Tag Archives: CIPU

Can the U.S. compete with China without a focused innovation policy?

More nations today have an innovation policy than do not – that is except for the U.S. 

The U.S. not only has no centralized innovation and intellectual property policy, it has no real strategy for making IP rights more meaningful and American businesses more competitive in the wake of initiatives from China.

Some believe it is not the job of policymakers to tinker with free-markets or favor certain industries. Well, that may have worked in the past, but with China committed to dominating global innovation – and with unlimited capital – the U.S. must reexamine its strategies.

What it is not supposed to do is assume that it is business as usual.

The United States has a tendency to repeat past mistakes, such as in the case of so-called “Japan, Inc.,” which devastated the auto and electronics industries with more advanced products. It is currently contending with China, which has approximately ten times the population of Japan and has quadrupled its investment in technology over the past decade.

“US innovation policy: Time for a makeover,” a fresh take on dealing with competition in the Intangible Investor, can be found in the July IAM magazine, out this week, here.

Innovation policy in the United States is mostly a series of suggested strategies and directives from several government agencies and industry organisations primarily designed to address foreign IP infringement (i.e., theft). It is often tied to science and economic policy, and is typically reactive – not proactive.

“Better innovation policy not only permits established industries to compete,” says the Intangible Investor, “it facilitates success for the next generation of inventors, authors, designers and software developers. It also helps to supply context for a confused and wary public susceptible to false media narratives – intellectual property is not the enemy, nor are rights holders and lawyers.”

Enforcement is Not Policy

Trump’s anger about China IP violations, justified or not, does not constitute an innovation policy. Innovation policy is not just about enforcement or supporting the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) curriculum for the next generation of inventors. It is about understanding the current economic and political context and responding as a nation.

“The FAANGs, and others, who dominate the competition and monetize their customers’ information, often without permission, realize they are increasingly symbols of bad business behavior,” Bruce Berman wrote recently in IP Watchdog. “The heat they feel from regulators in Europe and the U.S. will continue to rise.

“IP infringement will come to be seen as an increasingly important part of their bad behavior. The timing is perfect for them to step back and step up and show the leadership they heretofore have ignored regarding IP rights. Movement toward a responsible IP middle ground – a less entrenched position that recognizes others’ rights and actively conveys a greater willingness to share successes, not only defend them, will help to inform a meaningful IP policy.”

Quick-Reading Guide

For further background on U.S. innovation policy, read a timely and insightful perspective on U.S. innovation policy from James Goh, a young Wharton student from Singapore, “Primer: Innovation Policy in the United States.” 

For a linked quick-reading list about innovation and IP policy from the Center for IP Understanding, go to page 4.

Image source: q3research.com; breakinggap.com

 

 

Rep. Collins speaks from IP experience at CIPU-GIPC innovation policy forum

On Tuesday an open briefing was held in Washington to better understand U.S. innovation and IP policy. Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA), a supporter of strong and certain IP rights, launched the event with a personal account of his exposure to IP rights growing up in rural Georgia. 

He said that a number of his relatives and neighbors were chicken farmers, “some of whom invented new and more effective processes to produce and process eggs and poultry that were protected under IP law.”

The keynote comments of the Congressman were part of a program, “Innovation Policy and Intellectual Property: Building on a Strong Foundation,” held by the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU), an independent non-profit, and the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), a division of the United Stated Chamber of Commerce.

House Judiciary Committee

Congressman Collins is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and also is on the sub-committee for the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. He was a sponsor of the recently enacted, and broadly supported Music Modernization Act, which passed the House 415-0, and has developed and supported other IP-friendly legislation. “IP is a part of the fabric of the nation,” he said. “American freedom is tied to an effective IP system.”

Other presenters included CIPU board member Marshall Phelps, former Vice President of IP Business and Strategy at Microsoft and prior to that at IBM. Mr. Phelps also served as head of Government Relations for IBM in Washington in the 1980s, and previously was head of Asia-Pacific. He spoke about the threat to technology posed by “Japan, Inc.” in the Eighties, and how the U.S. was able to surmount the threat with the right combination of incentives.

“The threat to IP and innovation from China is real,” said Phelps in his introductory remarks, “but too much policy and the wrong incentives can create bigger problems. Making patent certainty a higher priority should be the first priority. Putting IP properly on the balance sheet would help, too.”

