About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

IP Outreach Research > IP Crime

Reference

Title: Cybercrime against Businesses, 2005 Special Report
Author: Ramona R Rantala [Bureau of Justice Statistics]
Source:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cb05.htm

Year: 2008

Details

Subject/Type: IP Theft - General
Focus: Economic / Financial Impact
Country/Territory: United States of America
Objective: To document the nature, prevalence and impact of cybercrimes against businesses in the United States.
Sample: 7.818 businesses
Methodology: Survey

Main Findings

In 2005, 3% of businesses surveyed were victim of intellectual property (IP) cyber theft; stolen IP included trade secrets (70% of cases), copyrighted material (47%), patented material (14%), and trademarks (8%). Monetary loss incurred from computer security incidents involving the theft of IP ranged from no loss (9%), to USD 1.000-9.000 (17%), to USD 10.000-99.000 (36%), and to USD 100.000 or more (38%). Theft of IP had the fewest number of incidents (607), but the greatest amount of monetary loss of all types of cyber theft (nearly USD 160 million).

6% of affected businesses reported having no information about what affiliation any computer security offenders had with the business. When at least some offender information was known, suspected offenders were thought to be insiders (84%), outsiders (20%), or others (5%). 88% of businesses that had their IP stolen reported the incident to some person or organisation: within the business (67%), to another organisation (4%), or to law enforcement (27%).

[Date Added: Oct 22, 2008 ]