Moving from safe closed data to open data sharing between government and citizens: a case study of Peer to Patent Australia

3 November 2010Paulette Paterson

My presentation

Background:– IP Australia– The IP system, knowledge sharing and collaborative governance

The ladder of citizen participation in government– Using peer expertise to assist decision-making˜ The ‘modest proposal’ of Peer to Patent - crowdsourcing plus Web 2.0

Peer to Patent Australia trial

– Identifying and managing opportunities to assist decision-making– Risk and collaborative governance– Lessons learnt

IP system in Australia

Responsible for administering Australia’s intellectual property (IP) rights system, specifically trade marks, inventions (patents), designs and plant breeder’s rights.

Role: creating a safe and secure environment in

which to make the intellectual investment necessary to innovate and thereby encouraging research and development;

promoting the disclosure of discoveries and promoting the disclosure of discoveries and follow-on generation of ideas;follow-on generation of ideas;

enabling firms to build brand value and business reputation which in turn contributes to improved consumer confidence; and

providing a legal framework in which to trade ideas.

IP Australia

What is a patent?

A patent is a right granted for any device, substance, method or process which is new, inventive and useful.

A standard patent gives long-term protection and control over an invention for up to 20 years.

In return, patent applicants must share their know-how by providing a full description of how their invention works.

This information becomes public and can provide the basis for further research by others -the generation of new and follow-on ideas.

The Hills Rotary Hoist, launched in 1946. Image courtesy of the Sydney Morning

Herald.

Some Australian inventions

first full-length feature film (1906) surf lifesaving reels (1906) sunshine header harvester (1914) speedo swimwear (1929) rotary clothes line (1946) wine casks (1965) staysharp knives (1970) racecam live television broadcast (1979) wall-mounted Miniboil machines (1981) dual-flush toilets (1982) baby safety capsules (1984) smartmodem (1992)

Gov 2.0 and the Collaborative Governance of the Patent System

Not a new idea - The Patent System is the legislated route to bring Information to Innovation

Law | Policy | Technology

"The fact is that one new idea leads to another, that to a third, and so on through a course of time until someone, with whom no one of these ideas was original, combines all together, and produces what is justly called a new invention."

- Thomas Jefferson, Director of the 1st U.S. Patent Board

Building on existing knowledge

Opening up knowledge flows to drive innovation

People need to share what they already know, in order to achieve more and to innovate.

To do this they need communication channels, time and a social system.

…..web 2.0 and 3.0 are helping to make those connections

Crowdsourcing – calling in the cavalry

Ordinary people possess extraordinary knowledge they are willing to share when it is easy to do so.

….and sometimes only if they are asked to.

Gov 2.0

The first step towards a government that can cope with the complexities of the modern world might well be acceptance of the fact that it can’t do it alone.

“Together we can accomplish what cannot be done alone”Beth Noveck, US Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open and

Transparent Government

Gov 2.0 and citizen expertise

From e-government to collaborative government

Increasingly governments broadcast a problem, issue or task on an interactive website that enables the community to collaborate on coming up with the best solution.

Citizen expertise and democracy

The information deficit as a democratic deficit

Citizen participation and trust

From CIPAST citizen participation in science and technologyhttp://www.cipast.org/cipast.php?section=212&PHPSESSID=8c15a797855d474b973c9a0f6a19387f

The scale of collaboration

Degree of collaboration What is involved?

Highest level: high normative commitment to collaboration; oftenhighest political/managerial risks

Transformative interaction between network actors; substantiveengagement and empowerment; search for high degree of stakeholderand inter-actor consensus and cooperation; coalition building bygovernment and non-government actors

Medium–high level: strong normativeorientation; high level ofpolitical/managerial risk

Strong engagement of stakeholders in decisions or policy processand implementation; devolving decision-making capacities to clients; more complex innovations in policy-delivery processes

Medium–low level: operational formsof collaboration to ‘get job done’; some political/managerial risk

Forms of co-production; technical improvements in delivery chains; assistance to comply with obligations; direct consultation with clients over delivery and compliance systems; systematic use of evaluation data; public reporting on targets informed by client preferences

Lowest level: marginal operationaladjustments, low levels ofpolitical/managerial risk

