TRADEMARKS
Mental health and tech: what role can IP play?
Rapid technological advances have exerted positive and negative effects on our mental health, so how can the law and IP help swing the pendulum in favour of the former, asks Alex Gardiner of EIP.
Technology is, more than ever, a fundamental part of the world we live in. Phones and computers are practically ubiquitous, and we simply cannot ignore the ways that our increased use of, and reliance on, technology affects our mental health.
This cannot be said too often: systemic inequality and prejudice play by far the greatest role in mental health inequality on local and global scales. Technological advances in the field carry these issues with them.
As technology advances, and sophisticated communications devices have become more commonplace, sufferers from poor mental health have increasingly turned to technological solutions to the problems we deal with day to day. This has become more readily observable with the lockdowns imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unable to conduct face-to-face sessions, people turned to Zoom calls and apps, seeking a way to further their recovery journeys through technological means.
Limited access to wellbeing tech
These methods, in particular mental health apps, are still an emerging field and have not been subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as traditional therapies, but there can be little doubt that they are becoming steadily more prevalent. Studies have suggested that they can be beneficial, with research suggesting that “mobile apps can be used to effectively treat common mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety”.
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)—with a focus on mindfulness training, mood monitoring, and cognitive skills training to treat depressive symptoms—appears particularly well-suited for delivery by mobile app. Studies show at least a small to moderate improvement in depressive symptoms compared to control conditions.
However, as beneficial as these programmes and applications may be, the unpleasant truth is that access to them is limited across various segments of society. Income inequality and geographic restrictions may mean that a great many users are unable to use these resources. In segments of society without access to devices such as smartphones or laptops, these apps simply do not offer a feasible solution. Several of these solutions are subscription-based, meaning that users who cannot afford the recurring fee are barred from computerised therapies in the same way they are from in-person ones.
”Throwing up our hands and saying ‘this isn’t our field’ has never been a good reason to avoid taking action, and it’s not one I’m willing to put my name to.”
Alex Gardiner
Although technology-based solutions to mental health concerns should, in theory, make access to resources more immediate and available, as well as removing some of the societal stigmas around “seeing a shrink”, the truth of the matter is that access to technology itself is not equal. If we are moving closer towards widespread use of technology-based solutions, there is every reason to believe that we will still see inequalities in our society reflected back at us when dealing with mental health.
Technology keeps us connected. Social media platforms do a particularly good job of this, but it brings with it an unending torrent of content, and this takes a toll on users. The constant stream of information and interaction is bringing a new dimension to existing mental health concerns. Heavy use of platforms such as Instagram and Facebook correlates strongly with increased anxiety and the fear of missing out (FOMO).
Where does IP come in?
Talking about mental health issues from the standpoint of the legal industry is always a little tricky. Laws are very broad, overarching things—they have to be if they’re going to work—and applying them to something such as mental health is very hard, because mental health is such an intensely personal thing.
This problem is exacerbated when we look at it from an IP perspective. At its basic level, IP is concerned with things: we use patents for technical inventions, copyright for aesthetic creations, trademarks to distinguish businesses and brands. We don’t delve into the personal realm too much. Mental health is always something that deals with people instead.
However, throwing up our hands and saying “this isn’t our field” has never been a good reason to avoid taking action, and it’s not one I’m willing to put my name to.
Perhaps the most obvious solution, in terms of IP and the law, to spread the beneficial technologies discussed above would be to encourage licensing programmes for these apps and systems around the world. Where cost and accessibility are barriers, active licensing, and development programmes to provide these devices, applications and possibilities to a wider audience could be a key to expanding these potential therapies.
The same goes for expanding access to the infrastructure necessary to use the available technology. A whole range of charities and foundations is already trying to spread technology around the world, so trying to connect more people, and encouraging partnerships between foundations and tech developers may provide an invaluable boost to the availability of powerful tools for wellbeing.
When it comes to the negative effects of technology on our mental health, perhaps a more aggressive solution would be beneficial. There’s a very old maxim that states: “the health of the people should be the highest law”—the rapid expansion of technology has made it hard to hang on to that where mass media and mass communication are concerned.
We’re scrambling to identify the effects these advances have had on our collective health, so our laws are constantly in a state of catchup. It seems as though more regulation is required in order to protect the nation’s collective health, especially for younger and more vulnerable people.
Laws are needed to prevent the spreading of misinformation, to limit certain data collection to avoid larger corporate and political entities targeting vulnerable users, and to impose harsher penalties on malicious use of social media to harass, shame or stalk other users.
These are all things that are being floated but they are still behind the curve—if we are going to uphold that highest law, then such laws need to be pushed harder, and accelerated so that we’re at least trying to keep pace with rapid technological advances. We can no longer sit back and wait, so that in five or ten years we’re not saying: “If only we’d done something sooner.”
If we—as conscientious professionals in this industry—want to see actual change, then we should be doing what we can to make sure the rights we deal in and the legal protections we uphold are being used to care for those who need their safeguarding the most. We have power, knowledge, and skills that others do not. If we care about these issues, we can do more to change them.
Alex Gardiner is an associate in EIP’s London office. He can be contacted at: agardiner@eip.com
Images, from top: Shutterstock / kirill_makarov, stas11
