90 Percent of Businesses Say IP Is "Not Important" 185
langelgjm writes "In 2009, the National Science Foundation teamed up with the Census Bureau to ask U.S. businesses how important intellectual property was to them. Now, after three years of surveys, the results are in. Astonishingly, it turns out that when asked, 90 percent of businesses say intellectual property is 'not important'. While some very large businesses and specific sectors indicate that patents, copyrights, and trademarks are important, overall, the figures are shockingly low. What's more, the survey's results have received hardly any press. It appears that formal intellectual property protection is far less important to the vast majority of U.S. businesses than some federal agencies, such as the patent office, are willing to admit."
Reminds me of spoilers (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people don't care about spoilers, but people who care about spoilers REALLY care about spoilers.
That said, it is an interesting result, and I wish it were more widely reported (and that it influenced policy, but oh who am I kidding).
Shockingly? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say logically.
When is IP important to you, as a business? If you hold patents and if you're heavily invested in R&D, and copyright is something that you care about strongly if you're creating content, be it music, movies or software. Else, at best, it's uninteresting to you. At worst, it is a headache to you since you always have to watch out whether or not something trivial you do steps on someone' patent toes.
There is no such thing as Intellectual Property (Score:2, Insightful)
Thinking otherwise is counter-productive.
Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
90% of businesses are in fields that don't have the type of IP you see in new fields like IT.
I'm sure a small, local bakery would care about IP too if he had to pay license fees for every bread he bakes, simply because his oven has a digital timer.
Of Course! (Score:0, Insightful)
Well, of course 90% of business say intellectual property(IP) is not important. That's because 90% of businesses, or more, don't develop or produce products and therefore have no need to protect IP. Most businesses are distributors, retailers, or resellers. They don't design a new product and they don't manufacture anything. Furthermore, a good percentage of manufacturers don;t design the products that they manufacture either.
But, if you are the inventor or designer of a new product, IP is absolutely essential to you ability to make a profit from your idea. If you can't protect your IP, then some third world mass production facility will essentially take your product away from you by mass producing it and selling it for a price that you cannot possibly match or profit from. Duh!
I'm opposed to some IP stuff. Software patents, especially, are mostly ridiculous. But, the freetard mentality that all IP protection should be eliminated is ludicrous and clearly indicative of the fact that they themselves have never produced anything of their own.
Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
It is logical... unless you're the U.S. Patent Office, which claims that IP is responsible for 40 million jobs and 35% of the U.S. GDP.
The survey results throw a wrench in the narrative that IP is critical to "the economy." It's clearly critical in certain industries, or for certain companies, but if 90% of businesses say its not important, blanket statements about how IP an economic "engine", etc. need to go.
Re:Shockingly? (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in the technology space, where we're heavily investing in R&D. And we don't own a thing - it's all open source, apache software.
Fundamentally I think people are realizing that owning IP is a short-term strategy for many businesses. If the value you provide is entirely locked up in your IP - and not in your customer service and skills, eventually someone is going to come along with a cheaper or free version of your IP. Then your only advantage is the lock-in you already have.
In the long term, companies have to function based on their ability to support their customers - not just throw IP at them. This is especially true in software.
Article is about R&D intensive businesses ... (Score:5, Insightful)
While surprising, the results do make some sense. IP laws are only meaningful to companies that have the means to sue. They would also have to look at the return on investment for launching legal action. A small business on the east coast is unlikely to sue another small business on the west coast simply because there is no return (i.e. no overlap in potential clients).
IP is mostly geared towards the interests of large entities and multinational entities: businesses that have both the means to sue, and where their market is large enough that it is likely to overlap with someone else's market.
TFA clueless, thinks Coke brand is worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
The author shows their complete ignorance of how the economy works when they select GROCERIES as their example of an industry where they claim IP doesn't matter. Imagine if you were to walk into the grocery store and all of the cola made by different companies was labeled "Coca-Cola". It's trademark, intellectual property, that allows you to tell the difference between Coke, Pepsi, and RC cola. Were it not for IP, the generic stuff that sells for under a dollar would also be labelled "Coca-Cola".
Do you think it's important to grocers that customers can distinguish Guiradelli and Hershey from Z corp "chocolate flavored bar"? Of course! The grocery industry is ALL about trademarks. The author proves they are completely clueless by claiming IP doesn't matter in the grocery business.
Re:Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
It is logical... unless you're the U.S. Patent Office, which claims that IP is responsible for 40 million jobs and 35% of the U.S. GDP.
The survey results throw a wrench in the narrative that IP is critical to "the economy." It's clearly critical in certain industries, or for certain companies, but if 90% of businesses say its not important, blanket statements about how IP an economic "engine", etc. need to go.
90% of businesses saying X is important or not need to go then, they aren't premised on an analysis that demonstrates substantial rigor.
For one thing, 90% of businesses doesn't correlate with the same amount of employment, it could be far less, same with GDP and other things.
Get back to me when you're ready to show the whole data set.
Re:Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone (Score:2, Insightful)
IP is only valuable & important to a business when it has enough patents to create a stranglehold in their sector.
Re: Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reminds me of spoilers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
IP is only valuable & important to a business when it has enough patents to create a stranglehold in their sector.
Or any business that has an identifiable name. Your local "Quickie Laundromat" may say they don't care about IP. But if I open another business right next door called "Quickie Laundromat", and if I copy their ads and signs word-for-word, they might change their minds. IP is more than just patents. It also encompasses trademarks and copyrights. 10% say they care about IP. The other 90% don't understand what IP is.
Re:Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)