Dearth of IP education
Written by Ben Esplin
The Center for Intellectual Property Understanding recently published a research report which examines the availability and quality of intellectual property education for those whose jobs (or future jobs) are deeply intertwined with intellectual property. The report begins by pointing out that from 1975 to 2020, the overall share of intangible assets of companies in the S&P 500 has risen from 17% to 90%. Despite this increase, education on intellectual property is somewhat ad hoc, if available at all, and most professionals acquire knowledge and skill in these intellectual property through actual work experience instead of education. Most engineers, designers, and artists, for example, have never had any formal training on intellectual property rights, despite the centrality of this body of law to their work. The study found the shortcoming is not just in formal education programs; materials for self-education tend to be “by lawyers, for lawyers,” which makes them inaccessible for lay people with careers impacted by intellectual property rights who attempt to come up to speed on their own.
In some ways, the opaqueness of intellectual property law is a characteristic of the law generally. Additional complexity is added by intangible nature of the underlying “property,” and the moral rights basis for intellectual property rights which does not fit squarely within the realm of traditional property. As a result, “education” tends to come from real world experience associated with a transaction or dispute in which intellectual property is a key component. This is not an ideal method for learning about any complex subject because it is based on limited experience which may be anecdotal and specific to the context of the transaction or dispute. As a result, it is not surprising the CIPU report found individuals’ knowledge about intellectual property is rarely complete and comprehensive. Even some of the lawyers within intellectual property who were interviewed for the report, for instance, had a firm grasp of a particular area of intellectual property law in which they practiced (e.g., patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, etc.), but were relatively ignorant of others.
This all is consistent with my experience in working with technology companies for over 20 years. Executives, engineers, and even lawyers in these companies often have incorrect or incomplete mental models for the modern system of intellectual property rights. This makes meaningful strategy for the rights that are the primary source of “value” in a technology company a challenge. In a previous post, I explained our solution to this problem – take the time with new clients to create a comprehensive intellectual property strategy BEFORE we begin doing work which will incur costs. Once we have helped a new client up the learning curve, it is our goal for them to be critical and informed consumers of our services.
If you would like to discuss an intellectual property strategy for your project or company, please contact us at your earliest convenience.