A New Stage of Intellectual Property Strategy Begins

 ■ A New Stage of Intellectual Property Strategy Begins

　A Concept Committee has been formed at the Government and Intellectual Property Headquarters, in which I will be participating as a committee member. In my 10 years as chairman of IP committee deliberations, I have refrained from expressing my own opinion whenever possible. The following are my notes on what has been said as the new stage has begun.   

On Public Deliberations 

　At the outset, the chairman announced that in principle the deliberations would be open to the public. He asked that the secretariat be cautious about applying the Chatham House Rule, which conceals the speaker’s name, which was already announced before the committee was established. This seemed appropriate to me.

　The importance of this policy was recognized due to discussions of anti-piracy measures last year being open to the public, with minutes including real names being historically significant. One of the aims of these deliberations is to raise IP strategy as a greater priority and so it is crucial to make information available rather than suppress it. 

Discussion Point 1. Promotion of Digital IP Strategy

・GAFA appears to dominate our data-driven society but the data has not yet been accumulated and distributed, and the amount of useful IoT data will increase explosively. Building infrastructure for data distribution (PDS, data transaction markets, information banks, etc.) is vital to IP strategy, the challenge being to integrate IT and IP policies. 

・Open data should be dealt with by the government rather than encouraging the private sector to shift to a data-driven society. We should advocate strongly for openness of national data so that it can be used by the private sector and so local governments across Japan are aware of it. This is often treated as an IT policy, but we should consider moving it to the top of our IP strategy as well. 

・In order to develop human resources in the field of data, it would be useful to prepare recurring education courses for working adults. However, designing such courses within the framework of each university sets some limits, so a better approach might be to push beyond the boundaries of universities and companies to design and provide educational courses that combine researchers and practitioners in flexible and more efficient ways. 

Discussion Point 2. IP Strategy and Making Use of Local Resources 

・I agree with the IP strategy’s problem establishment framework: “Post-Oripara to Osaka Expo 2025.” Especially as a strategy related to Cool Japan, I think a five-year action plan is better to strengthen overseas relations, inbound measures, regional revitalization through tourism, etc.

・Takeshiba CiP is promoting the accumulation of information and IT within special zones for Pop Tech. As well as Tokyo, similar base plans can be seen in cities such as Nagoya, Kyoto, and Fukuoka and collective events are also being held in cities such as Sapporo, Kobe, and Naha. I think it could be interesting to connect these cities through a conceptual draft for a Pop Tech archipelago. 

Discussion Point 3. Content Strategy/Cool Japan Strategy

・As for overseas expansion measures, policy tools such as the establishment of the Cool Japan Fund have been made available along with the effect of government announcements, with good results thus far. More evaluation is necessary. On the other hand, regarding the relationship between IT/hardware and content/software in terms of profit return measures, the nature of the conflict continues to evolve, as seen in debates over piracy, and reconciliation of this conflict is an important goal. 

・We have exhausted our collective wisdom regarding Cool Japan. It is now better to review, evaluate and confirm the policies that have been proposed in the past. For example, Takeshiba CiP, Haneda Airport, and Tokorozawa were discussed as models of integrated bases, but all are due to open next summer through development promoted by the private sector and municipalities, which has no relation to the national strategy.

　Additionally, while it was proposed that the music industry undertake initiatives such as an agent association and archive maintenance, these are being promoted by the voluntary efforts of that industry, which is also outside the national strategy. As a result, in order for the private sector to continue to believe in the Cool Japan strategy, I think it is necessary for the recently launched “core organization” to prove fruitful. 

・The copyright system is currently undergoing major revisions involving flexible rights restrictions, with measures against pirated editions about to be put into place. The most important issue still remaining is how to handle the integration of communication and broadcasting, particularly the problem of online distribution of TV programs, which needs to be dealt with immediately. This is difficult to coordinate with the Agency for Cultural Affairs on its own, so stronger cooperation between IP Headquarters and other relevant ministries is required.

Discussion Point 4. Societal Implementation of the IP Strategy

・In emerging industrial fields such as the sharing economy, soft law and joint regulation approaches have been adopted, with the government also creating restraints and favoring the traditional vertical division of business laws and regulations. 

　Last year’s debate over piracy was a conflict between the constitutional demands of IT (secrecy of communications) and intellectual property (property rights), making coordination across many ministries a necessity. Especially within this field, the number of issues that cannot be solved by vertically aligned and horizontally divided government offices will continue to increase. 

　For this reason, I believe it is time to envision a ministry that focuses on IT and intellectual property. (Keidanren) has also proposed a Ministry of Digital Affairs. The biggest change in 20 years since the restructuring of the ministries and agencies is probably the increased importance of IT/intellectual property and AI/data and the horizontal divisions between them. 

・In the past 10 years, I have become concerned that while private committee members have led discussions at government meetings, the number of statements coming out of government offices has decreased. Obviously it is important for private experts to share their opinions freely, but is it really acceptable that policy is made solely based on this after being tuned up within the government. 

　Depending on the issue, there could perhaps be a way for government, which has the highest degree of expertise and information, to hold discussions and then based on that for the private sector to express their opinions. Why not set up a committee for open meetings where the managers of relevant ministries and agencies can debate one another over policy? (The key principle here is that Kasumigaseki should open up the policy talks that are currently being held behind closed doors).