INDONESIA

Speaker: Prof. Miranda Risang Ayu※番号は、質問者を表し、同一質問者は同一番号になっています。

Q1: Does Indonesia have a national level or regional level of innovation strategy? Andmaybe subordinated to that an IP strategy?
A1: The strategy of innovation is involved with IP strategy. We don’t have any definitionof innovation, but we showed the Innovation is any materialization/corporatization of
any creative activities. All products coming from IP can be regarded as innovation. Aslong as they have an innovative step, it can beneficial for the producers to seek
protection and have what they created to be treated as innovation.
That is why we create different institutions; the most important is a new one – related
to the economic creative institution. These institutions have been creating policies forinnovation and creative based products. They are still very new and people say thatthey work too much for corporate products and that they should expand it to inventions
in general. However, so they have been trying to make a program for utility models asinnovation. They have been working on innovation and trying to develop institutions sothat any kind of innovation can be protected.
Q2: So interesting to listen to you. Thank you for the presentation. My question is thatthe ultimate proof is that the scientists in Indonesia are patenting their inventions andusing theirs system to do technology transfers that can continue and commercialize andkeep research. I know that in Bandung there were a lot of efforts into commercializing,but in Indonesia there was a problem of creating IP assets. But the ultimate test is: arethe Indonesian scientists getting patents? Or the universities? Does that happen?
A2: No, not yet. 90% of patents filed in Indonesia are filed by foreign patents. Just
around 10% are Indonesian patents, and from these only 4% are commercialized. Don’t
compare to Tokyo University, Japan is great at registering patents. We still try to firstenhance the acknowledgement that inventions are patents, they only do research. Theyend up only selling it without protecting them. And even so, many times they hesitate tocommercialize, being afraid they will lose their right because most of them are investors
and they do not know how to retain their rights. They are afraid that if they patent,
they cannot commercialize. And that there are a lot of costs, because you have to pay
maintenance fees.

1Q2: It is a complex problem: Empowering the scientists. You completely understand theissue.
A2: The first we should amend the patent law, so that it is friendly to small inventors.
We need to encourage our inventors and make it easier for them to obtain their patents.
Q3: I have some small question; you talked about the copyright as collateral. The newlaw only relates at copyright?
A3: This is a very new idea, there are articles in all new laws – in the Trademark,Patents, Copyright – and everything can be related as copyrights. Even in the US,valuating IP is a challenge. Is there any bank willing to accept it? How to evaluate? It isdifferent to material assets.
Q3: It depends on the bank?
A3: Yes. It depends on the bank. There were many seminars about the topic and how toevaluate them. Are banks eager to accept them as collateral. What kind of value will
they sustain? But yes, that is the idea.
Q3: But you can be put the right as collateral in one bank, and then you could possibly
use it in another bank, no?
Q3: It depends on the bank, if they have a policy to accept it as a collateral or not?
Q4: The point here is that since copyrights are not registered rights, there is no clear
way to prevent the right to be used as a collateral in two different places. While inregistrable rights you could put a note on the registry.
A4: It is not mandatory that copyrights are registered. But we advise that importantworks have a letter of copyrights to make it clear. It is not a registration per se. To usethem as a collateral, they should have that – a collateral registration.
Q4: I want to follow up on Cynthia’s question about the challenges on the creating
incentives on fostering transfer of technology between the universities and the private
sector. My question is a little bit more specific, in your page 4 you mention about the2government regulation about technology transfer associated with IP resulted from R&D,
I was wondering if you could elaborate further on those regulations and specifically ifthey impose any restrictions on the freedom of contract between higher education
institution or public research institutions and the private sector. And I ask you that
because some developing countries, including Brazil, has these issues. In Brazil we havean innovation law which imposes some restrictions while, of course, having theintention of helping because when dealing with the private sector, universities has lessknowledge and less power to bargain.
A4: It is a very good question. We have the same kind of problem. We should have had a
special law about innovation, but we did instead trough a regulation. In the spirit of thepolicy, we give encouragement for the inventors to protect their inventions. But therestrictions are not coming from the regulations. They come from other sources, forexample: if you want make some kind of an international cooperation, as an example,
for genetic related products, you have to go through special procedures different
governmental departments even before you get patents. You create more administrative
burdens to inventors. We also require that scientists should have an ethical assessment
before they conduct their research. Maybe it costs 6 months only to give all the paper
work (to do research about genetic material). The problem is how to make it easier,while ethical and just. Maybe if we can learn from universities in Japan, for example.
You have staff to handle the paperwork, because otherwise it will delay the beginning of
the innovation. You have to deal with many academic and administrative hardships.
Q5: I am very interested in compulsory license, they established in 2012. One of thepharmaceutical companies received such license in your country. Could you explain
further?
A5: We have issued the compulsory license for some pharmaceutical based on the basisof with human rights related to the access to cheap medicines. But we also put a higher
requirement to have trademark for drugs. The trademark for drugs should be highly
distinctive.
Q5: But what can be an object for compulsory license? What is the meaning ofnecessary?
A5: It has to be decided by national policy: which medicines should be commercialized3

by compulsory license or not. If the object of a patent is highly demanded by society, it
can be the subjected of CL. If there is a medicine and it is highly price, it can be subject
to compulsory license.

4