The Real McCoy Part 3: How to Bridge America’s Innovation Gap
The following article is the third of a three-part series. An abbreviated version of this article originally appeared in the Sept./Oct. 2012 issue of IAM Magazine.
In part one of
this series, I explained that as a first-generation American whose
parents emigrated from Haiti, the poorest country in the Western
hemisphere, my mother always dreamed that her Ivy League-educated,
lawyer son would become a civil rights lawyer. In an aim not to
disappoint her, I explained that the civil rights movement was really
about fighting for the economic rights of Black Americans. And, in the
21st century innovation-led world, economic rights are all about IP
rights. Thus, as an IP lawyer, I can be a civil rights lawyer.
Also in part one, I pointed out the “gaps” or “divides” in our
lexicon that measure the opportunity (or lack thereof) that certain
populations have for economic success. These disparities include the
“digital divide,” “education gap” and “wealth gap” that exist between
the Black and White populations in the U.S. I also gave some historical
perspective on the negative views of Black intellectual capacity
against which we can look to the convergence of intellectual property
(IP) with identity politics in assessing the current state of affairs.
In part two
of this series, in my quest to determine if IP rights should be the new
civil rights in America, I defined a new gap – the “Innovation Gap” –
that focuses on the currency of our 21st century
economy: “Innovation Gap: Disparities between classes of people,
caused by societal hindrances, which prevent them from securing the IP
rights necessary to economically exploit the fruits of their
creativity.”
Now, I offer suggestions on how to bridge America’s innovation gap.
There can be no doubt that the
innovation gap is an enormous multi-faceted, socio-economic problem.
Such a problem will likely take decades to eradicate and the “so-called”
experts do not even agree as to exactly how. The legal profession,
however, has always been on the vanguard of social change. Thus, what
can the IP community do? Allow me to make a few suggestions:
1. The USPTO should collect more inventor statistics related to race and ethnicity.
As famed management consultant Peter Drucker is credited with saying,
“if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” Currently, we cannot
precisely measure the level of Black innovation (or even invention) as
those statistics are not collected or reported by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Yet, the USPTO collects and
reports on these types of statistics on a gender and geographic level,
which the public and private sector use as a basis for studies and any
remedial programs.
2. Members of the IP Bar should strive to volunteer more pro bono hours.
When I was sworn into the VA Bar, one of the ceremony’s speakers was
from a Virginia legal aid organization and she said, “even a patent
attorney can do an uncontested divorce.” I’ve always wondered why she
singled out IP practitioners? Well, 15 years later, I finally know why!
IP attorneys are notorious for not volunteering pro bono hours on the same level as other types of practitioners (e.g.,
criminal and family law practitioners). Yet such volunteering would go
a long way towards educating Black entrepreneurs about, and assisting
them to secure, IPR on their path to innovation.
3. Members of the IP Bar should seek change within the IPR and innovation ecosystems.
Often the USPTO and other IP-related agencies study the impact of new rules and regulations on special interest groups (e.g.,
SMEs). These studies should extend to other disadvantaged populations
as well. That is, if any part of the IPR or innovation ecosystem puts
one particular class of persons at a disadvantage, the IP bar should
lead the charge to petition for change. (For example, such activities
led the USPTO to establish a database of official insignia of Native
American Tribes, which list words and symbols ineligible for trademark
registration.)
Such change to the IPR and innovation ecosystem should also include
seeking to diversify the IP Bar as well. Overall, less than 4% of the
lawyers in America are Black. Given the Black share of science and
engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded is 8.6%, it is not surprising
that approximately less than 1.5% of IP attorneys are Black. Even
seeking to diversify the ranks, and then employing the services, of
patent searchers, patent and trademark examiners, IP secretaries, patent
draftsmen, IP paralegals and the like would raise the level of
awareness within the Black community and contribute to narrowing the
innovation gap.
Conclusion
In a 1972 court decision, United States Supreme Court Justice Stewart
wrote: “Property does not have rights. People have rights.”
Accordingly, Blacks must be diligent in making sure that they are aware
of their intellectual property rights, like any other civil right, and
seek IP legal counsel to secure and enforce these rights for economic
gain, the avoidance of economic exploitation and the creation of wealth
in the new millennium and beyond. That will only be achieved with the
help of those (of all races and other categories that divide us) who
work within the IP community. Until then, in a society where innovation
is the key to individual wealth and national economic prosperity and
where IP attorneys who represent innovators should be the “next
generation civil rights lawyer,” I (and many like me) will have failed
to live up to my mother’s dream.
While on the United States and its racial-based innovation gap, I
do strongly suspect that the analysis of the problem and proposed
solutions are equally applicable to other nations and the similar
divides facing their respective
majority-minority/wealthy-poor/male-female or any other “advantaged
versus disadvantaged” populations.
This post also appeared on IPWatchdog.com
and reflects my current personal views and should not necessarily be
attributed to my current or former employers, or their respective
clients or customers.
Comments
Post a Comment