|
What
is Intellectual Property? > Study
Aids > Intellectual
Property Public Education
Intellectual
Property Public Education
Presentation
by Stephen Selby
Director of Intellectual Property, Hong Kong Government
Background?
Hong
Kong started its public education efforts in earnest in 1997. Prior
to that time we had been drafting new laws to protect copyright,
patents and designs. Previously, we had not considered it appropriate
to invest time and money in educating the public about an out-dated
intellectual property system that was just about to be changed.
Today,
Hong Kong's Intellectual Property Department has a team of four
full-time staff working on promotion of intellectual property protection.
The approved project for our public education programme for the
period 1999-2002 is US$2.2 million.
Situation
in Hong Kong
Hong
Kong has a population of about six million. Intellectual property
has been protected in Hong Kong for a very long time. Our Trade
Mark Registry started operating in 1874, and copyright has been
protected since 1912. Hong Kong uses the English Common Law system,
and our intellectual property system previously reflected the British
intellectual property protection regime.
In
1997, upon its return to Chinese sovereignty, Hong Kong had to develop
its localized system of intellectual property law. While adopting
many features of the legal system for IP protection now operating
in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong's new laws have been thoroughly
modernized and include some unique features suited to Hong Kong's
specific situation. Hong Kong protects (inter alia) trade marks,
industrial designs, patents for inventions, copyright, plant varieties,
mask works and confidential information. Hong Kong's IP laws comply
with the TRIPS standards.
Although
the general public in Hong Kong has a low level of awareness of
intellectual property protection, surveys show that they generally
appreciate that there is 'something wrong' with using pirated or
counterfeit goods. The business community generally has a good understanding
of the principles of trade mark protection. However, their appreciation
of the system of protection of designs and patents is more limited.
Strategy
and tactics
Drawing
upon our experience in public education work in intellectual property,
we have come to a number of initial conclusions.
Scope
We
regard the areas of IP protection requiring the main investment
in planning and promotion to be -
- Paents
- Copyright
- Designs,
and
- Trade
Marks
The
other forms of protection available involve a narrower sub-set
of the public. In general, those whose work involves, for example,
mask works or plant varieties are aware of the types of protection
available.
Balance
We
found that the public's general awareness of intellectual property
is often expressed in terms of what they are not allowed to do.
That it to say, they understand the subject in negative terms,
with undue weight on obligations rather than rights.
Rationale
The
public has a poor grasp of why piracy and counterfeiting are wrong,
and why protection of copyright, trademarks, designs and patents
represent a social and economic benefit.
We
also appeal to the public at the emotional level. We try to find
entertainment celebrities to voice their good and bad experiences,
to provide case-studies and to use advertising to create peer-pressure
against undesirable behaviour and in favour of desirable behaviour.
Credibility
Our
audiences are sophisticated consumers. They do not respond well
to simplistic slogans. Some dubious arguments (for example that
pirated copies of software are usually of unacceptable quality
and may spread computer bugs) have been shown empirically to be
untrue in most cases.
Two
very important points emerge:
- ·
The Government, as main promoter of the campaign, must not
itself be exposed as an infringer of intellectual property;
and
- ·
The business community and foreign investors cannot appreciate
the benefits of IP protection unless there is credible enforcement
at both the civil and the criminal levels.
Focus
The
targets of our campaigns must be carefully selected. Different
social groups and age groups have different needs and concerns.
The community must be targetted using Hong Kong's own local language
and idiom (the Cantonese dialect).
That
does not invalidate generalized advertising. Some media, for example
television, are particularly pervasive and powerful and so need
to be exploited through generalized campaigns. But generalized
campaigns are more like 'background music': they cannot convey
the whole of the message.
The
campaign
Our
first efforts in public education were directed at secondary schools.
Hong Kong is small and the number of secondary schools is small
enough to make it practical to visit them all. We therefore started
off with a programme in which our intellectual property examiners
went in pairs on arranged visits to secondary schools. This plan
has a number of advantages:
- It
costs nothing.
- Schools
appreciate the individual presentation and the chance to have
questions answered. (Teachers have as many questions as pupils
do.)
- Trade
mark examiners in the Department could broaden their knowledge
of IP by having to prepare to speak to school students at an
elementary level. They also develop superior public presentation
skills.
- Trade
mark examiners can have some variety in what is otherwise quite
monotonous work.
After
a while, it became clear that without back-up, schoolteachers did
not have the confidence to speak to pupils about IP on their own.
In addition, we did not have sufficient resources to visit the primary
schools.
To
overcome these deficiencies, we invested about US$7,700 in a teaching
kit for upper primary and lower secondary students. The kit contains
a teacher's handbook, some role-playing games and quiz materials
and a video tape. The video is based around a drama set in a school,
but includes inserts by local film and music stars as well as international
figures such as Jackie Chan.
It
became apparent that this approach, although effective, was hand-to-mouth
and did not accommodate proper marketing research and planning.
We therefore obtained funding for a rolled-forward programme of
public education costing US$2.2 million over a three-year period.
This programme has the following main features:
- ·
Proper market research
- ·
Effective benchmarking
- ·
General background campaigns
- ·
Focus-group campaigns
- ·
Private sector participation
Proper
market research
Respect
for intellectual property protection is a 'product' and the task
is to market the product. As explained above, we had to analyse
carefully what our product was.
