News headlines last week were ablaze with the court decision that left Apple triumphant over Samsung: a decision that will cost Samsung over a billion dollars for patent and design infringements.

A few days later, Google retaliated with a case against Apple. Samsung smart phones run Google’s Android operating system so this makes for some good popcorn drama over the next few months. Imitation is the highest form of flattery but in the tech world – as demonstrated by Apple, this comes at a heavy price (even though interestingly, Apple lost its case against Samsung in a court in Tokyo, Japan) The line between imitation and innovation is indeed a thin one: trade-off between balancing benefits that go to the inventor and/or the public versus old and new discoveries alike. But it’s easy to think: why put up all that capital/investments in R&D when someone has something new and cool that I can copy? One example in Rwanda: I don’t know to what extent businesses are offered protection but I have seen a number of products packaged exactly like similar products of a leading brand– obviously to mislead the customer into believing they are buying the leading product.

One such case is the packaging of Blessed Farm yogurt that replicates the packaging of Masaka Farms yogurt. In this example, ‘plagiarizing’ a concept that Masaka Farms might have invested in comes unfairly to them (This is only an example as the nature of the agreements between both parties is unknown to me). Patent laws are designed to give inventors temporary monopoly – making an impact on society – whilst allowing recovery on R&D on the innovator’s part; innovators shouldn’t make a loss for their efforts yet at the same time society has to be protected from over-paying for it.

But that also means government overreach can restrain innovation as seems to me to be so in the case of Apple vs. Samsung: ideas are built on existing ideas and if there is a complex web of IP laws, it makes building on foundational ideas expensive.In Rwanda, the IP ground is still fresh, allowing for the seeds to be ‘sown right’. IP protection is more pertinent than ever given the poverty reduction strategy driven by science, technology and innovation; considering the nascent stage of innovation within those fields, it is only fitting that the IP infrastructure be accommodating.

It is encouraging that the Rwandan IP law promulgated in 2009 offers protection to Rwandan innovators and businesses, as well as empowers innovators from all sectors.The fundamental question now is, given our budding tech sector, how does IP encourage innovation, if at all it does (can run the risk of stifling it altogether). An IPR legal framework cannot really be the sole driver but a transformation can become apparent as a result of systematic trade/economic development policies that provide incentives for innovation and protection through IP.

Patent applications are published and made available as public technical information thus creating a knowledge pool that stimulates R&D; in line with this, duplication is avoided. I dare say venture capitalists seek out companies with IPR that can be exploited: companies that don’t have the cash to capitalize on their IP assets.

Rwanda’s stage is not yet ready to orchestrate the kind of drama between Apple and Samsung, but maybe we are lucky because we have the opportunity to write the script, just write for the coming future.