Business leaders reject view that patents are hindering the quest for low-carbon energy

Published: 28 July 2009
By: Peter Prowse

An audience of over 100 voted overwhelmingly against the motion that ‘patents are stifling the innovation needed to ensure abundant, low-carbon energy supplies’ in Thursday’s (23 July) debate at the Science Museum, jointly organised by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Intellectual Property Office.

An audience of over 100 voted overwhelmingly against the motion that ‘patents are stifling the innovation needed to ensure abundant, low-carbon energy supplies’ in Thursday’s (23 July) debate at the Science Museum, jointly organised by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Intellectual Property Office.

In spite of cogent arguments in favour of the motion from Professor Graham Dutfield of Leeds University and Alan South, Chief Innovation Officer of Solarcentury, the audience rejected the motion, with only 14 in favour as against 90 opposing.

Graham Dutfield pointed out that the US motor industry is prevented from using the best type of battery for hybrid cars because all the patents are owned by an oil company, which refuses to grant licences.  Alan South’s argument focused on the speed of development of the renewable energy sector, suggesting that companies can get trapped into inappropriate technologies just because they have invested heavily in patenting them.  Sharing knowledge, he argued – along the lines of Opensource software – gives faster access to technology in the rapidly-growing renewables sector.

Ian Harvey, Chairman of the IP Institute, and Sean Dennehey, Assistant Comptroller of the Intellectual Property Office, argued that, far from stifling innovation, patents are essential to attract the investment needed.

Ian Harvey compared today’s need for low-carbon technology with inventions that laid the foundation for the industrial revolution.  He cited the example of James Watt, whose improvements for the steam engine in the 18th century would not have attracted the huge investment needed to perfect it if it had not been patented.  Sean Dennehey developed the argument in favour of patents, pointing out that all patent information is published and that patent protection actually stimulates inventiveness and innovation, as companies find alternative (and often better) ways solving a problem.  He acknowledged that the patent system needs to evolve to meet the needs of industry and society and pointed out that the IPO had recently launched a fast-track system for ‘green patents’.

IP barrister Daniel Alexander QC, who chaired the debate, invited contributions from the audience.  Speakers from the floor argued mainly against the motion, largely focusing on the fact that small businesses in particular cannot raise the investment they need to fund the development of low-carbon technology unless they have protection for their intellectual property – principally in the form of patents.

To round off the evening, speakers and audience toured the ‘Cracking ideas’ exhibition.  Although they didn’t get to vote in the debate, the last word went to those prolific inventors Wallace and Gromit.