IP Utilisation(Primer)

There are multiple reasons why Intellectual Property should exert fascination with innovation and economic theorists alike. One of those reasons is that it is a means to an end — an end to something tangible.

Sometimes, however, the true function of IP gets mulled up in a myriad of attributed ideologies that results in somewhat distorted realities — nonetheless, the tail-end of a thing is still part of the tail no matter how long the trail gets.

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, aka why, are we doing this?

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 an IP without having been given considerable thought to its application because the idea of a property denotes usefulness, and to a lesser extent — usefulness to what degree?

To explain IP utilisation in another way, let’s construct an isolated statement and generate some follow-up questions. I think we can make sense of this together.

Statement:

“This country does not produce enough wheat for its needs.”

Follow-up questions:

Why is this country not producing 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 for the sake of it — but to foster critical thinking on IP utilisation. Replace wheat with Intellectual Capital.