The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (IP) has made waves across the marketing industry since publication last December, with many observers heralding it as Government recognition of the importance of IP to the vitality of the UK economy. Others, meanwhile, contend that it serves to illustrate that the Government has failed to understand and address the real IP issues faced by UK companies.

The term IP includes all manner of virtual property, incorporating trademarks, e.g. logos and straplines, and patents for innovative new products, e.g. software packages. There is no argument that IP is fundamental for generating revenue for businesses and therefore must be suitably protected. Unprotected IP can be infringed or even stolen, leaving companies at a marked disadvantage.

Former Financial Times editor Andrew Gowers was commissioned to examine the current IP system in the UK by the Chancellor of the Exchequer back in December 05. The objective was to advise how IP protection should be adapted or enhanced to take account of changes in business and marketing practice, such as the rise in digital communication and globalisation. As Gowers explains, “In the modern world, knowledge capital, more than physical capital, drives the UK economy. Against the backdrop of the increasing importance of ideas, IP rights are more vital than ever.”

Once published, the intention was for the findings to be used to stimulate discussion and debate around the issue, and then ultimately form the basis for future legislation. However, response from across the economy has been mixed, and in some cases outright hostile, which is likely to complicate its path to the statute books.

Protecting the vulnerable

The debate around the conclusions of the Gowers Review focus on the recommendations it makes for the SME sector and IP protection therein.

Given their smaller size and more limited resources, SMEs are the most vulnerable to IP abuse: they have typically spent little time or money investing in adequate protection and are worst placed to tackle abuse should it occur.

In recognition of this, Gowers recommends that the cost of IP registration be reduced for SMEs. This has, understandably, been welcomed. The report's following suggestion, however, that information on IP be distributed by the Business Link network, has been slammed by observers.

SME lobbying group the Forum of Private Business (FPB) is particularly critical of this suggestion. “Research shows that the Business Link is used by startups and isn't really used for older firms; businesses that are two to three years old,” says Victoria Carson, campaigns marketing manager at FPB. “I'm concerned that they [the Government] are putting all their eggs in one basket, not looking after the existing businesses out there.”

Whilst the method of information has been called into question, so has the content. Scott Farnsworth, IP lawyer at Berryman, comments, “The information is not going to be saying anything about why IP is important; it does say that IP is important for business, but never why this is. People need to know that if they protect their IP, they can gain a monopoly.”

Finally Isabel Oswell, head of business brand at the British Library, suggests that the report ignores the more fundamental problem of awareness regarding IP issues. “More needs to be done to implement awareness-raising of IP,” she comments. “Whether it [the review will make any difference depends on the organisations involved on a daily basis with IP. The legislative framework needs to be simplified so that everyone can understand the essential elements of IP.”

European union

However, not all feedback to the report has been negative. Some of its key proposals have been welcomed with open arms, particularly those relating to the patent application process.

Gowers proposes the establishment of a European community patent (COMPAT) that forgoes the need for country-by-country ratification, theoretically saving time and money for companies seeking to operate in Europe.

Farnsworth at Berryman is enthusiastic regarding this proposal. “[COMPAT] must be the greatest thing ever; why we haven't got one already is a mystery. The single application will provide huge financial savings.”

Yet whilst the logic may be sound, translating these proposals into law may prove more complex. Farnsworth says 'national pride' appears to have the potential to be a sticking point, with debate surrounding which language the patents should be written in. However, he suspects the benefits will demolish any resistance. “It doesn't really matter what language the patent is in; he [a businessman] wouldn't care if it was written in German if it means he will be saving money and time,” he comments.

In terms of adoption, the proposals are still fresh and as a consequence not all views of all relevant parties have necessarily been aired. As Andrew Yeates, consultant at the Association of Online Publishers, explains, “Gowers was published in a short space of time, as some reviews take more than two years to reach this stage. It will need some careful picking over by industry.”

Regardless of the form in which proposals are presented for legislation, the Gowers Review has served its purpose in putting IP on the business agenda. Achieving consensus on what the future of IP should look like, however, is likely to be a much sterner test.

Related articles

Gowers Report slammed by FPB - 14-12-06

Or use our enhanced search functionality to find other related articles

ShareThis