Derek Keats. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Knowledge management at Wits University has posted a series of blogs in the proposed Regulations for the implementation of the IPR Act. He thinks - and I agree - that they will probably be unworkable and that they will almost certainly act as a hindrance and not a help to research effectiveness in the country.

Some of his comments: 

 Most importantly, innovation thrives in the absence of impediments. Every time a researcher must go to NIPMO for permission, there is another barrier to innovation. More barriers equates to less innovation. This is a sine quo non, and cannot be changed... These regulations will stiffle innovation, not just in software, but in almost every sphere of research endeavour. They are bad for innovation, they are bad for research, they are bad for business, and they are bad for South Africa.

Research innovation is something that is made from a harvest of passion and energy, and the capacity for the unfettered creativity that universities make possible. Anything that reduces that capacity for unfettered creativity, and creates the risk of a passion drought will undermine innovation and lead to less, not more, innovation. This is something that I know with as much certainty as I know I have 10 fingers (currently).

Much as software patents favour existing large companies, and make it difficult for a new company to become large, these regulatins will have a small negative impact on the research superstars, but will make it much more difficult to become a new superstar, and will drive passionate people away from research into other carreers. Academic freedom is important to people, and people do innovation. Trample on it at your peril!

 ......

If you look at the range of work that these regulations cover, which is effectively all knowledge work undertaken with public funds, the range of knowledge needed to make non-spurious decisions is enormous. The level of talent that will be needed for the imlementing body, NIPMO, to work is very high. These are not decisions that can reasonably be expected to be taken by inexperienced people who have just completed a masters degree. They need experienced researchers, with doctorates and many years of research and development experience.

Such people simply do not exist in South Africa. They could be taken out of the Universities, but then that would undermine the innovation process they are supposed to be managing. So where will they come from?

Finally, he makes a set of useful suggestions on how things could and should work: 

• Leave critical decisions close to the site of the action, where people are most familiar with the challenges and opportunities and can act in an agile manner with the minimum of delays;
• Ensure that the services are available to assist with commercialization of research, including legal services, product development assistance, and that these are available with minimum of fuss whether a proprietary or open source business model is followed;
• Ensure that there is a National fund to help startups fight patent challenges from patent trolls and other holders of spurious patents, especially large multinational corporations with large patent portfolios which may contain numerous dubious patents;
• Recognize that the vast majority of researchers are not doing research that will lead to commercial products, and do not bring the whole innovation regime in South Africa under these regulations, where social and cultural innovation will be stiffled; rather provide means to assist and inform such researchers to find commercially or socially beneficial uses for their research when they tell you they would like your help;
• Where software and documentation in various forms are concerned, accept the National Policy on Free and Open Source as also being an important guide for action among responsible, knowledgeable researchers.