Издательство Taylor & Francis Group, 2003, -198 pp.
The origins of the chapters which make up this book are as follows. For some time, conce had been expressed by a number of UK policy-makers that little empirical work had been done into how business used the intellectual property system, and especially of its relevance to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The ‘intellectual property system’ for these purposes principally consists of patents, trademarks, copyrights and designs, and confidential information. Which, if any, of these rights will be of interest to a particular SME will depend on the sector in which it operates? The Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRG) held a one-day workshop for invited academics and practitioners hosted by the UK Patent Office in Newport, to explore what might be done in this area. As a result of that, the ESRC, supported by the Intellectual Property Institute and the Patent Office, decided to fund a research programme the ‘Intellectual Property Initiative’. Tenders were invited, and 11 projects were selected for funding. These involved a wide range of social science disciplines. The present volume is based on the research outputs from eight of these projects. Although some of the findings confirm what specialists in the field had already suspected, having empirical confirmation for informed guesses and anecdotal evidence is proving to be of great value to policy-makers.
Unsurprisingly, the Initiative confirms that the use made by SMEs of the system depends very much on the sector in which they operate, and their size. As the Macdonald study suggests (Chapter 8), probably, for most, the patent system has little or no relevance, even though a surprisingly large percentage stress the importance of R&D to their business. But, as Thomas (Chapter 5) shows, for those engaged in research-intensive sectors such as biotechnology (and, I would say, electronics), patenting can be crucial. In this sector the role of an established industrial partner is very important, and the partner will have the necessary expertise to deal with the IP issues.
The Kitching and Blackbu study (Chapter 2) covered four different industrial sectors: software; mechanical engineering; electronics; and design. It suggests that SMEs have realised the importance of IPRs and know-how to manage their assets, but again supports the findings of Macdonald that SMEs are making little use of formal methods of protection, i.e. methods requiring registration such as patents. They prefer to rely on informal methods because they are successful, cheaper and within the control of the company. None showed any interest in a less formal registration system (the ‘petty patent’) which Germany and some other European countries have, and in relation to which the European Commission is considering a harmonisation directive.
The patent system is intended to be both a source of protection and a source of information. The Hall, Oppenheim and Sheen study suggests that for SMEs the system is seriously defective in fulfilling the latter role (Chapter 9). Hall et al. point out that there are four reasons for using published patent information: (a) to find out what has been done at the start of an R&D project; (b) to find out what competitors are up to; (c) to evaluate the chances of protecting an idea; and (d) to find technology to license in. Nearly all information used by SMEs is related to (c). Clearly this points to the need for patent offices to market the value of the other three uses of the information. Another suggestion made by the study is the need to involve patent agents at an early stage in an R&D project. They have the shills within the confines of the present system to use the information more fully for the benefit of their clients.
The chapter by Webster, Rappert and Charles (Chapter 7) shows that patenting has only a small role in university spin-off companies (‘USOs’). It also suggests that in some sectors, such as materials, university ‘parents’ could do more to help their offspring. An interesting and potentially important development picked up by this study, and one which is also occurring in the United States, is ‘virtual’ USOs linking researchers in different university departments and different universities.
Copyright is the principal source of protection for the textile design centre. This is acquired automatically without the need to register or other formality, and it might have been expected, therefore, that much use would be made of it to prevent unauthorised copying. Surprisingly, Dickson , Coles and Woods (Chapter 4) show that many textile designers accept blatant copying, doing nothing about it in 50 per cent of the cases. This may have to change as the development of digital technology erodes market lead time on which designers have traditionally relied.
Further support for the proposition that the IPR system is of little relevance to many SMEs is lent by the chapter by Tang (Chapter 6) on the electronic publishing sector (CDROMs and on-line databases, but not music and software). This showed that finding a market niche, and protecting products by technical means, was much more important than copyright law (even though that is acquired automatically). Presumably the same thing applies to database right. This study is complemented by the Wallis study, reported elsewhere, of the multimedia sector. That study has proved to be prescient in suggesting the coming together of previous competitors, and the polarisation of the market between global operators and small local operators, with little left in between. Importantly, it also suggests that the commercial imperatives of convergence resulting from digitisation have been overrated and the cultural baggage of the media industries standing in the way of these commercial imperatives underrated.
