Sustainable Microbreweries

I was recently interviewed by Nikki Wiart for a story about “Sustainable Microbreweries.” Other interviewees include my University of Alberta colleague Matthew Grimes, and Neil Herbst, owner and founder of Alley Kat Brewing Company, Edmonton’s oldest microbrewery.

The segment covered a range of issues: the importance of distinctiveness and legitimacy, the liability of newness, and some of the policy considerations related to small and large businesses. Below is one quote from the interview:

A lot of small businesses [and] new startups face a similar set of challenges, which [are]: one, around distinctiveness. What is my point of difference? How do I compete in the marketplace? But then [two] also around legitimacy. So, how is it that my customers and other stakeholders are going to take me seriously and think that I am viable? … Whether you are a microbrewery or some other kind of business, those are the kinds of challenges you are facing.

The interview was broadcast on Terra Informa, a weekly environmental program produced by CJSR and syndicated to about 50 radio stations throughout Canada. The interview starts about 2 minutes into the program and runs about 10 minutes long.

In addition to Alley Kat Brewing Company (which was founded in 1994), two other microbreweries call the Edmonton area home: Amber’s Brewing Company (founded in 2007) and Yellowhead Brewery (founded in 2010). Of note, Yellowhead Brewery is located in the space formerly occupied by Maverick Brewing Company (which was founded in 2005 and went out of business in 2007). The Alberta Small Brewers Association counts 11 members throughout the province.

Energywire Covers Fracking Patents Paper

My working paper – Fracking Patents: The Emergence of Patents as Information Containment Tools in Shale Drilling – with Dan Cahoy and Zhen Lei was the subject of a recent story by Gayathri Vaidyanathan in Energywire, a publication of E&E Publishing.

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: Flurry of patents could hinder chemical research, legal experts warn  (Monday, July 23, 2012)

Gayathri Vaidyanathan, E&E reporter

Companies that invent novel hydraulic fracturing chemicals or methods could use patents filed with the Patent and Trademark Office to stop scientists from studying the environmental and health impacts of the chemicals, some legal experts warn.

The situation has not yet occurred but needs to be on the government’s radar as a possibility, said Daniel Cahoy, associate professor of business law at Pennsylvania State University.

Since 2005, the patent office has issued an increasing number of patents related to fracking, a process in which pressurized water, sand and chemicals are injected into the earth to extract oil and gas. Most of these patents have been for chemical additives used in the fracturing process, such as gelling agents used to keep proppants suspended in water or nanochemicals that increase production.

Patents are meant to promote knowledge sharing by granting the patentee sole rights to an invention for some time, in exchange for revealing the details of the invention to the world.

But due to court decisions in the United States, patents also allow companies to stop unauthorized use of the invention by scientists for noncommercial purposes. This role of patents could be used to limit independent research into environmental and health effects, according to draft legal study, Cahoy said.

“Given that experimentation with some of the chemicals and methods used in hydraulic fracturing are necessary to understand the dangers, it is possible patents could be used as a means of controlling that information,” he said.

The issue highlights the controversy surrounding the secrecy in fracking. Companies often designate certain components in fracking fluids as “trade secrets,” which are different from patents because they hinge on complete secrecy. Industry says the secrets give companies a competitive edge in particular shales that are challenging to drill.

But the secret can be broken and details about the invention can become well-known. This is especially true as state governments such as Pennsylvania’s and Wyoming’s have exerted pressure on companies to reveal, confidentially to the government, their secrets. This increases the likelihood that secrecy could be challenged in court or that other ingredients in a recipe could be figured out. Once a secret is out, there can be no further safeguard against competition or unauthorized use; a company cannot have a trade secret and a patent for the same chemical.

“If you are the only one in your field that is doing something, and nobody is going to figure it out independently, you might as well keep it as a trade secret,” said Rochelle Dreyfuss, a professor at New York University School of Law. “But as the number of participants in the field starts to increase, the chances that somebody else is going to figure out what you figured out will increase, too, so at that point it might be worth getting patents.”

With the proliferation of drilling companies and greater governmental pressure to reveal fracking fluid recipes, even more patents could be filed in the future to protect against competition, said Cahoy. And those intellectual property rights can be enforced uniformly, against competitors and even scientists.

“As trade secrets become less viable as information disclosure is compelled [by government], patents become the only alternative or the better alternative,” he said.

article continues at Energywire (login required)

 The full paper is available for download from SSRN.