The
product has to be identifiable to the target audience in terms
they can understand. 'Intellectual property' is not an easy concept
to put across. 'Copyright', 'patent', 'design' and 'trade mark'
are much easier. Breaking the problem down further to concepts
like 'stealing the fruits of others' labour' or 'protecting my
investment in R & D' are easier still.
We
commissioned professional researchers to undertake a market survey
on public attitudes to piracy, counterfeiting and IP protection.
We also studied carefully the results of research done by others.
This provided us with objective data on which to plan our priorities.
Once in possession of a valid patent, the owner normally has the
choice of -
Benchmarking
As
a programme develops, it is important to know what point you have
reached, whether you have made progress, and whether it is necessary
to change direction in the light of adverse findings. The public
opinion survey mentioned above also served as a benchmark. The
same questions will be asked at the end of each year of the programme
so that we can gain objective feedback on the progress we are
making, and change tactics if we are not achieving the desired
results.
General
background campaigns
Certain
media, such as radio, television and the popular press are too
important to ignore; but at the same time, they do not present
the opportunity to deliver a message to a focussed audience.
On
the basis of our market research, we placed the highest priority
on influencing the public away from providing a market for purveyors
of pirated and counterfeit goods. This meant focussing on copyright
and trademark protection. In our first television advertisement,
we conveyed the double message that selling pirated works hurts
pop and film idols, as well as landing the seller of such goods
in jail. The 30-second advertisement was shown on television and
copies were made and distributed free of charge to 50 cinemas.
(Cinema operators agreed to run the film before performances at
no charge.) We also developed a printed poster to display at public
places.
Our
second TV advertisement aimed to create peer-pressure by ridiculing
people who wear counterfeit clothing and accessories. A number
of owners of famous brand names co-operated by allowing us to
display obviously fake versions of their names and logos. Brand
name owners cannot be counted upon to agree to such use of their
intellectual property, and it is vital that their full co-operation
is obtained in advance. Any public row between a government and
a brand name owner, however trivial, can ruin the effect of a
good campaign.
Again,
we backed up the television advertisement with radio advertising
and printed advertisements in the press and on posters in public
places and public transport. Copies of the printed advertisements
are included in this text.
At
the same time, competitions and roving displays in district shopping
malls were used to promote an understanding of patents for inventions
and designs.
At
the retail level, we launched a 'No Fakes' campaign among local
retailers. They display eye-catching stickers pledging that they
only sell genuine goods. They police the campaign themselves through
their own trade organizations. The Government periodically recognizes
their efforts by publishing a prominent advertisement in the popular
press, listing retailers who are supporting the campaign.
We
have also mounted an 'I Pledge' campaign led by a local music
star, in which the public are encouraged to sign a pledge only
to buy and use genuine goods. Those who 'sign the pledge' are
given a credit-card sized membership card which may gain them
discounts at participating retail outlets.
Focus-group
campaigns
These
campaigns target particular groups within the community and focus
on their specific concerns and needs. The main medium is tailor-made
handbooks explaining the issues in easily understandable terms,
giving clear and specific examples and offering practical advice.
The target groups so far identified and targetted are (in order)
-
- The
civil service, because it needs to display the correct leadership,
and because any infringements of IP (even inadvertent ones)
would tarnish the image of the main sponsor of the campaign
and make the audience cynical.
- The
press and media, because they form the main bridge for delivering
the Government's message. They need to be influenced away from
treating the Government's message cynically by showing reporters
that IP is their own 'rice bowl'. The press will support the
fight against IP infringements if they can identify themselves
with the victims.
- The
teaching profession, because they provide a strong positive
influence, but also a negative role-model if they themselves
habitually infringe IP rights and, due to ignorance, encourage
their students to do the same.
- Small
and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) because they are the main source
of potential for growth in the economy, and because they need
to be strategically placed to benefit from an increasingly knowledge-based
economy.
Private
sector participation
At
each step of the campaign, the private sector is mobilized to
offer support (moral and material). This often involves appealing
to their self-interest. Here are some examples:
- The
Business Software Alliance is contributing to training of 'compliance
officers' in each Government department to ensure proper compliance
with IP laws, including computer software.
- Trade
mark owners and famous brand names give permission to use their
brand names (including obviously fake versions) in our advertising
campaigns and roving exhibitions.
- Non-government
organizations such as the Hong Kong Intellectual Property Society
and the Hong Kong Inventor's Association participate in the
planning and staging of events.
- Local
community organizations and councils are offered grants to meet
the expenses of their own, district-level events in support
of the main campaign.
- Retailers
support a 'No Fakes' campaign, in which they show their pride
in keeping a 'clean' inventory of stock.
Work
remaining to be done
All
education efforts are long-term investments. They cannot bring about
overnight results. In many cases, we are attacking entrenched public
attitudes. The challenge in marketing the message against piracy
and counterfeiting amounts to trying to persuade the public to spend
ten dollars on something they feel they can buy for one.
A
major area that remains to be explored is the challenge of gearing
up tertiary institutions to teach intellectual property issues in
a systematic way in all their courses. This would involve marshalling
resources in the Government and the legal profession, as most university
staff are poorly equipped to teach such courses.
Another
important area is to develop an educational package aimed at persuading
businesses to treat their portfolios of IP rights as genuine business
assets. This means developing with the accounting profession a consistent
way of valuing such portfolios, and persuading the banking community
to recognize the value of such portfolios in assessing their clients.
|
|