The UK economy is knowledge-based. Within that broad framework IP rights underpin crucial money earners for the UK: the UK has a huge positive balance of payments from copyright; trade marks are crucial to branded products sold across the world by UK companies; and patents ensure that profits from research-based innovation are not undercut by competitors riding on UK R&D. We do have some overall concerns about some of the underlying assumptions set out in the background, which might suggest a specific agenda driving part of the review, perhaps influenced media representation of 'topical' issues such copyright in the digital world and software patents debates. The introduction contains some very negative references, e.g to 'restricted or restrictive licensing' and 'overly broad' patent protection.
It is our experience that media coverage of IP issues is often based on misunderstandings of the IP system. For example there are frequently reports about so-called 'trivial patents' which turn out to be merely patent applications that have not yet been examined. Similarly, many of the issues highlighted in the media are specific to the USA.
We are pleased that the introduction to the review acknowledges that the UK's IP framework is a critical component of the UK's success in the global economy. Generally, we consider that the IP system in the UK and Europe works effectively. Like any other system, the IP system is not perfect, but it is in general very good. It incorporates numerous checks and balances to maintain the proper relationship between owners of IP, their competitors, consumers and the wider public interest. This relationship should not be upset by making significant changes unless there is sound research and hard evidence to justify any such changes. The review should also avoid a debate on some issues on which there may be genuine concerns drawing in other areas (such as trade marks and designs) which operate in a fundamentally different context and to which the same concerns do not apply. For example, trade marks and designs have a vital role in combatting the tide of piracy and counterfeiting (often funding organised crime) which threatens to overwhelm EU industry, none of which appears to be recognised in the background to the review.
Summary:
In general the IP system in the UK is works effectively. Changes to it should only be undertaken with considerable caution.
In addition the quality of access and of information about the system are also generally good.
There are a number of issues in relation to the operation of the 'system' itself to which consideration should be given:
The costs of enforcement or challenge are very high, and in some cases (but not all) this is inappropriate and a significant disincentive to enforcement or freedom of action. This is particularly so in relation to the patent system.
Retaining quality of granted rights in the patent system is of major importance.
Continuing international harmonisation is likely to be valuable, although not at any cost.
At a European level
There is some concern about the costs of obtaining patent protection in Europe. In particular reduction in translation costs should be a focus, and the London Agreement should be pressed forward.
Harmonisation on the litigation front through the EPLA should be promoted, although details need to be sorted out and we do not support the current transitional arrangements.
The use of specialists (patent and trade mark attorneys) in intellectual property matters in the 'higher' European Courts should be assured and steps taken to obtain a political consensus and to amend the EU provisions where necessary, to parallel access in the UK.
There are several further areas in which we would make recommendations:
There needs to be a suitable formally constituted body where IP issues can be debated and where users of the system can interact with each other and with the Patent Office.
We believe that the government should ensure that high quality, properly informed independent research is carried out into IP issues, including the economic and social consequences of any proposed changes to the system.
There should be improved linkage across government in relation to IP policy and an understanding of IP and IP issues.
Steps should be taken to promote the value and important of IP to the UK economy in the public perception.
Feel free to contact PA Axel H Horns via e-mail
horns@ipjur.com. BEWARE: DO NOT SEND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNENCRYPTED VIA E-MAIL. USE OF ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. PA AXEL H HORNS IS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ENCRYPTED E-MAIL MESSAGES USING PGP OR PGP COMPATIBLE FORMATS. THE PGP PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE. THE GnuPG PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE.
Dipl.-Phys. Axel H Horns is Patentanwalt (German Patent Attorney),
European Patent Attorney as well as European Trade Mark Attorney. In particular, he is Member of:
response filed by the 
call for evidence by the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property has been published on the Internet:
