The two button toilets (or dual flush) were invented in the early 1980s in Australiato reduce water consumption. After a first presentation, different inventors made improvements to the original creation and there were several patents granted around the world for these improvements. Everything went very well, the product became popular and the inventors made good money.
What would have happened if the toilet in question had been invented in our country?
In principle, the inventor would have immediately encountered two problems: territoriality and novelty. For him principle of territoriality, To have protection in a country you must file the respective patent application and this must be done in each of the territories where protection is sought.
If the Argentine inventor files his application only in Argentina, but does not file it, for example, in the United States, he cannot collect royalties for the use of the two-button toilet there. Assuming a minimum cost of about US$10,000 per country, a skyrocketing sum can be reached, which is most likely not within the reach of an individual or an SME.
The second obstacle is novelty: For an invention to be patented, it must have absolute novelty. That is, it has not been disclosed anywhere else in the world.
How inventions are patented
To regulate this, in 1886, an ingenious treaty called Paris Convention. According to this treaty, an Argentine inventor has a period of one year after submitting the patent in Argentina to establish it in other countries without losing the novelty of his invention. This gave ships the opportunity to cross the ocean and carry out the corresponding procedures in each country. The one-year period would allow the inventor to get a very large sum of money from investors to be able to present his application worldwide.
But unfortunately, as the two button toilet It may seem obvious once invented, although it is a genius in terms of saving water, our inventor may not be able to convince investors in such a short period of time to contribute so much money to file their patent application on the invention in other countries.
What is the Patent Cooperation Treaty?
As a consequence of that, in the best of cases you could only present your invention in Argentina, missing out on the possibility of collecting royalties (and bringing foreign currency to our country) in other markets. The one-year period of the Paris Convention was thus very short. Then in 1970 the PCT or Patent Cooperation Treaty.
The PCT is a procedural treaty only and does not refer to the substantive part (whether or not the invention should be patented). Its charm is that the 12-month period is extended to 30, a much more suitable period for the inventor to be able to find investors to finance the presentation of the respective patents. The mechanism established by that treaty is so convenient that it has already been adopted by practically everyone, with some honorable exceptions: Venezuela, Pakistan, Afghanistan… And Argentina.
Looking at the map and seeing how practically everyone is a member of the PCT except Argentina is even a little embarrassing and is something that draws attention in international forums, because it is not understood how at this point a country as important as ours is not yet a member of the treaty. Because with the PCT, any doctoral student at a university in the world can present their thesis without major problems as a patent application and dedicate themselves for 30 months to convincing investors of the benefits of their creation. And we are talking about a patent application with international potential.
Thus the possibility of encouraging the creation of technology is exponential. Both in the field of artificial intelligence that we are now trying to promote in our country, biotechnology, nuclear energy, and in any other area of technology. For example, the toilets. Thus, foreign researchers have an advantage over ours: They ride in Ferrari, while Argentines ride in Fitito.
Argentina’s backwardness in terms of technology creation
Today Argentine inventors, CONICET, Argentine universities and small and medium-sized companies have to juggle to be able to use the PCT: They look for inventors with dual nationality, with all the complications that this brings later in the process, they create companies in Delaware or use a subsidiary in Brazil, to be able to have the benefit of the 30 months. Meanwhile, multinationals, Argentine or foreign, have no problem using the PCT through their subsidiaries. The problem lies with researchers from the Argentine government, Argentine universities, SMEs and small inventors.
To get an idea of the Argentine backwardness in terms of technology creation, In 1969, 1,700 patents were filed in South Korea, while 7,000 were filed in Argentina. In 2022, 3,000 patent applications were filed in Argentina, that is, 4,000 less than in 1969. In South Korea, 230,000 were filed. This innovation deficit is multi-causal, but the lack of approval of the PCT treaty is one of the reasons.
The most curious thing is that experience shows that the countries that joined the PCT did not suffer any damage to their economy. The number of patent applications remained the same. There is a very complete study by two Uruguayan economists that amply demonstrate that no damage would be caused to the Uruguayan economy by the approval of the treaty.
Countries with more prosperous generic pharmaceutical industries, such as Canada, Israel and India, have had the PCT approved in their legislation for a long time without this having in any way harmed the possibility of these industries to operate successfully..
Furthermore, the PCT has implications for investments. To enter the OECD or to sign a treaty with the United States, its approval is an essential requirement.
The PCT is neither more nor less than another measure of deregulation and freedom and lowering costs for Argentine inventors. In 1998 the Argentine Senate approved the PCT. But 27 years later its approval in Deputies is still pending. In parallel, Uruguay has just sanctioned it with the favorable vote of the left and right political parties, as part of an initiative to create a technology “hub.”
Let us hope that Congress, particularly the Chamber of Deputies, finally approves the treaty in Argentina. We are alone in the world on this issue and that is not good for the country or for Argentine inventors or for promoting a positive investment climate.
Partner of Marval O’Farrell Mairal.
Source: Ambito
I am an author and journalist who has worked in the entertainment industry for over a decade. I currently work as a news editor at a major news website, and my focus is on covering the latest trends in entertainment. I also write occasional pieces for other outlets, and have authored two books about the entertainment industry.
