauses
• Public databases
• Type of management
• Are there initial conditions for open CIPR to
  emerge / not to emerge?
• Environment, actors, technologies
• Necessary conditions
• Impediments
• Performance
• 2 baselines, the main of which is closed CIPR
• Promote entry/variety
• Coordination/efficiency
• Sustainability in the long term
• To how extent can open CIPR coexist with closed
  CIPR?

7
Collective management of IPR for plant biotech
8
Research objectives

• Initiatives of mutualization of plant biotech IPR
  
• Management practices of IPR in Europe
• Obstacles that hinder the mutualization of public
  IPR
• Dynamics of the overall system
• Normative assessment
• Comparison with OSS

9
The IP Problem
Many of the patents and/or exclusive licenses
for use of the key tools and technologies needed
to carry out plant genetic engineering ---such as
vectors, promoters, transformation technologies,
selectable markers, specific genes, etc.---are
now held by the private sector
Ironically, many of these technologies/tools were
developed and patented by the public-sector,
but then licensed for exclusive use by
private-sector companies. 9 out of 10 key
components to produce genetically engineered
crops
10
EPIP-AGRO

• A French initiative for an European SSA project
  to be proposed on February 2005
• Three main activities
• 1. Joint intellectual property information
  (inventories, data base construction,
  identification of patent clusters)
• 2. Analysis of management of plant biotech IPR in
  Europe (interviews with researchers IP managers
  study of contractual agreements)
• 3. Proposal of a European PIPRA