Who owns innovation?

As a kid, one of my favorite Schoolhouse Rock episodes was Mother Necessity. Through the typically catchy tunes of SR, we learned about Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Samuel Morse and the Wright brothers. Creative thinkers, hard workers, lucky opportunists, or some combination of all three. These stories have inspired young people across generations to tinker, invent, and innovate.

What makes these stories so interesting and inspiring is the "in their garage", "anyone with cleverness and a good work ethic can do it" feel to them. These people saw a need, pursued it, failed at it dozens if not hundreds of times, then finally succeeded and changed how we live our life. For those who want to change the world for the better, what better inspiration could there be.

The other interesting part about them, to me at least, is the captured history of what they did in the patents they obtained for their work. Among just the four I have listed they have 1,108 patents (although, to be honest, Edison has 1,093 of those...but the Wright's have what I think is one of the coolest). Their writings and sketches to prove the level of innovation persist in their original hand, providing both proof and record. The patents they obtained provided them temporary monopoly to develop their inventions into marketable products, giving them the opportunity to succeed or fail. They also forced competitors to find other ways to solve the same problems, or risk a lengthy legal challenge.

The way our modern patent system works does not promote this brand of innovation.

As Nathanael Johnson (@SavorTooth) notes in his recent article about agricultural innovation, quoting the ideas of Richard Jefferson an advocate for patent reform, our modern system does not focus on rewarding the individual,

"Instead, we have a small group of companies in rich countries, with a stranglehold on patents, designing all the solutions to fit their own business models. This system works primarily to bring in money for these companies, to maintain their privilege, and to exclude competition."

I do not suggest that corporate interests in and of themselves are harmful, but the control and manipulation of patents by corporations goes against the intent of rewarding innovators with the chance to improve their invention. New innovation cannot find the air and fuel they need to take off when entities with large cash reserves have the access to legal means to quash any attempts. Also, by increasing the complexity of the patent process through amassing and holding multiple patents, corporations increase the cost of entry into the fray. The next Edison, Bell, or Wright has little alternative than to work for a large organization willing to bankroll them through the process. Many times, once these innovators have produced for the company, they are laid off and can no longer benefit from the innovation they created. We need a simple, and elegant change to the system to promote innovation and focus more of the rewards on the innovator...

Allow individuals to be the only patent holders.

By forbidding corporations from directly holding the patents, it would give the innovator more leverage. This would not forbid a corporation from gaining wealth from a patent. It would mean that they would have to enter into an agreement in which the innovator had strong leverage because the company could not sever ties without losing access to the patent. Also, it would shift the focus of corporations from accessing and holding patents to hiring talent and finding the most efficient means to deliver on the innovations those talented individuals create.

America showed the world how to give people the freedom to invent and succeed from that invention. We can return to a time when it was the individual with the incentive and the reward...if necessity truly is the mother of invention, then now is a time to invent a better way.