Manny Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel of IBM, also a CIPU director, and president of the Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) Education Foundation, was a panelist, as were, Alan Marco, former USPTO Chief Economist, Rob Atkinson, a pro-IP economist and President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), and Professor Adam Mossoff, an IP scholar and policy expert at George Mason University Scalia School of Law.

Among the goals of the panel was to explore:

  • What is U.S. innovation policy?
  • How does it relate to intellectual property?
  • Who should be responsible for it?
  • How should success be measured?

Audience Response

One the audience members asked if the Supreme Court, with Oil States and several other decisions, was “anti-IP.” The panel did not believe so, but thought that SCOTUS members may be poorly informed about the purpose and use if IP rights.

Another audience member stated the false narratives around phrases like patent “trolls” were part of a long-term “public relations campaign” that has seeded anger and hostility toward IP rights in general. He thought a sustained educational initiative could help to make the role of IP clearer for various audiences.

Image source: GIPC

Cong. Collins & Jeffries, and expert panel, will look at innovation policy and IP on May 8 in Washington

WASHINGTON, DC –– What is innovation policy? What does it mean to U.S. competition and jobs? Who is responsible for it?

These are among the questions that will be addressed at an afternoon briefing held by the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) at the headquarters of the United States Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Washington on May 8.

The event will feature two leading proponents of IP rights, Congressmen Doug Collins (R-GA) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), both members of the House Judiciary Committee, Sub-Committee on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.

“Innovation Policy and Intellectual Property: Building on a Strong Foundation” is being held by the Center for IP Understanding, an independent non-profit, and the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), a division of the Chamber. Persons interested in receiving an invitation please contact CIPU at explore@understandingip.org.

Preceding the Congressmen will be a panel, “What is Innovation Policy? Why is it Necessary?” featuring leading experts on innovation, IP and the economy, including:

 – Manny Schecter – Chief Patent Counsel of IBM, board member of CIPU and the IPO Education Foundation
Alan Marco – former Chief Economist for the USPTO and now Associate Professor of Public Policy at Georgia Tech
Adam Mossoff – Prof. of Law at George Mason University, Center for the Protection of IP
Robert Atkinson – founder and President of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), an independent think tank

Discussion Will Follow

A networking break will follow the panel and a reception will take place at the conclusion of the program.

Go here for information about the “Innovation Policy and Intellectual Policy: Building a Strong Foundation.”

“U.S. innovation policy and IP focus are seriously lacking,” said Marshall Phelps, former Vice President of IP Business and Strategy at Microsoft and at IBM, and a CIPU board member. “Other nations take their policies more seriously. The timing is right to dissect what U.S. innovation policy means and how it effects jobs and competition.”

Briefing partners and supporters include the Michaelson 20MM Foundation, the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Berkeley Research Group, the Tusher Center for Intellectual Capital Management at UC Berkeley-Haas and Open Invention Network.

Image source: understandingip.org; nesta.org.uk; theglobalipcenter.com; 

 

IP “literacy” matters – Ideas Matter promotes IP understanding for all

A basic literacy about IP rights is everyone’s responsibility. 

While at times complex, patents, copyrights, and trademarks can be widely understood if people are clear about their purpose and who they benefit.

Putting IP rights in perspective is serious business – especially given that knowledge-focused economies place an increasingly high premium on innovation, authorship, and brand.

Ideas Matter, a London-based consortium of IP holders and innovative businesses believes it is necessary to provide audiences more information about why IP rights are important and how it affects people. Recently, it teamed with the Center for IP Understanding at the IP Awareness Summitt in Chicago, to produce a video about the need for everyone to know more about IP rights.

“I think the economies of the world have realized that the market is controlled by innovation and invention,” said Judge Randall Rader (ret.), Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. “That requires research, that requires development of new ideas and resources, and, of course, those investments need protection.  That’s where the intellectual property system pays benefits.”

Ideas Matter released a video of interviews with IP experts and holders conducted at the IP Awareness Summit in Chicago. IPAS 2017 was held by the Center for IP Awareness (CIPU) in conjunction with Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology.

For background about the video and Ideas Matter, go here. Twitter: @IP_IdeasMatter.

To view the five-minute video, go here or click on the image above.

