Difference between revisions of "EPO and OHIM (2013)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
Line 37: Line 37:
 
|Data Type=Secondary data
 
|Data Type=Secondary data
 
|Data Source=UK IPO; OECD Reports; USPTO; Eurostat;
 
|Data Source=UK IPO; OECD Reports; USPTO; Eurostat;
 +
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Quantitative data/text mining
 +
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining)
 
|Industry=Creative, arts and entertainment; Sound recording and music publishing; Film and motion pictures;
 
|Industry=Creative, arts and entertainment; Sound recording and music publishing; Film and motion pictures;
 
|Country=European Union; United States;
 
|Country=European Union; United States;

Revision as of 19:39, 10 July 2016

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing Video game publishing Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

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

Source Details

EPO and OHIM (2013)
Title: Intellectual property rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment in the European Union
Author(s): The European Patent Office and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Year: 2013
Citation: EPO and OHIM (2013). Intellectual property rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment in the European Union.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: OHIM (2015)
About the Data
Data Description: The study covers a broad range of IP rights – trade marks, patents, designs, copyright and Geographical Indications (GIs) – and considers a variety of economic indicators, in particular

Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment, external trade and wages for 27 Member Sates (no data was available for recently-joined Croatia).

Data Type: Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: Yes
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2012 to 2013
Funder(s):

Abstract

Innovation is one of the areas covered by the five key targets set in “Europe 2020”, the ten‑year growth strategy adopted by the European Union with a view to creating a more competitive economy with higher employment. It has never been so important to foster the “virtuous circle” leading from Research and Development (R&D) investment to jobs – via innovation, competitive advantage and economic success – as in today’s world of increasingly globalised markets and the knowledge economy. This process depends on several different factors, but an efficient system of intellectual property rights (IPR) undoubtedly ranks among the most important, given IP’s capacity to encourage creativity and innovation, in all its various forms, throughout the economy. Europe already has a long tradition in this area: European countries have played a major part in shaping a modern and balanced system of IP rights which not only guarantees innovators their due reward but also stimulates a competitive market. It is nevertheless vital to ensure that the system remains a useful instrument in implementing new innovation policies designed to achieve those goals. At the same time, there have been several calls from industry for indicators to measure the economic impact of IP rights. Moreover, in view of the question marks which, in public debate, have sometimes been raised over IP’s role in supporting innovation and creativity, it is essential that facts and figures be produced to ensure such debate is based on sound evidence. That is why the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), acting through the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights, and the European Patent Office (EPO) decided to join forces and carry out this study in co-operation with the European Commission, in particular DG Internal Market and Services and Eurostat. There have already been several studies on specific IP rights, industrial sectors or countries, but the OHIM-EPO study is the first to quantify the overall contribution made by IPR‑intensive industries to the EU economy, in terms of output, employment, wages and trade, taking into account the major IP rights (patents, trade marks, designs, copyrights, geographical indications). Despite the conservative approach, reflected in the rigorous methodology applied, the main results are very impressive: IPR-intensive industries generate more than a quarter of employment and more than a third of economic activity in the EU.

Main Results of the Study

IPR-intensive industries are defined as those having an above-average use of IPR per employee. The present study shows that about half of European industries can be considered IPR‑intensive. It should be emphasised, however, that all industries use IP rights to some extent. By focusing only on the IPR-intensive industries, this study arguably understates the real contribution of IP rights to the European economy. Such IPR-intensive industries are shown to have generated almost 26% of all jobs in the EU during the period 2008-2010, with almost 21% in trade mark-intensive industries, 12% in design-intensive industries, 10% in patent-intensive industries, and smaller proportions in copyright-intensive and GI-intensive industries. On average over this period, 56.5 million Europeans were employed by IPR-intensive industries, out of a total employment of approximately 218 million. In addition, another 20 million jobs were generated in industries that supply goods and services to the IPR-intensive industries. Taking indirect jobs into account, the total number of IPR‑dependent jobs rises to just under 77 million (35.1%). Over the same period, IPR-intensive industries generated almost 39% of total economic activity (GDP) in the EU, worth € 4.7 trillion. They also accounted for most of the EU’s trade with the rest of the world, with design-intensive, copyright-intensive and GI-intensive industries generating a trade surplus. IPR-intensive industries also pay significantly higher wages than other industries, with a wage premium of more than 40%. This is consistent with the fact that the value added per worker is higher in IPR-intensive industries than elsewhere in the economy.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study covers a broad range of IP rights – trade marks, patents, designs, copyright and Geographical Indications (GIs) – and considers a variety of economic indicators, in particular Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment, external trade and wages. It makes no policy recommendations, as this is not within its scope. Instead, it is designed to provide evidence that can be used by policymakers in their work, and to serve as a basis for raising awareness of Intellectual Property among Europe’s citizens. The study is intended to provide results that are comparable to those obtained for the US economy. The methodology used here is therefore closely related to that used in the pioneering study published in March 2012 by the Economics and Statistics Administration in the US Department of Commerce and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).



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