Response to interpellation 2022/23:353 on an offensive innovation strategy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns an offensive innovation strategy for Sweden. S wants the government to develop a strategy to strengthen competitiveness, create green jobs, and manage challenges with AI and digitalization 1. S also wants knowledge of intellectual property rights to be increased broadly, that patent data is used systematically to avoid double research 2, and that infringements are stopped 1 3. KD argues that the government is already working strategically within the EU and globally to create conditions for the business sector 4. KD believes that ongoing strategies should be established before a specific innovation strategy is defined 5 and wants to avoid double work 6. KD is, however, willing to return with a mandate if the current work does not meet the objective 6 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Aida Birinxhiku has asked me if I and the government intend to produce an innovation strategy that meets the need for knowledge of intellectual property as a strategic resource, the use of patent data, and the adaptation of intellectual property protection based on developments within artificial intelligence and digitalization.
International competition is becoming increasingly tougher, and more and more companies are competing with knowledge-intensive goods and services largely based on intangible assets. This makes the strategic management of these assets absolutely crucial and something that can strengthen the competitiveness of the business sector and Sweden. Since much of the innovative development work, as well as the companies' distribution of new innovations, today takes place on a European and often also a global market, the government's initiatives in the area must be adapted accordingly. It will therefore be a priority for the government to work actively and strategically within the EU and globally to create the very best conditions for the Swedish innovative business sector.
Long-term and continuous work is important. Therefore, the Swedish Intellectual Property Office has a mandate according to its instructions to promote growth and strengthen the capacity for innovation and competitiveness throughout the country by informing about and contributing to increased understanding of intellectual property and rights. At universities and colleges, an active responsibility is taken to support researchers in the management of intellectual property, for example via innovation offices.
The Government is currently working on developing strategies in several areas: a climate action plan, a strategy for northern Sweden, a strategy for foreign trade, investments and global competitiveness, and a first national strategy for companies in cultural and creative industries. The Government has also appointed a productivity commission whose task is to analyze which factors affect productivity growth and submit proposals to increase productivity growth in the business sector. Additionally, the Government has tasked research funders and educational institutions to submit analyses and proposals ahead of the upcoming research and innovation bill.
When this collective work has moved forward, the government will have the opportunity to take a position on the need for an innovation strategy specifically aimed at intangible assets.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer. I would like to dwell on the importance of intellectual property rights for Swedish innovative power. We talk far too little about intellectual property rights in this chamber.
We need intellectual property rights to achieve the green transition, secure the electricity supply, and create new jobs. It is about creating incentives to develop the climate-smart solutions of the future. It is about promoting the development of new technology in, for example, renewable energy, energy storage, and energy efficiency. It is simply about Sweden taking the lead in the green transition.
We should, of course, be proud that Sweden is one of the world's leading innovation nations, but there are several areas where we need to become much better – otherwise, we risk falling behind.
First and foremost, we need to increase knowledge about intellectual property as a strategic asset, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises and within the university and college world. We need to increase knowledge about how, when, and why innovations can be protected.
Secondly, it is high time that we start using patent information in a systematic and strategic way so that we can invest research funds where they do the most good.
Furthermore, intellectual property rights must be adapted to the rapid developments regarding AI and digitalization.
Finally, we need to do much more to put a stop to the growing problem of intellectual property rights infringement.
Against this background, we Social Democrats want the government to develop an offensive innovation strategy that can meet the challenges I have outlined. A clear way forward is needed for how our efforts within the intellectual property area should be designed in the best possible way so that we can accelerate the green transition, strengthen Swedish competitiveness, and create new jobs across the entire country.
Madam Speaker! I welcome the government's ongoing work in this area. But the government must take a collective grip and work strategically with these issues, just as in the work with a national strategy for cultural and creative industries. The Minister for Energy and Enterprise should agree with this because the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats have pushed the issue of an intellectual property rights strategy in Sweden.
Therefore, it is remarkable that the government now responds that the same parties must wait when it comes to taking a position on whether there is even a need for an innovation strategy focused on intangible assets. Furthermore, the government parties choose to reject our motion on an innovation strategy in Sweden without any justification that such work is underway. The government also chooses to reduce the appropriation to our innovation agency Vinnova by almost 26 million kronor in our spring budget.