Image source: ideasmatter.com

Perception of patents & other IP rights is being taken more seriously

Do IP users – both businesses and individuals – view rights like patents and copyrights as potential assets that benefit commerce and society? Or, do they see them as nuisances to be ignored and, in some cases, disdained?

How IP rights are perceived, by whom, and why its starting to receive the critical attention it deserves.

Perception, which is known to affect value in all asset classes, is on the rise. Stakeholders are realizing that even sophisticated audiences are clueless about what IP rights generate, and for whom and that the growing hostility towards them has profound implications.

In the October IAM (out today), The Intangible Investor explores, “The premium on perception,” which highlights recent studies on IP perception. IAM readers can find a copy here.

Recent Studies

Several recent studies that look at how various audiences regard IP rights have set the stage for further research and analysis. They include:

European Citizens and Intellectual Property: Perception, Awareness and Behavior, a research report from the EUIPO, surveyed 26,000 EU citizens in 2013 and then again in a 2016 follow-up, published this year. Its findings show that while 97% of Europeans regard IP rights favorably, 41% of youths 15-24 believe that it is sometimes ok to buy counterfeits and many say they do, especially when cost is an issue.

Gregory N. Mandel, Dean of the Temple University Law School, questions the accuracy with which audiences see the IP system. In two seminal papers, he considers whether a system that is widely misunderstood can be effective. Professor Mandel and his team conducted research experiments with some 1,700 subjects. He has been researching IP and perception for over a decade with some startling results. The Public Perception of Intellectual Property was published in 2015, and What is IP for? Experiments in Lay and Expert Perceptions was this year.

The IP Strategy Report -2Q 2017 from Aistemos, and IP consultancy, edited by Professor Jeremy Phillips, provides additional useful data points regarding IP and perception. In a report published earlier this year that examined how patent disputes are covered by the technology, business and general media, the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) found that technology media are more subjective than other business or general press when it comes to reporting about patent infringement. The report, Patterns in Media Coverage of Patent Disputes, examined 127 articles published in 2016.

 Refusal to recognize the integrity of IP rights is growing. Whether or not this is simply a failure to communicate or a function of self-interest is unclear.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence about U.S. need for IP education was co-written by a Canadian researcher, Dan Breznitz.  What the US should be doing to protect Intellectual Property? appeared in the Harvard Business Review.

Failure to Communicate?

For some audiences, refusal to recognize the integrity of IP rights is growing. Whether or not this is simply a failure to communicate or a function of self-interest is unclear. What is clear is the need to quantify changes in attitude, what motivates them and their impact.

IP professionals have done an exceedingly poor job of explaining patents and other rights, to stakeholders, including their own boards of directors and investors. Perhaps they are fearful of setting the stage for future accountability, perhaps they think no one will care?

Recent attempts to track and understand attitudes toward IP are an important step in the right direction. More work needs to be done. An IP system which the participants do not understand or whose values they do not respect is no IP system at all.

Image source: euipo

 

 

Passage of STRONGER Patent Act is likely to spur innovation and jobs

A bi-partisan bill introduced by Senators Coons, Cotton and others is one of the most important pieces of legislation for American competitiveness and innovation to come along in recent memory.

So why has it gotten almost no coverage from the leading business, technology and general news media? It may have to do with perspective, as well as how the media and its constituents wish readers to regard more certain patents, which are potentially more expensive to license.

Washington Examiner, IP Watchdog and a few others, who are generally pro-strong patents, provided extensive coverage. Others did not cover the STRONGER Patent Act at all.

The Hill ran the following headline: “Senate Dem Offers Patent Reform Bill.” It’s actually a bi-partisan effort, between Chris Coons (D-Del), and Tom Cotton (R-Ark), Dick Durbin (D-Ill), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hwi), and is supported by conservative members of the House, as well as business groups, like the Innovation Alliance, the Chamber of Commerce, inventors and others.

From 1st to 10th Place

The U.S. patent system is now ranked tenth worldwide by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a tie with Hungary. Until this year, it had always been ranked first.

Mostly, the business, technology and general news media have been silent on the best thing to come out of Washington in support of U.S. competition and jobs in a decade. Conservative groups are supporting the bill. Internet and some large tech companies who favor weaker, less challenging patents are not likely to support the bill in its current form, and may try to oppose it.

