There are multiple reasons why Intellectual Property should exert a fascination with innovation and economic theories alike. One of those reasons is that it is a means to an end — an end to something meaningful and tangible.
One of those reasons is that it is a means to an end — the end being something meaningful and tangible.
Sometimes, however, the true function of IP gets mulled up in a myriad of attributed ideologies — nevertheless, the tail-end of a thing is still part of the tail no matter how long the trail gets.
So if IP is the means, what is the end? This is also subject to interpretation, but one thing should be constant in any given context about IP — the question of application or utilisation.
IP is a means to an end to which it is utilised. In a way, one can say an idea or a concept is not IP without having been given considerable thought to its application.
To explain IP utilisation in another way; Let us take an isolated statement and generate some follow-up questions. Let’s see if we can make sense of this together.
“This country does not produce enough wheat for its needs.”
Follow up questions:
Why does this country not produce enough wheat?
What does this country need to produce enough wheat?
Does it simply not have the will to produce enough wheat for its consumption?
Does it not have the manpower to produce more wheat?
Does it not have the machinery to produce more wheat?
Sometimes you don’t know what you don’t know….
Maybe it does not know it needs more wheat or is not aware that it can produce more wheat?
My anecdote about wheat is not to illustrate a point per se but to foster critical thinking on this subject of IP utilisation.