Madam Speaker! In view of this, a clarification from the government would be appropriate. How does the government actually view the future of Swedish innovative power? My question to Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch remains: Will the government work out an innovation strategy for Sweden?
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Finally, we get to debate a bit more about intellectual property rights here in the chamber! I hope that the Minister looks forward to this as much as I have.
For us Social Democrats, it is a self-evident truth that Swedish companies should compete with knowledge and competence, not with low wages. Innovation power is absolutely crucial for us to continue to be world-leading. We are ranked as one of the world's best innovation countries, and by leading the climate transition, we are creating amounts of new green jobs all over Sweden. It is phenomenal! And it is entirely dependent on us being good at intellectual property rights and innovations.
Madam Speaker! The Covid pandemic demonstrated with all desired clarity the importance of having a robust patent system so that one dares to invest large sums in, for example, new vaccine forms. Had this not been in place, we might still have an ongoing deadly pandemic today.
In order to be world-leading even in the future, Sweden needs to become even better at taking advantage of the available knowledge that exists in the open patent systems, among other things, and at commercializing important innovations.
Madam Speaker! The Minister refers to its work at an international level, at the EU level, and it is absolutely needed. That is where we in the Social Democratic government were driving. But this alone does not increase the innovative power in Sweden; more is needed.
For that reason, my colleague Jennie Nilsson and I have written a motion where we propose that the government should develop an offensive innovation strategy with a focus on intellectual property rights. This has unfortunately been rejected by the government's party and others in the Tidö group.
We mean that by using the available information in patent databases more systematically, we could invest our joint research funds where they do the most good instead of, which unfortunately happens sometimes today, researching things that have already been explored and even patented.
Many small and medium-sized enterprises have innovations that should be protected, but as my colleague said earlier, the knowledge is too poor when it comes to when, and in that case how, to protect their innovations. We Social Democrats want to change this with a knowledge package.
Madam Speaker! Who owns the rights when AI has created something? It is a problem that the world is still grappling with. Sweden needs to take the lead when it comes to creating a modern and technology-neutral regulatory framework for this.
Illegal IP-TV is a gigantic problem, just like the trade with pirated copies. It causes Swedish companies to lose billions in revenue and the state also loses large tax revenues. So we cannot have that.
Madam Speaker! Knowledge of intellectual property rights is clearly too low in large parts of society, even among many of the authors behind important innovations. I therefore wonder if the Minister thinks it is reasonable that an engineer can graduate from a Swedish university without having any knowledge whatsoever of intellectual property rights, even though the engineers will hopefully be involved in developing future innovations. Does the Minister mean that this is reasonable?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I will begin by saying, regarding the hope that I will be as excited as others to discuss intellectual property rights, that the answer is yes! I must say again that this is one of the issues where we lift our gaze from the most acute here and now and look at that which strengthens Sweden in the long term.
It is exactly as both members are pointing out. This has become quite acute. Suddenly, AI exploded. What many thought sounded like a fantasy five years ago, two years ago, or even a year ago, suddenly affects every single area. Not least, it has put the question of intellectual property rights in a very tough situation.
Sweden is one of the most patent-dense countries in the entire world. We are a country of inventors. We are a country of innovation. We are a country that has been given a pound to manage, and we truly manage it. And try to get absolutely the most out of it.
It is this that has enabled a small, export-dependent country in northern Europe to become so successful and also build such a strong welfare across the entire country. It is because of our innovations. Over the last hundred years, we have gone from being one of Europe's poorest countries to being one of Europe's most prosperous countries. In the middle of the 1800s, the industrialization of Sweden began. That is when we received many of the great innovations that allowed one to slowly but surely move from manual power to machine power.
The future - which is why the EU talks so much not only about green transition but also about digital transition - will be digital and connected in a way that I believe none of us can fully oversee today. It is about digitalization, AI, deep tech and telecommunication. The countries that lead the development in these areas will also have very much to gain.