“This bill is totally worth getting behind,” a Washington observer told IP CloseUp. “Reforming the PTAB and restoring injunctions, what’s not to like? Frankly, just the injunction issue alone gives Coons great leverage over all other legislation.”

Key points in the STRONGER Patent Act in its current form include:

  • Restore injunctive relief for infringed inventions
  • Reform unfair Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) reviews
  • Allow the USPTO to retain its fees for faster, higher quality examinations
  • Protect consumers and small businesses from patent abuse

This STRONGER bill is a more robust version of the Coons-proposed STRONG Patents Act that was introduced in 2015.

The Washington Examiner article can be found here. The IP Watchdog piece by Brian Pomper of the Innovation Alliance, hereFor the Hill article go here.

“Coons wants to get ahead of Goodlatte in the House and Grassley in the Senate,” the IP CloseUp contact said. “He would like to seize the momentum from TC Heartland (driving more patent litigation to Delaware) and encourage Republicans to join the cause. During last year’s campaign, Trump voiced pro-patent sentiments, a change from Obama.  Cotton is on board, and I hear that Kennedy [Louisiana] and others are interested and willing to go against Grassley.”

For a one-page summary of the bill, go here.

For a section-by-section review, here. 

For more on the subject of media coverage of patents, see the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding report, “Patterns in Media Coverage of Patent Disputes,” here.

Image source: cpip.gmu.edu; ipwatchdog.com

Center for IP Understanding is started by leading IP execs to raise awareness, improve attitudes

The Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU), an independent, unaffiliated non-profit dedicated to increasing IP awareness and improving negative attitudes towards patents, copyrights and other rights, was launched in New York last week. 

As reported in IAM, Law 360, World IP Review and other publications, the non-profit Center for IP Understanding was founded to address the uncertainty among audiences regarding patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets — especially who do they benefit and their impact on new ideas and jobs.

“[The Centre’s] creation is in many ways a response to the battering that IP’s public image has taken over the last several years,” reported IAM blog, “particularly in the US. In that time a series of Supreme Court cipulogodecisions are widely seen to have undermined patent rights; the idea of efficient infringement has taken root; and the ‘patent troll’ narrative has gained wider traction in many parts the media.”

Outreach

Executives and advisors involved in CIPU on the board of directors or as informal advisors include Marshall Phelps (Microsoft, IBM, retired), Brian Hinman (Philips, active), Keith Bergelt (Open Invention Network, CEO), Harry Gwinnell (Cargill, Eastman Chemical, retired), and trade secret expert James Pooley (Orrick).

Also helpful in getting CIPU underway were Judge Paul Michel (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, retire), David Kappos (Commissioner of the USPTO, retired) and film producer and author Irv Rappaport, former chief patent counsel at Apple and Medtronic, who has generated more than 20 patents, and Jonathan Taplin, a film producer, author and Director Emeritus of the Annenberg Innovation Lab a the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Among the CIPU’s goals for 2017 are a survey of IP awareness and attitudes among the general public and business owners; a research report on trends in media coverage of patent disputes; and a possible joint conference with Duke University on Innovation Policy.

The Center for IP Understanding also plans to provide outreach to educators, parents and business that help to facilitate better IP behavior.

Cultural Shift

“We have entered the ‘free-information’ era, where online content and patented inventions are readily pocketed by those who would never dream of shoplifting,” said Bruce Berman, CIPU Chairman, and CEO of Brody Berman Associates. “Products like music, books, novel designs, inventions and counterfeit goods appear to be there for the taking – or feel as if they should be. Uncertainty about what IP rights cover and their appropriate use compound the problem. CIPU will address these and other issues.”

“IP confusion is costly for consumers and businesses alike,” said Vice-Chairman Marshall Phelps, who is a member of the IP Hall of Fame. “Free-riders – unauthorized users of IP-protected products and works – come in many shapes and sizes. They impact performance and investment, as well as job creation. IP awareness and acceptable behaviors are too important to be left to audiences to decide on their own.”

For the IAM story go here.

For the Law 360 article go here.

For the full launch announcement go here.

For more information about the Center for IP Understanding, please visit www.UnderstandingIP.org. 

Image source: The Center for IP Understanding


%d bloggers like this: