Summary
The Pathfinders 2034 report looks ahead to two possible futures for intellectual property — one fragmented and dominated by AI at the cost of human creativity, and another connected, inclusive, and balanced. While it sets out clear action points for governments, it rests on two untested assumptions: that IP drives innovation and creativity, and that it must remain central, merely adapting to new technologies. Without asking whether IP truly encourages human ingenuity in an AI driven world, or recognising its costs to access, public welfare, and follow on work, the vision risks repeating old mistakes. What is needed is a balanced, evidence based view that serves creativity, innovation, and the public good together.
In July 2025, the World Intellectual Property Organization released its foresight study, Pathfinders 2034. The report looks ten years ahead to imagine how intellectual property might evolve in a fast changing, technology driven world. Drawing on more than forty five structured interviews, it examines the future through political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental perspectives.
Intellectual Property Action Points for Governments The report urges governments and stakeholders to:
- Work towards compatibility between national IP systems
- Strengthen multilateral cooperation • Modernise rules and policies
- Accelerate digital transformation
- Reinvent IP education
- Build stronger collaboration across borders
- Ensure the system remains relevant and inclusive Yin and Yang IP Scenarios
To make its findings clear, the report offers two scenarios for 2034. The first, called the Yin, is a difficult future. It describes a fragmented and costly system with isolationist policies, predatory practices, and an AI driven creative space that sidelines human ingenuity. The second, called the Yang, is the preferred future. It envisions a globally connected, digitally transformed, and inclusive system, supported by better education and a balanced role for technology and human creativity. The message in the report is that the choices made today will decide which of these futures becomes reality.
Assumptions That Need Testing
While the report is well written and paints engaging possibilities, it rests on two untested assumptions that limit its value.
First assumption – Intellectual property incentivises and promotes innovation and creativity, which would not happen in its absence.
This belief has been repeated for decades but remains unproven. Before forecasting the future of IP, it is important to ask: does IP genuinely encourage human creativity and invention? And if it does, will it continue to do so when AI can invent, design, author, and produce at scale? Future policy decisions should be based on evidence, not belief.
Second assumption – IP must continue to play a central role and only needs to adapt to new technologies.
Relying on this assumption is risky. It entrenches the position of existing right holders at the expense of new entrants. It also overlooks the costs that exclusive rights impose on the public, on access to knowledge and products, and on follow on research.
The report calls for IP to be integrated into every law and policy making effort, yet it does not emphasise that IP must also respect other laws, public interest, and broader goals of social welfare. Over the last decade, much of the focus has been on promoting the advantages of IP, such as rising filings, growing investments, and monetisation opportunities. There has been far less attention on how IP can limit public good, restrict access, and marginalise significant parts of the world. The report acknowledges some of these issues but stops short of asking the hard questions.
Some Thoughts
A balanced approach to the future of creativity and innovation must weigh the benefits and harms of IP together. It must also recognise that in some contexts, alternative tools such as open models or shared data resources may serve innovation better than exclusive rights. Without this balance, a modernised IP system risks carrying old problems into the future.
The Pathfinders report is a useful guide to what might happen, but it is not proof of what works. As technology and AI reshape the landscape of creation and invention, the need for honest, evidence based assessment is greater than ever. Future reports of this nature would better serve humanity if they offered a truly balanced perspective, one that promotes understanding, recognises limitations, and considers diverse ways to encourage innovation and creativity for the benefit of all.
WIPO’s Pathfinders 2034 report can be accessed here – https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-2013-en-wipo-pathfinders-report.pdf
