Calling the design community – the Government is interested in your views how to support and encourage creativity, innovation and investments in design through how designs are protected.  Please give your views!

Throughout my career, I’ve had a keen interest in design. I originally applied to university to study architecture, but, for better or worse, I chickened out and switched to geography—a six-year course seemed too long at the time. Of course, a degree plus a PhD turned out to be much the same. Funny how that works. During my PhD, I studied the source of innovations and stumbled upon an important distinction between technological and design innovations.

In recent years, there has been considerable growth in interest in “design thinking”, which is really about applying well-established design processes and sensibilities to all sorts of things. Tim Brown and IDEO did a great job of popularising design through design thinking.

But I think design still tends to be overlooked, under-appreciated and even dismissed among the innovation and strategy community.  Yet design is “big business”.  The Design Council has estimated that the design sector accounts for almost £100bn of gross value added to the UK economy, which is roughly 5% of GVA, and own analysis finds the design sector to be of roughly similar size to the technology-intensive sector, but the latter gets much more attention.  There are also nearly 81,000 design businesses in the UK, the vast majority of which are microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees. It is a thriving sector.

Intellectual property rights are important to any creative activity, and design is no exception. Together with Estelle Derclaye, professor of intellectual property in the School of Law at the University of Nottingham, I have recently completed a review of design protection in the UK. The study was sponsored by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), a branch of the UK government and by the Arts and Humanities Research Council funded Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre. We also make policy suggestions. Very briefly, we think designers and design owners should register far more of their designs, and to be encouraged to do so, in part as a form of insurance.

The IPO is now consulting on design protections, and is interested in the views of the designers, design businesses, legal professionals and anyone interested in design concerning how designs should be protected. It states: “The UK designs protection system should help people grow the economy through investment in innovation and creativity (related to design)”.  It has identified five principles which it thinks important to users of the system, which are (my additions are in brackets):

• cost (of obtaining rights and enforcement) – the system should offer value for money
• validity (of rights) – the system should provide an appropriate level of validity and clarity about existence of rights (and when they have expired).  (Invalid rights should be removed quickly and at low cost to bone fide objectors).
• speed – design protection should be quick to obtain and enforce
• choice – the system should provide choice for designers as to how to protect
• simplicity – the system should be as simple as possible

This is an interesting framework – I wish I had thought of it!  It shows that an IP framework cannot be perfect and involves trade-offs. The IPO acknowledges there are trade-offs between the principles.  Validity and speed, for instance.  A register of designs rather than granting design patents (as the US does, for instance) trades speed of granting rights for the greater risk that rights are granted may be to invalid designs.

The IPO wants to know which of these principles are most important to users of the design system and why. To this end it is asking businesses and designers to take part in a short survey, which is open until 31^st March 2025. It is an interesting survey.  I don’t mind admitting that I found several of the questions tricky to answer.

The IPO also wants to know whether the definition of a design in intellectual property law meets the needs of designers and consumers in the digital age.  This too is interesting.  If smells and sounds can be ‘designed’, then shouldn’t they be protected by design law?

The IPO is keen to hear from designers and businesses of all sizes, and from a wide range of sectors which engage in design and use design protection – whether individual entrepreneurs, start-ups, established firms or large corporates. Its survey will help it develop options for change to the UK’s designs framework, which it will consult on later in the year.  An interesting feature of design protection is that it varies between countries much more than other IP rights, so this is something the UK can change if it wants to.

As Chris Mills, Director of Rights Policy at the IPO has said:

“Great design is at the heart of successful UK products and businesses, helping them stand out in an increasingly competitive global marketplace and driving growth in our economy. We want to hear from everyone who has a stake in the UK’s thriving design economy – whether you are a designer, manufacturer, trade body or simply interested in design. You don’t need to be an IP expert to take part in our survey. Your experience and insights will help us ensure our designs framework remains modern, accessible and fit for the digital age.

I echo that.  I urge all readers who have an interest in designs and who are reasonably well-informed on how designs are or could be protected to take part in the IPO’s survey.

