With the value of many tangible assets, in particular real estate, falling in the current economic climate, there's a growing appreciation by businesses of the significant value of their intellectual property (IP) assets. These include various forms of creative output: inventions, know-how, information, copyright, brand names, designs and other intangibles. Many businesses now recognise that their success in this climate depends largely on how carefully they protect, defend and exploit their IP to establish and secure their competitive edge.
It is within this context that European law firm Taylor Wessing has today launched its second Global Intellectual Property Index (GIPI 2). This provides the most objective assessment to date on how jurisdictions are viewed in terms of ‘IP competitiveness’. In GIPI 1, jurisdictions were rated as places in which to obtain, exploit, enforce and attack the main types of IP: trademarks, patents and copyright. GIPI 2 updates this and adds ratings for domain names and design rights. The methodology combines a worldwide survey of experts (over 18,000 country assessments to date) with analysis of empirical data and a review of any recent material changes at a local level.
The overall results (covering all IP rights) are best understood by considering country groupings or ‘tiers’ of IP competitiveness, based on their rating. The tiers for GIPI 2 are shown below:
The Tiers of IP Competitiveness
Tier 1
UK; Germany; USA;
Australia; Netherlands
Tier 2
Canada; Ireland; New Zealand; France; Singapore
Tier 3
Japan; Israel; Spain;
South Africa; South Korea
Tier 4
Mexico; UAE; Italy
Tier 5
Turkey; Poland; Russia;
Brazil; India; China
Key findings
UK and Germany leaders in all areas of IP – they are the only two jurisdictions which are ranked in the top tier for every area of IP assessed.Australia and Netherlands elevated to top tier – they join the GIPI 1 leaders of the UK, USA and Germany. Generally upwards trend in ratings – indicating greater satisfaction with the IP regimes, especially evident amongst those lower in the rankings, save that the USA scored less well overall.Russia and Mexico on the up – the former is now leading the BRIC group of countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) with the strongest score gain of any country in the patent index; and significant climbs in both the trade mark and copyright rankings. Mexico also made good gains and was especially favoured for cost-effectiveness of enforcement.Canada's copyright setback – whilst it gained a little in overall rating and remained unchanged in rank and tier, Canada's fall in copyright rating and rank was the biggest for any sub-index.UK 2nd for copyright, contradicting its recent consumer survey result of "worst" in world – the UK only lost out to 1st placed USA by a narrow margin on copyright. The consumer survey was a measure only of the "fair use" defences available, whereas the GIPI is a much broader measure. It suggests the UK has got the balance between owner and user interests about right. Key themes
The increasing importance of IP – 60% of the survey's respondents said that the time their organisation spends dealing with IP has increased over the past three years. This figure was a slight drop on the GIPI 1 figure, perhaps reflecting marginal cuts (but not slashes) in some IP budgets. Only 3% said they spend less time on IP than previously.Even in today's climate, cost not determinative - despite the pressures of the current economic climate, cost-effectiveness is not a determining factor in IP competitiveness. Jurisdictions with a perceived high cost of obtaining and enforcing IP, for example the UK and USA, are still ranked highly in the overall index. Catering for the online trading environment – there is heightened awareness of the risks and opportunities posed by the digital market, user generated content and Internet trading generally. The ability of a jurisdiction's legislation to adapt and address these issues clearly affects its rating and rank. Respondents also see the cooperation from responsible Internet service providers as key.Lack of European harmonisation - with Poland now featuring in the bottom tier, there is a an even wider spread of rating, rank and tier within the EU market than in GIPI 1. Is harmonisation going backwards? Roland Mallinson, IP Partner at Taylor Wessing LLP, comments:
"As businesses see real value in their IP and that of competitors, they are still prepared, notwithstanding the global recession, to spend the time and money needed to protect their own IP and manage the risk of infringing other's IP. The opportunities and risks presented by the Internet have especially sharpened people's focus on IP. Respondents' ratings on cost effectiveness alone consistently put Germany top. However, even mid-tier results on that for the UK and near-bottom tier for the USA did not materially change their overall GIPI rating and ranking. It means, for now at least, cost is not dictating the results.
The greater divergence within the EU is disappointing, given the years of harmonising legislation for some IP rights (with the stark exception of patents). This is not just an issue of legislation but operation of the laws in practice, including some sort of centralised court system. Technology-led small and medium enterprises need this in particular. The European Commission's revived interest in providing a harmonised patent system is good news for them, but this has been looked at for 30 years. I would like to say the next GIPI will see greater consistency across the EU but I doubt that is imminent."