Just today, Sweden is quite well-equipped to be at the forefront. We have a diversified economy with many different sizes of our companies and one of the world's highest concentrations of so-called unicorns. 3.4 percent of GDP is spent on research. We have a high level of education. But if we relax now, we will very quickly be overtaken, and it is this that I perceive the interpellor is asking about in their interpellation.
It is a difficult task for me to determine exactly what should be part of our educations. It is repeatedly pointed out that politics should not intervene and micro-manage our universities and colleges in that way. On the other hand, we have a task to ensure that we fundamentally have an education system that matches the needs that will exist on the labor market. It is obvious that with the changes that have occurred in recent years, we risk a large gap in competence.
Let me go back a little bit to the original interpellation question. I think I have tried to answer as straight and concretely as possible here. The government has, therefore, initiated work on strategies in very many different areas simultaneously. We need to get a part of that work in place before we can delimit exactly how an innovation strategy in Sweden could look and how extensive it could be. Many of the other strategies that we are initiating also concern this.
So this is not a no. It is a maybe maybe. We could very well stand here in a few years with a decision that it will become such, but then with a clearer mandate.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I agree that Sweden is at the forefront in these issues, and that is because this has been a priority area for all Social Democratic-led governments. In government position, we have, among other things, implemented investment after investment in knowledge-enhancing measures. We have tightened the penalties for the most serious cases of intellectual property rights infringements, and we have also pushed forward the work for a unified patent system at the EU level, which makes it easier and cheaper for Swedish innovators to utilize their ideas. After many years of negotiations, this reform finally came into force on June 1.
We are naturally proud of our work in this area, but more needs to be done. We need to become even better at increasing knowledge on how our innovations can be protected. We need to become better at using research funds more effectively and ensuring that innovations can be commercialized to a greater extent.
The work to develop an innovation strategy was initiated by the Social Democrats in the Committee on Industry during the previous parliamentary term. Now it is up to the current government to continue the work to strengthen Sweden's innovative power during this parliamentary term.
Madam Speaker! If we take a comparative perspective on this debate, we see that there is much to learn, not least from our Nordic neighbors because we largely share the same challenges in the area of innovation.
Denmark has long had an innovation strategy and also developed an intellectual property strategy a few years ago. Finland developed a national intellectual property strategy several years ago and recently developed an updated version.
Norway also works strategically with intellectual property issues, not least when it comes to the use of patent information. The Norwegian Patent Office performs in-depth patent analyses every year to be able to invest research funds where they do the most good. We should also do this in Sweden, because with the help of patent information we can avoid double research, accelerate innovations and study development trends all around the world.
There is so much valuable knowledge that we simply do not use. Therefore, we must begin to analyze patent information in a systematic way to increase the returns on our innovation initiatives.
Madam Speaker! This is about the future of Sweden as an industrial nation. We need an innovation strategy that can meet the challenges we face, which reinforces the importance of intellectual property rights for innovation policy and which is constantly updated to follow societal developments. Therefore, it is time for the government to begin the work to develop such a strategy.
This is something that already exists in several of our Nordic neighboring countries. It is something that is requested by the business community and by affected actors. It is also something that can gather a broad political majority. The government parties themselves have driven the issue and stated that there is a need for a national strategy.
Since I have not received a clear answer, I want to repeat my question to Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch: Will the government develop such a strategy? Is it the government's ambition - yes or no?
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Enterprise, for the answer! I choose to interpret the answer as that the Minister for Enterprise also agrees that knowledge of intellectual property needs to increase in many places, even if neither the Minister nor I can control the content of the training.
Most patents in Sweden are owned by a few companies. There are some very large and successful companies that have their own IP departments. They have excellent knowledge. But in the vast majority of companies, this is lacking, as well as among many innovators and many researchers at our universities. That is why knowledge needs to increase broadly, I believe and the Social Democrats believe.
I want to repeat the question that Member Birinxhiku asked: What is it that causes the Minister and the government to delay? The Christian Democrats, the Moderates, and the Liberals wanted an intellectual property rights strategy before the election. Svenskt Näringsliv has submitted concrete proposals for an intellectual property rights strategy. In our motion, we have submitted concrete proposals on what an innovation strategy could contain. It is only for the government to get started. What is it that is holding the government back?
