Intellectual Property Office (2016a)

Source Details

Intellectual Property Office (2016a)
Title:	Unjustified threats on intellectual property rights: Government Response
Author(s):	Intellectual Property Office
Year:	2016
Citation:	Intellectual Property Office (2016), Unjustified threats on intellectual property rights: Government Response
Link(s):	Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:	K4: Legal Procedure; the Legal System; and Illegal Behavior O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital O38: Government Policy
Linked by:

About the Data
Data Description:	Following the publication of the final Law Commission report and draft bill, the government was keen to confirm stakeholder views via a discussion paper. This was published 22 October 2015, with a comment period running to 13 November. The government received 12 responses to the discussion paper, including responses from lawyers, company and industry representatives, IP and legal interest groups and the IP judiciary. In addition to answering the questions that were posed, a number of respondents also made comments about particular aspects of the draft bill, often relating to the specifics of the wording
Data Type:	Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:	Qualitative Collection Methods Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences) Structured Interview Participant Observation
Data Analysis Methods:	Qualitative Analysis Methods Legal Analysis
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):	United Kingdom
Cross Country Study?:	No
Comparative Study?:	No
Literature review?:	No
Government or policy study?:	Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:	2015
Funder(s):	Intellectual Property Office

Abstract

The IPO launched a discussion document on 22 October 2015, following the publication of the Law Commission’s final report on reforming the law of unjustified threats on intellectual property infringement. The government received 12 responses to the discussion paper which are discussed below.

Main Results of the Study

• Respondents stressed that the current statutory rights are inconsistent and unclear; one respondent noting that as a result small businesses may feel discouraged from asserting their IP rights. It was also felt that the lack of consistency across the registered rights is confusing. It was commented that the current laws can create a “potential for mischief”, causing uncertainty and conflict between clients and advisers.

• The general approach to reform, as recommended by the Law Commission, received wide support. Most commented that they saw the benefits of the proposals in the draft bill which seek to achieve clear harmonisation of the provisions and encourage easier communication. Respondents noted that the proposed reforms will provide further clarity for parties exchanging information thereby preventing difficulties and avoiding litigation. In their view the government’s proposals will rightly discourage unjustified threats. One comment emphasised that the consistent rules implemented as a result of the reform would make the law “more coherent and intelligible”. A number of respondents did note that wider reform (such as a new tort consistent with the law elsewhere in the EU) would be desirable in the long term. Nevertheless they were able to support the Law Commission’s proposed approach to reform at the current time. It was noted by one such respondent however that a change to a new, wider tort would be too dramatic at this point and would lead to further uncertainty.

• The majority of respondents considered the draft bill to be suitable for the special Law Commission Bill procedure, agreeing that the proposals are uncontroversial. It was noted that key stakeholders have been consulted and that the “sensible and measured” changes proposed have a strong consensus of support. A number of respondents have nevertheless made specific comments on the wording of the draft bill. One respondent stated that their support for the use of the special procedure would be dependent on reassurance and clarification being provided on two areas of the draft bill.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The government has accepted the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform, including those made in the final Law Commission report, and intends to introduce primary legislation to implement these reforms. In light of the responses to this discussion paper the government will continue to investigate introducing the reforms via the special procedure which exists for bills implementing uncontroversial Law Commission recommendations.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues

Issue	Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

Coverage of Evidence Based Policies

Issue	Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size:	12
Level of aggregation:	Stakeholders
Period of material under study:	2015