Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

90 Percent of Businesses Say IP Is "Not Important"

Posted by timothy on from the maybe-not-to-them-in-particular dept.

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."

10 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Reminds me of spoilers by kruach+aum · · Score: 3, 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).

  2. Shockingly? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Shockingly? by epiphani · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      .
  3. Reason by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  4. Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone by langelgjm · · 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.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re: Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone by tsqr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The owner of the local car wash (15 employees) doesn't care about IP. Ditto for the florist (3), bakery (5), and bar (4), or five other small businesses engaged in buying and selling commodities. But the CEO of the aerospace corp (4000 employees locally) with a huge annual R&D budget -- he cares a lot.

    3. Re:Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, 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.

    4. Re:Gums up the narrative that IP is for everyone by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IP is only valuable if you can afford to protect it in court. I think that's the big problem here. If you own Quickie Laundromat, and another guy opens Quicky Laundromat across the street, you can either spend tons of money on lawyers trying to defend your business, or spend tons of money on better machines, or just try to keep prices low. Or try to compete on things that actually matter to customers, Maybe add free Wifi. If you make your business good enough, eventually people will figure out that the they Quickie Laundromat on the North side of the street is the good one. For businesses like this, it isn't the name that matters anyway, but the quality of service. You could call it "Don't Come To This Laundromat", but if you had better machines, cheaper rates, and better overall services, people will visit your business. For most businesses, defending IP would cost more than any profit it could possibly bring in, so it's just not worth worrying about it.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  5. Article is about R&D intensive businesses ... by MacTO · · Score: 4, 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.