About the author:

Bruce Tether is Professor of Innovation Management and Strategy at Alliance Manchester Business School and a member of Manchester Institute of Innovation Research.

Related

Throughout my career, I’ve had a keen interest in design. I originally applied to university to study architecture, but, for better or worse, I chickened out and switched to geography—a six-year course seemed too long at the time. Of course, a degree plus a PhD turned out to be much the same. Funny how that works. During my PhD, I studied the source of innovations and stumbled upon an important distinction between technological and design innovations

In recent years, there has been considerable growth in interest in “design thinking”, which is really about applying well-established design processes and sensibilities to all sorts of things. Tim Brown and IDEO did a great job of popularising design through design thinking.

But I think design still tends to be overlooked, under-appreciated and even dismissed among the innovation and strategy community.  Yet design is “big business”.  The Design Council has estimated that the design sector accounts for almost £100bn of gross value added to the UK economy, which is roughly 5% of GVA, and own analysis finds the design sector to be of roughly similar size to the technology-intensive sector, but the latter gets much more attention.  There are also nearly 81,000 design businesses in the UK, the vast majority of which are microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees. It is a thriving sector.

Intellectual property rights are important to any creative activity, and design is no exception. Together with Estelle Derclaye, professor of intellectual property in the School of Law at the University of Nottingham, I have recently completed a review of design protection in the UK. The study was sponsored by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), a branch of the UK government and by the Arts and Humanities Research Council funded Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre. We also make policy suggestions. Very briefly, we think designers and design owners should register far more of their designs, and to be encouraged to do so, in part as a form of insurance.

The IPO is now consulting on design protections, and is interested in the views of the designers, design businesses, legal professionals and anyone interested in design concerning how designs should be protected. It states: “The UK designs protection system should help people grow the economy through investment in innovation and creativity (related to design)”.  It has identified five principles which it thinks important to users of the system, which are (my additions are in brackets):

• cost (of obtaining rights and enforcement) – the system should offer value for money
• validity (of rights) – the system should provide an appropriate level of validity and clarity about existence of rights (and when they have expired).  (Invalid rights should be removed quickly and at low cost to bone fide objectors).
• speed – design protection should be quick to obtain and enforce
• choice – the system should provide choice for designers as to how to protect
• simplicity – the system should be as simple as possible

This is an interesting framework – I wish I had thought of it!  It shows that an IP framework cannot be perfect and involves trade-offs. The IPO acknowledges there are trade-offs between the principles.  Validity and speed, for instance.  A register of designs rather than granting design patents (as the US does, for instance) trades speed of granting rights for the greater risk that rights are granted may be to invalid designs.

The IPO wants to know which of these principles are most important to users of the design system and why. To this end it is asking businesses and designers to take part in a short survey, which is open until 31^st March 2025. It is an interesting survey.  I don’t mind admitting that I found several of the questions tricky to answer.

The IPO also wants to know whether the definition of a design in intellectual property law meets the needs of designers and consumers in the digital age.  This too is interesting.  If smells and sounds can be ‘designed’, then shouldn’t they be protected by design law?

The IPO is keen to hear from designers and businesses of all sizes, and from a wide range of sectors which engage in design and use design protection – whether individual entrepreneurs, start-ups, established firms or large corporates. Its survey will help it develop options for change to the UK’s designs framework, which it will consult on later in the year.  An interesting feature of design protection is that it varies between countries much more than other IP rights, so this is something the UK can change if it wants to.

As Chris Mills, Director of Rights Policy at the IPO has said:

“Great design is at the heart of successful UK products and businesses, helping them stand out in an increasingly competitive global marketplace and driving growth in our economy. We want to hear from everyone who has a stake in the UK’s thriving design economy – whether you are a designer, manufacturer, trade body or simply interested in design. You don’t need to be an IP expert to take part in our survey. Your experience and insights will help us ensure our designs framework remains modern, accessible and fit for the digital age.

I echo that.  I urge all readers who have an interest in designs and who are reasonably well-informed on how designs are or could be protected to take part in the IPO’s survey.

Related