Intellectual property is such a diverse and financially important field that it cannot possibly be among the many responsibilities of one politician, let alone a Minister already assigned to Science and Innovation.
Such is the verdict of the CBI, the employers’ organisation, which says a government Minister dedicated to intellectual property must emerge from the Gowers Review into the current UK framework.
While Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science & Innovation, has been “notable in his enthusiasm” for the issue, the ‘voice of small business’ says IP is too important to be “just one of a number of responsibilities for a minister.”
Sir Digby Jones, director-general, said, “If the Government is committed to an enterprise economy, as it consistently claims to be, it should appoint a Minister for IP - as knowledge is becoming increasingly vital to the future success of the UK economy.
“The UK’s ability to compete in the global economy depends on how it harnesses its knowledge and creativity. Only then can it create real value from innovation in the global marketplace and in the digital world.”
In its submission to the Gowers Review, the group acknowledged the Patent Office has done a “very good job” consulting on IP matters within UK borders.
However the CBI is less thrilled by the Patent Office’s international performance, citing improvements possible on global negotiations.
Moreover, its staff should be better educated on the ways in which companies can use patents and are affected by them, as well as making sure they are “able to assess the economic impact of proposed changes.”
”Whereas the UK Patent Office is well-regarded internationally, copyright policy in particular has drifted for too long,” Sir Digby said, indirectly backing a similar submission on copyright by the National Consumer Council.
“Copyright alone generates over 8 per cent of GDP and yet it is handled with little ministerial input as a subset of patents at arms length from the concerns of the copyright industries. This must change. The importance of copyright needs to be recognised and it must be given the prominence it deserves.”
Unveiling a more inclusive and less expensive IP framework would also boost grass roots entrepreneurship, the CBI said.
It pointed out patents granted by the European Patent Office are roughly three times more expensive than in Japan and even five times more costly than in the US.
One solution is to ratify the London Agreement, which would ensure a patent can be granted anywhere in the EU on the basis of an application filed in one of the official EPO languages (English, German or French).
Awareness of how patents can add value to small businesses should be higher up the state agenda, while the Patent Office should make expert advice on IP more readily available and “suited to their needs.”
Businesses continue to struggle with the complex and costly procedures necessary to protect their IP, the CBI added.
Sir Digby commented “It is also disappointing that problems remain for small and medium-sized firms and individuals wanting to access the patent system. They continue to be hampered by costs and red tape. Incentives given through the tax system would help small firms cover the costs associated with applying for a patent.”
Elsewhere, the CBI said government should educate itself on how the copyright system can add value to the economy, as “only then can the UK ensure it can remain a global creative hub.”
May 17, 2006
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Previous Page