In contrast to the main thrust of the Initiative, Matthews, Pickering and Kirkland (Chapter 3) focus on larger firms and provide an interesting contrast. The Matthews et al. chapter shows that large science- and technology-based companies recognise the importance of having an IP strategy. It also shows that the way in which financial control is assigned can have an important impact on that strategy, so that if the IP budget is devolved to R&D departments, they are likely to evaluate carefully the need to acquire and maintain rights. This, of course, may not be in the overall interests of the company, and higher strategic decision-making is important if short-term cost-cutting is not to lead Intellectual property and innovation management in small firms to errors. This finding is of significance in relation to the Bos worth study which shows that the stock market places value on a company’s IPRs (though banks, it seems, do not at present). Similarly, it shows that levels of investment in R&D are reflected in stock market values. In tu, levels of employment are linked to R&D.
Importantly, some specific recommendations to policy-makers can be made on the basis of the Initiative:
The UK Patent Office (and other patent offices around the world) need to make patent databases more user-friendly.
The Department of Trade and Industry, and other policy-makers, must accept that patent counts are not indicators of the pace of innovation, and that the patent system may be marginal to innovation outside specific sectors.
The present emphasis at both a UK and a European level on formal mechanisms for protecting commercially valuable knowledge ignores the needs of most SMEs. Future policy must be based on the differing requirements of different industry sectors and company sizes.
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are unlikely to provide many significant IPRs for business, or get significant rewards from this. The job of HEIs is to produce high-quality graduates who apply their skills in industry.
The findings summarised in the previous paragraph have subsequently been endorsed by the report of the European Technology Assessment Network Strategic Dimensions of IPRs in the Context of Science and Technology Policy (an independent report commissioned from a committee of experts by DGXII (as it was then) of the European Commission 1999).
Introduction: the Intellectual Property Initiative
Small firms, innovation and intellectual property management: the context and a research agenda
Innovation, intellectual property and informality: evidence from a study of small enterprises and some implications for policy
A strategic approach to managing intellectual property
Copyright protection strategies by small textiles firms
Intellectual property in biotechnology firms
Management of intellectual property by electronic publishers
Controlling intellectual property across the high-tech frontier: university spin-offs, SMEs and the science base
Worlds apart: patent information and innovation in SMEs
Barriers to the use of patent information in SME
The origins of the chapters which make up this book are as follows. For some time, conce had been expressed by a number of UK policy-makers that little empirical work had been done into how business used the intellectual property system, and especially of its relevance to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The ‘intellectual property system’ for these purposes principally consists of patents, trademarks, copyrights and designs, and confidential information. Which, if any, of these rights will be of interest to a particular SME will depend on the sector in which it operates? The Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRG) held a one-day workshop for invited academics and practitioners hosted by the UK Patent Office in Newport, to explore what might be done in this area. As a result of that, the ESRC, supported by the Intellectual Property Institute and the Patent Office, decided to fund a research programme the ‘Intellectual Property Initiative’. Tenders were invited, and 11 projects were selected for funding. These involved a wide range of social science disciplines. The present volume is based on the research outputs from eight of these projects. Although some of the findings confirm what specialists in the field had already suspected, having empirical confirmation for informed guesses and anecdotal evidence is proving to be of great value to policy-makers.
Unsurprisingly, the Initiative confirms that the use made by SMEs of the system depends very much on the sector in which they operate, and their size. As the Macdonald study suggests (Chapter 8), probably, for most, the patent system has little or no relevance, even though a surprisingly large percentage stress the importance of R&D to their business. But, as Thomas (Chapter 5) shows, for those engaged in research-intensive sectors such as biotechnology (and, I would say, electronics), patenting can be crucial. In this sector the role of an established industrial partner is very important, and the partner will have the necessary expertise to deal with the IP issues.
The Kitching and Blackbu study (Chapter 2) covered four different industrial sectors: software; mechanical engineering; electronics; and design. It suggests that SMEs have realised the importance of IPRs and know-how to manage their assets, but again supports the findings of Macdonald that SMEs are making little use of formal methods of protection, i.e. methods requiring registration such as patents. They prefer to rely on informal methods because they are successful, cheaper and within the control of the company. None showed any interest in a less formal registration system (the ‘petty patent’) which Germany and some other European countries have, and in relation to which the European Commission is considering a harmonisation directive.