If we are to have a successful business sector in the future and lead the green development, we must start today. When will the government begin the work on an effective innovation strategy with an emphasis on intellectual property rights?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I think the members' rating of my answer is a bit stingy, actually. It is almost summer. I think I might be able to get a slightly more generous rating without, for that reason, being accused of urging for a joyful rating of the government's efforts here in the chamber. Look how funny we can be!
I am trying to give a seriously intended answer to a very seriously intended question. But I will try to formulate it more clearly.
Madam Speaker! The Government sees the same needs that are raised in the member's interpellation. It concerns what one intends to try to achieve with a request for an innovation strategy. But we are now putting forward strategies in many different areas that partially touch upon this area – a climate action plan, a strategy for northern Sweden, a strategy for foreign trade, investments and global competitiveness, where the issue of intellectual property rights will indeed be very important, as well as a first national strategy for companies in cultural and creative industries. At the same time, we have appointed a productivity commission whose task is to analyze which factors affect productivity growth. Furthermore, we have tasked research funders and educational institutions to submit both analyses and proposals for the upcoming research and innovation bill, which we are working very actively on now.
What one is looking for when it comes to an innovation strategy is touched upon in many different places in the government's ongoing work. One could say: Start with an innovation strategy! Then, a very large amount of this work would be of interest. It would be interesting to pick out some of what is happening here and some of what is happening there. That is the reason why we want to come back with the answer. If we do not succeed in meeting what an innovation strategy would aim for with the work currently underway, we may perhaps need to issue a mandate to develop an innovation strategy. It could also be that we see that much is covered but not everything. In that case, it could very well be that we come back with a mandate for an innovation strategy.
But since we have initiated much work in this area, some of it new and some of it continuing the previous government's work in this area, Madam Speaker, we do not want to initiate another process. It risks becoming double work. Regarding analyses of what other countries are doing, we rather need to combine this and ensure that we do not double work.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I would like to use my final speech to emphasize what is at stake. Right now, a global climate race is underway. Countries are competing to take leading positions in the green transition.
We Social Democrats have implemented initiative after initiative so that Sweden will be at the forefront, because we want the jobs and the investments that the climate transition creates to end up in Sweden.
We are world leaders in a number of areas that are important for the transition, such as digitalization, the mining industry and energy technology. And if we can combine that with strategic innovation work, we can create a fast track for the green transition. Then we can take the lead.
Madam Speaker! We should be proud that Sweden is one of the world's leading innovation nations, but we must not lean back. As I have mentioned previously, there are several areas where we risk falling behind. Therefore, it is high time that the government begins the work of developing an offensive innovation strategy. It is my hope that the government can meet us halfway so that we can move forward in this issue.
A national rallying of forces is needed for Sweden to continue to be a leading industrial nation, an industrial nation that creates jobs, welfare, and growth. Both the Minister and I know that those who stand still are very quickly overtaken.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the member for the interpellation and for many wise words, not least the concluding ones.
I would like to conclude by broadening the perspective a little bit. We live in very restless times. Very many have assumed that the next generation will have it better. Mothers and fathers have previously always been able to assume that the next generation will have it even better than the previous generation. For the first time, a small question mark is being placed around that. We have, in fact, many big questions and clouds of worry in the sky. It is about security policy outside our country's borders and inside our country's borders, about great challenges in our welfare - school, health care and elderly care - and about very tough economic times. This makes some wonder what the future actually looks like in the long term.
I think we have a responsibility to show that Sweden has made it through tough times before. I am thinking of the transition we made in the middle of the 1800s with industrialization. We now have the opportunity for a new but green re-industrialization of Sweden, where digitalization and innovation are crucial. I think that is an important part of the narrative when it comes to the hope for a better tomorrow.
I am happy to join forces with the Social Democrats on the issue of how we pave the way for research and stronger intellectual property rights in Sweden. And I will return to the question as clearly as possible. If all the strategies and the work currently underway in the Government Offices do not meet the intent of a pure innovation strategy, we will be able to return with such a mandate. I look forward to input with specifically the innovation glasses on regarding much of the work that the government has now initiated.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.