Chamber of Commerce Releases IP Study Quantifying IP Jobs On a State-By-State Basis

Access practice tools, as well as industry leading news, customizable alerts, dockets, and primary content, including a comprehensive collection of case law, dockets, and regulations. Leverage...

Development: The new study, like the report released in April by the U.S. Department of Commerce, gives fodder to rights holders pushing for stronger IP protections.

By Tamlin H. Bason  

Another study detailing the impact that IP intensive industries have on the U.S. economy was unveiled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Intellectual Property Center May 23.

The report delves deeper into some of the numbers than did the U.S. Commerce Department's April 11 report (70 PTD, 4/12/12), and by doing so it provides U.S. rights holders with a prepackaged state-by-state argument for why stricter IP enforcement laws are needed.

The report “contributes hard data to the discussion going forward,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said during an event at the U.S. Capitol Visitor's Center in Washington, D.C., that coincided with the unveiling of the GIPC study.

For instance, the study, conducted by NDP Consulting, states that Coons's home state of Delaware has over 150,000 jobs attributable to IP intensive industries, and that IP industries account for nearly 90 percent of Delaware's exports.

“The risks of IP theft … are real and they are growing,” Coons said, adding that effective IP laws “are imperative for protecting our economy, our jobs, and our safety.”

California Tops List With 7.5 Million IP Jobs.

According to a press release accompanying the report, the study balances inputs for IP-intensive companies by looking at research and development expenses against outputs--which are determined by looking at a company's IP portfolio. This process was repeated for companies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The release said that the study, titled IP Crates Jobs for America, went beyond the Commerce Department's report by looking outside the supply chain. An executive summary of the study said, “In this report, we define IP-intensive companies as those who reported positive R&D expenditures in manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors, companies that apply registered trademarks to products such as consumer goods, and those in six copyright-concentrated industries (motion pictures, newspapers, performing arts, broadcasting, independent artists, and software).”

It is no surprise that the study identified California as the state with the most jobs attributable to IP industries. IP industries provide nearly 7.5 million jobs and an output of $922.8 billion for the Golden State.

Texas ranked second in jobs with 4.6 million attributable to IP-intensive industries. Illinois's 2.8 million IP related jobs narrowly beat out New York's 2.7 million IP related jobs for third place. Even Wyoming, the smallest state in the country in terms of population with just over 550,000 inhabitants as of the 2010 census, has a lot to gain by IP enforcement since IP industries account for 46,864 jobs, according to the study.

“This study shatters the myth that IP industries are focused primarily in New York and in California,” Mark Elliott, executive vide president of the GIPC, said.

In total, the study said that IP-intensive industries provide 55.7 million direct and indirect jobs, contribute over $5 trillion to the country's GDP, and account for 74 percent of all U.S. exports.

Rights Holders Trying to Shore up Support for New Legislation.

The press release said, “The IP Creates Jobs for America project is intended to be a resource for legislators, policymakers, and the public to better understand the vital role innovative and creative industries play in our broader economic well-being.”

Coons said that the study, along with the Commerce Department's report, will be beneficial to rights holders in identifying the importance of IP, and the need for stronger protections.

Coons, who was a co-sponsor of the Senate's Protect IP Act (S. 968), recounted a time during the heated debate over both the Protect IP Act and the House's even more controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) when one of his 13-year-old sons woke him up and “asked me why I wanted to break the internet, and why Justin Bieber thought I should go to jail.”

“That was when I first realized that we weren't communicating effectively,” Coons said. “And while I do think that SOPA overreached in some areas … we didn't succeed in getting across a message that IP is valuable and needs to be protected.”

Sen. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) lauded the study for delving further into the numbers than did the Commerce Department's report. They study demonstrated that IP intensive companies have 61 percent greater output and pay 31 percent more in wages than do non-IP- intensive companies in Grassley's home state of Iowa.

“The study shows that intellectual property is pivotal to the U.S. economy, and that is why we should care when it is stolen or counterfeited,” Grassley said. He added, “The study will be a valuable resource for Congress and the executive branch.”

Sen. Charles Patrick Roberts (R-Kan.) stressed the importance of patents to “the real green revolution” when scientists engineered high-yield wheat strains and in doing so massively increased the world's grain production capabilities (83 PTD, 5/1/07).

The United States is currently the world leader in agriculture, but he said a booming global population presents many challenges.

“In the next several decades we will have to double agriculture production and the U.S. must continue to lead and keep our competitive edge,” Roberts said.

He said the new study “demonstrates that it is in our interest to protect and nurture this innovation because the failure to do so results in a long-term drain on our economy.”

By Tamlin H. Bason  

GIPC study at

Request Intellectual Property on Bloomberg Law