It is within this context that European law firm Taylor Wessing has today launched its second Global Intellectual Property Index (GIPI 2). This provides the most objective assessment to date on how jurisdictions are viewed in terms of ‘IP competitiveness’. In GIPI 1, jurisdictions were rated as places in which to obtain, exploit, enforce and attack the main types of IP: trademarks, patents and copyright. GIPI 2 updates this and adds ratings for domain names and design rights. The methodology combines a worldwide survey of experts (over 18,000 country assessments to date) with analysis of empirical data and a review of any recent material changes at a local level.
The overall results (covering all IP rights) are best understood by considering country groupings or ‘tiers’ of IP competitiveness, based on their rating. The tiers for GIPI 2 are shown below:
The Tiers of IP Competitiveness
Tier 1
UK; Germany; USA;
Australia; Netherlands
Tier 2
Canada; Ireland; New Zealand; France; Singapore
Tier 3
Japan; Israel; Spain;
South Africa; South Korea
Tier 4
Mexico; UAE; Italy
Tier 5
Turkey; Poland; Russia;
Brazil; India; China
Key findings
UK and Germany leaders in all areas of IP – they are the only two jurisdictions which are ranked in the top tier for every area of IP assessed.Australia and Netherlands elevated to top tier – they join the GIPI 1 leaders of the UK, USA and Germany. Generally upwards trend in ratings – indicating greater satisfaction with the IP regimes, especially evident amongst those lower in the rankings, save that the USA scored less well overall.Russia and Mexico on the up – the former is now leading the BRIC group of countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) with the strongest score gain of any country in the patent index; and significant climbs in both the trade mark and copyright rankings. Mexico also made good gains and was especially favoured for cost-effectiveness of enforcement.Canada's copyright setback – whilst it gained a little in overall rating and remained unchanged in rank and tier, Canada's fall in copyright rating and rank was the biggest for any sub-index.UK 2nd for copyright, contradicting its recent consumer survey result of "worst" in world – the UK only lost out to 1st placed USA by a narrow margin on copyright. The consumer survey was a measure only of the "fair use" defences available, whereas the GIPI is a much broader measure. It suggests the UK has got the balance between owner and user interests about right. Key themes
The increasing importance of IP – 60% of the survey's respondents said that the time their organisation spends dealing with IP has increased over the past three years. This figure was a slight drop on the GIPI 1 figure, perhaps reflecting marginal cuts (but not slashes) in some IP budgets. Only 3% said they spend less time on IP than previously.Even in today's climate, cost not determinative - despite the pressures of the current economic climate, cost-effectiveness is not a determining factor in IP competitiveness. Jurisdictions with a perceived high cost of obtaining and enforcing IP, for example the UK and USA, are still ranked highly in the overall index. Catering for the online trading environment – there is heightened awareness of the risks and opportunities posed by the digital market, user generated content and Internet trading generally. The ability of a jurisdiction's legislation to adapt and address these issues clearly affects its rating and rank. Respondents also see the cooperation from responsible Internet service providers as key.Lack of European harmonisation - with Poland now featuring in the bottom tier, there is a an even wider spread of rating, rank and tier within the EU market than in GIPI 1. Is harmonisation going backwards? Roland Mallinson, IP Partner at Taylor Wessing LLP, comments:
"As businesses see real value in their IP and that of competitors, they are still prepared, notwithstanding the global recession, to spend the time and money needed to protect their own IP and manage the risk of infringing other's IP. The opportunities and risks presented by the Internet have especially sharpened people's focus on IP. Respondents' ratings on cost effectiveness alone consistently put Germany top. However, even mid-tier results on that for the UK and near-bottom tier for the USA did not materially change their overall GIPI rating and ranking. It means, for now at least, cost is not dictating the results.
The greater divergence within the EU is disappointing, given the years of harmonising legislation for some IP rights (with the stark exception of patents). This is not just an issue of legislation but operation of the laws in practice, including some sort of centralised court system. Technology-led small and medium enterprises need this in particular. The European Commission's revived interest in providing a harmonised patent system is good news for them, but this has been looked at for 30 years. I would like to say the next GIPI will see greater consistency across the EU but I doubt that is imminent."
To see a detailed breakdown of the IP Index including rankings for each of the 24 jurisdictions in regard to specific Trade Mark, Patent, Copyright, Design and Domain Name Indices, country analysis and commentary on the findings, rationale, implications, and the methodology, please visit http://taylorwessing.com/ipindex
No comments:
Post a Comment