People working in the IP community would, I think, concede that right now IP has a problem. And it is this. Despite all it has done for the advancement of mankind - culturally, socially, technologically, economically and in health terms – most people outside the IP bubble are almost completely ignorant of what IP is all about. Those who have heard of it tend to be negative to a greater or lesser degree.

In boardrooms IP is usually seen as an expensive, defensive right that makes lawyers rich and companies poorer than they should be. In politics and policy making, IP is normally regarded as a technical subject best left to committees of experts, and not something to interest senior government figures. Among the general public, to the extent there is any interest at all, the feeling seems to be that IP owners make it harder for the poor to access medicines, kids to download music and anyone to buy branded goods, and so on

Those inside the IP bubble tend to find all of this very perplexing. They are certain that IP is a force for good. Without IP there would be no meaningful research into developing new medicines or areas of technology. Without IP there would be no incentive for people to create music, literature and films for a living. Without IP, there would be no way of easily distinguishing quality products from poor quality products. What the IP community is beginning to understand, though, is that the IP brand – for wont of a better term – is in a mess. People either do not know it or, if they do, they do not like it. And as any marketing expert will tell you, when your brand is viewed like that, you are in trouble.

All of which takes me to a meeting I went to yesterday in London. Members of the IP community, including Paula Nelson of Nestlé, Caroline Kamerbeek of Philips and Catriona Hammer of GE, as well as private practice lawyers, academics and researchers, came face to face with marketers. Conceived originally by Ian Harvey, chairman of the Intellectual Property Institute, and facilitated by two senior figures from the UK advertising and marketing industries – Paul Jackson and Mike Smith – the purpose of the meeting was to see whether the marketing people could work out how to decontaminate the IP brand and turn it into something that encapsulates a positive, easily accessible message. The job of the IP people was to sit and listen, and to speak only when they were spoken to.

It was a fascinating few hours and for many of the IP people quite frustrating too. They had to sit there and listen to the marketers struggle with what IP was all about, to misuse the terms they use so easily every day and to repeat many of the inaccurate claims that are made about IP on such a regular basis. But although it was frustrating, it was also very educational – this was the authentic voice of the non-IP person.

But do not think it was a wasted morning. That was far from the case. Instead, it was hugely encouraging. The marketers worked through their negatives to get to a series of positives that IP delivers. These were encapsulated in words such as wealth and enrichment. And it was not only financial gain for IP owners and creators they saw, but also huge benefits for society as a whole; in terms of the jobs and tax takes that IP owners generate; the technological and medical advances that R&D built on the back of patent protection produce; the cultural enrichment that comes from incentivising creativity through copyright; and the informed choices that brands and trademarks enable.

Overall the message from the marketers was upbeat: Brand IP may be poorly, but it can be revived. The issue for the IP community is how this can be done in practice. It is something that was discussed after the marketers had gone home. The conclusion was that a working party called the IP Brand Development Group should be formed. This will reach out to all types and all sizes of IP owner, certainly in Europe and North America, and quite possibly in Asia too. Investment will be necessary to bring about further contact with marketers so that a positive message can be crafted and to ensure that this message is backed up with research which shows that what is being claimed is grounded in reality. Significant time and resources will have to be dedicated to education at all levels – no propaganda, but information that allows people to get a better understanding of IP so that they can come to informed conclusions about it. And it all needs to start happening sooner rather than later. By the autumn at the very latest.

The consensus at the end was that although the task is a daunting one, it is something that can be done. In fact, it is something that has to be done. Of course, none of this will stop IP owners having major differences over specific issues and ways of exploiting rights, while many will need to be convinced that there is anything in it for them at all. But the truth is that all IP owners have a stake in ensuring that people in boardrooms, parliaments and pubs understand what patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and everything else are all about, and the many benefits they bring. Without such understanding, IP rights will always be vulnerable to attack. And, in the end, if they go unanswered such attacks will lead to the erosion of protection, not only to the detriment of rights owners, but also to the world in general. How does that old song go: “Why does it always seem to go that you don’t know what you've got ‘til it’s gone?”

I will keep you posted on this. But really you should be getting involved.

Sectors

IP politics, Brands, Copyright, Patents, IP business

Comments