Incremental adjustments using consultative processes; clientdiscussions and feedback mechanisms; gaining information onneeds/expectations of others

O’Flynn, J & Wanna, J, 2008, Collaborative government: a new era for public policy in Australia?, ANU Press, Canberra, p. 4

Context, purpose, choices and motivations of collaboration

Context & purpose Choices or motivational possibilities

Power dimension Coercive and forced collaboration Persuasive and voluntary involvement in collaboration

Commitment level Meaningful & substantive collaboration

Meaningless & cosmetic collaboration

Strategic dimension Collaboration for positive & beneficial purposes

Collaboration for negative/preventative strategies

Means-ends dimension Collaboration as a means and process; stages, due process

Collaboration as an end and outcome;shared results, outcome orientation

Goal dimension Shared objectives; mutual intentions, consensual strategies and outcomes

Competing objectives; different reasons for participating

Visibility & awareness dimension

Overt and public forms of collaboration; awareness of collaboration is high

Covert and behind-the-scenes collaboration; unawareness of collaboration

Problem applicability Collaboration on simple problems; simple objectives and responsibilities

Collaboration on ‘wicked’ problems,; defying description and solutions

O’Flynn, J & Wanna, J, 2008, Collaborative government: a new era for public policy in Australia?, ANU Press, Canberra, p. 5

From Wikinomics to Wikigovernment

From Wikinomics to Wikigovernment

Wikigovernment and Peer to Patent

Connecting the scientific community to the patent examination process

An experiment in using the tools of the social web to create models for participatory government.

The community is invited to augment the work of the official patent examiner by assisting with identifying “prior art”

Goal: improve the quality of issued patents by giving the patent examiner

Access to better information by means of an open network for community participation,

Social software tied directly to the legal and political process.

Designed to channel the right information.

Opportunity to engage directly with the patent office and be heard.

Final decision made by IP agency.

Rationale

Began November 2009

In association with QUT Pilot program to test the effectiveness of open, public participation in the patent examination process

Business method/computer software focus

Based on the work of the New York Law School between 2007 and 2009

http://www.peertopatent.org.au

Peer to Patent Australia (P2P)

How Peer to Patent works

How Peer to Patent works

Patent Applications Posted

31

Registered Reviewers

129

Prior Art Submitted

106

•Trial conducted Dec 2009-Jun 2010

•Examiners surveyed Jul-Aug 2010

•Surveys evaluated Sep-Nov 2010

•Report to Minister Dec 2010

What are the opportunities?

Applicants receive timely feedback from knowledgeable peers on prior art pertinent to their published application for a patent.

The burden of proof of inventive step is no longer on the patent examiner or the inventor alone.

Competitors see boundaries set by previously published inventions early in the process and potentially avoid conflicts.

Peer review gives more confidence that all prior art was considered and reduces uncertainty (aka potential litigation).

The global patent system potentially benefits from a more collaborative examination community and improvements in the global search environment.

What are the risks?

Legislative underpinning and risk mitigation (collaborative governance)

3rd party issues

Relationship with collaborative partner (s)

Degree of community interest

“Official” versions of applications

Behaviour of peer community

What’s next?

Further trial at USPTO (began Oct 2010)

Post-Issue Peer-to-Patent (US)

Open Patent (US)

Patent Commons

WIPO initiatives

Other IP rights

What’s next?

What have we learnt?

Risk minimisation through partnering, building on earlier trials and collaborative governance.

Change and communication management.

Even a conservative agency can conduct a groundbreaking trial.

Laying the foundation for more improvements to the IP system – from little things….

What have we learnt?

Find the right people to participate

Allow for flexibility and evolution in approach

Focus on outcomes rather than process

Be prepared to be surprised

Questions?

For more information visit http://www.peertopatent.com.au/Gov 2.0 showcaseOr contact:Paulette Paterson Manager, Strategic Planning and Corporate Reporting IP Australia 47 Bowes St Woden ACT 2606 postal address PO Box 200 Woden ACT 2606 phone  +61 2 62832749   0423847089 (mobile) fax +61 2 6283 7999 email paulette.paterson@ipaustralia.gov.au