Joff Wild

In the next IAM, which goes to the printers this Wednesday, we are running a letter from Adam Liberman, the current president of LES International. He got in touch with us on the back of the Broken Brand story we ran in the last issue of the magazine, which dealt with the negatve perceptions that IP so often creates within the business world, the political class and among the general public. Liberman acknowledges that there is a serious problem and makes a few suggestions as to how the IP community can set things straight. I thought I would share some of them with you:

• The IP community should commission the development of an IP societal benefit index, by a credible institution or person. Nowadays there all sorts of indices that are used to assess performance in various areas – eg, innovation indices; consumer sentiment indices and so on. I am not suggesting that the creation of such an index will be an easy task, but its creation and development will firstly show that the IP community is serious about considering the societal impact of IP and secondly it will allow the IP community to control the debate better. The development of an IP economic benefit index could also form part of any brief.

• The IP community should proactively seek out projects where IP can be shown to assist the wider community and it should gather 21st century stories of the contribution of IP to the welfare of society. Those activities and the benefits arising from them should then be presented to the wider community in a manner that that community relates to.

• The IP community should be much more proactive in suggesting improvements to the IP system than is currently the case. Using the Australian experience as a reference point, currently the two traditional awakening forces for the IP community are firstly the regular reviews undertaken by government into certain aspects of IP or the IP system and, secondly, unusual court decisions. Responding to such reviews invariably places pro-IP respondents in a defensive posture, rather than being seen to identify problems in advance and propose solutions, while responding to court decisions is rarely more than a competitive sport between rival professional adviser firms. IP think-tanks with both applied and academic skills may need to be created to undertake that proactive role.

• All published misinformation about IP must be responded to. All such responses must be balanced, respectful and capable of substantiation. Additionally they must be presented in support of IP and not in support of an industry sector – eg, a research pharma position v a generic pharma position. Industry sectors will have their own advocates.

He goes on to say:

I do not seek to oversimplify either the problem or the solutions. I recognise that what I call the “IP community” and the “IP system” are both very diverse, at least as to the subject matter of their content and their geography. However, acknowledging that diversity does not lessen the need for better co-ordination and a greater focus on addressing the societal impact of IP and the IP system. It also does not lessen the need to communicate the benefits that arise from that impact in a manner which engages with the wider community. 

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised to learn that I think Liberman is absolutely correct. I sense that a growing number of people within the big and diverse IP community are also coming to understand just how serious things have become. We already have the IP Brand Development Group, but this is only a start. The simple truth is that there is a great IP story out there just waiting to be told. What we need is a concerted campaign to make sure that this happens. If it doesn't, the IP backlash is only going to get stronger. IAM stands read to play its part. What about you?