Sometimes even the driest of dry subjects have their moment under the media spotlight.  This Autumn, for several reasons, it’s timely to revisit the other IP - Intellectual Property.

I doubt that CMA members are eagerly awaiting Andrew Gowers’s Review of Britain’s IP framework commissioned back in 2005 by the Treasury.  Nor do I suppose that members are entirely familiar with the RSA’s Adelphi Charter launched last October.   But most of us, however, are increasingly aware of the unintended consequences of current battles over IP Rights – even if we only pay attention when we feel ripped off by the music or film industry.

The two primary issues in this debate are Innovation and the Public Interest.   For several decades the rules governing IP have increasingly favoured big business.  This aggressive approach is now seen as stifling innovation: creativity has always borrowed from established ideas.

If today’s IP regimes existed back in the 1800’s we would never have seen European firms like Ericsson or Philips Electronics.  Graham Dutfield, senior research fellow at Queen Mary, University of London points out that the Victorian era was not so different from today.   The economy may have been heavier and not flattened by networks but there was a keen awareness of globalisation and intellectual competition.

What started out as national protectionisn seems now to have become an essential prop for business models - an unbalanced dependency on litigation that, in the medicine, music and publishing industries, is now so 'absurdly over-protective' that it encourages widespread non-conformance.

Governments and regulators still tend to assume that the views of big business are aligned with those of citizens.  They worry that, without tight IP regimes, investment and jobs will move to better-protected countries.  This is a big-business argument that overlooks the interests of masses of SME’s and individuals who are not organised to shout so loudly or protect their rights so aggressively.  The RSA’s Adelphi charter argues for a better balance “between free competition and the monopoly rights granted by intellectual property laws”.  This is far easier said than done because EU member states do not want to step out of line with the US.

The way forward – in reality the search for ‘a reverse gear’ - seems to have four components.  We must stop creating new types of IP protection or extending the existing rights.  If change is needed the burden of proof must lie on the promoters.  Change must only be allowed where there is solid evidence that it will promote people’s basic rights and economic well-being. And, perhaps most importantly, there should be widespread public consultation and transparent assessments of public benefits and detriments.

What has this to do with the CMA?  Our members need competitive services and technology choices.  Our businesses have benefited from the roll-back of monopoly and duopoly positions in both fixed and mobile communications but we should never underestimate the energy and enthusiasm of legacy providers to protect their patch.

The bottom line is that in competitive markets we need to live with Intellectual Property Rights and, to some extent, the anti-circumvention provisions of ‘digital rights management’, but we also need to remember that Intellectual Property regimes must reflect the wider public interest.  Here’s hoping that this Autumn the public will be interested.