The patent system is intended to be both a source of protection and a source of information. The Hall, Oppenheim and Sheen study suggests that for SMEs the system is seriously defective in fulfilling the latter role (Chapter 9). Hall et al. point out that there are four reasons for using published patent information: (a) to find out what has been done at the start of an R&D project; (b) to find out what competitors are up to; (c) to evaluate the chances of protecting an idea; and (d) to find technology to license in. Nearly all information used by SMEs is related to (c). Clearly this points to the need for patent offices to market the value of the other three uses of the information. Another suggestion made by the study is the need to involve patent agents at an early stage in an R&D project. They have the shills within the confines of the present system to use the information more fully for the benefit of their clients.
The chapter by Webster, Rappert and Charles (Chapter 7) shows that patenting has only a small role in university spin-off companies (‘USOs’). It also suggests that in some sectors, such as materials, university ‘parents’ could do more to help their offspring. An interesting and potentially important development picked up by this study, and one which is also occurring in the United States, is ‘virtual’ USOs linking researchers in different university departments and different universities.
Copyright is the principal source of protection for the textile design centre. This is acquired automatically without the need to register or other formality, and it might have been expected, therefore, that much use would be made of it to prevent unauthorised copying. Surprisingly, Dickson , Coles and Woods (Chapter 4) show that many textile designers accept blatant copying, doing nothing about it in 50 per cent of the cases. This may have to change as the development of digital technology erodes market lead time on which designers have traditionally relied.
Further support for the proposition that the IPR system is of little relevance to many SMEs is lent by the chapter by Tang (Chapter 6) on the electronic publishing sector (CDROMs and on-line databases, but not music and software). This showed that finding a market niche, and protecting products by technical means, was much more important than copyright law (even though that is acquired automatically). Presumably the same thing applies to database right. This study is complemented by the Wallis study, reported elsewhere, of the multimedia sector. That study has proved to be prescient in suggesting the coming together of previous competitors, and the polarisation of the market between global operators and small local operators, with little left in between. Importantly, it also suggests that the commercial imperatives of convergence resulting from digitisation have been overrated and the cultural baggage of the media industries standing in the way of these commercial imperatives underrated.
In contrast to the main thrust of the Initiative, Matthews, Pickering and Kirkland (Chapter 3) focus on larger firms and provide an interesting contrast. The Matthews et al. chapter shows that large science- and technology-based companies recognise the importance of having an IP strategy. It also shows that the way in which financial control is assigned can have an important impact on that strategy, so that if the IP budget is devolved to R&D departments, they are likely to evaluate carefully the need to acquire and maintain rights. This, of course, may not be in the overall interests of the company, and higher strategic decision-making is important if short-term cost-cutting is not to lead Intellectual property and innovation management in small firms to errors. This finding is of significance in relation to the Bos worth study which shows that the stock market places value on a company’s IPRs (though banks, it seems, do not at present). Similarly, it shows that levels of investment in R&D are reflected in stock market values. In tu, levels of employment are linked to R&D.
Importantly, some specific recommendations to policy-makers can be made on the basis of the Initiative:
The UK Patent Office (and other patent offices around the world) need to make patent databases more user-friendly.
The Department of Trade and Industry, and other policy-makers, must accept that patent counts are not indicators of the pace of innovation, and that the patent system may be marginal to innovation outside specific sectors.
The present emphasis at both a UK and a European level on formal mechanisms for protecting commercially valuable knowledge ignores the needs of most SMEs. Future policy must be based on the differing requirements of different industry sectors and company sizes.
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are unlikely to provide many significant IPRs for business, or get significant rewards from this. The job of HEIs is to produce high-quality graduates who apply their skills in industry.
The findings summarised in the previous paragraph have subsequently been endorsed by the report of the European Technology Assessment Network Strategic Dimensions of IPRs in the Context of Science and Technology Policy (an independent report commissioned from a committee of experts by DGXII (as it was then) of the European Commission 1999).
Introduction: the Intellectual Property Initiative
Small firms, innovation and intellectual property management: the context and a research agenda
Innovation, intellectual property and informality: evidence from a study of small enterprises and some implications for policy
A strategic approach to managing intellectual property
Copyright protection strategies by small textiles firms
Intellectual property in biotechnology firms
Management of intellectual property by electronic publishers
Controlling intellectual property across the high-tech frontier: university spin-offs, SMEs and the science base
Worlds apart: patent information and innovation in SMEs
Barriers to the use of patent information in SME