Fire swinging on Koh Tao, Thailand
I love this photo as it brings back special memories of the wonderful culture and people I encountered whilst honeymooning in Thailand.
photo credit: zoutedrop

- 1709 Copyright Blog
- Afro-IP
- BLOG@IP::JUR
- Class 46
- GRAY on Claims
- Holman's Biotech IP Blog
- IAM Magazine
- Intellectual Property Watch
- Inventive Step
- IP ADR Blog
- IP Asset Maximizer Blog
- IP finance
- IP tango
- IPDragon
- ipeg
- IPKat
- ITC 337 Law Blog
- Managing Intellectual Property
- Michael Geist's Blog
- Orange Book Blog
- Patent Baristas
- Patent Circle
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PatLit
- Peter Zura's 271 Blog
- Register trademark
- SpicyIP
- Tangible IP
- The IP Factor
- TTABlog
|
|
Thursday, March 4, 2010 — IP ON THE NET, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF IP, IP WARS, PHARMA, BIOTECH & CHEM IP STRATEGY, GLOBAL IP STRATEGY What if patents lasted 70 years?by Duncan BucknellFor those who didn't just run screaming from the room, let's briefly discuss.
What would you add?
[Photo credit: Mark Strozier]
Permalink | Comments (1) | + del.icio.us | + technorati | tweet this | email this Tuesday, March 2, 2010 — IP ON THE NET, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF IP, IP WARS, PHARMA, BIOTECH & CHEM IP STRATEGY, GLOBAL IP STRATEGY Invention capital Intellectual Ventures and Youby Duncan Bucknell
It's a good point that the business of invention would function better if it were separated from manufacturing and developed on its own. And this has been happening for quite some time in pockets, though usually constrained, as Nathan points out. A strong capital market that funds and monetizes inventions is definitely a good option for this, but its not the only one. For example, just looking at the other end of things for a minute, there is still a lot of work to be done in reducing the costs and risks associated with commercialising inventions on the single patent by patent scale (and by the way the quoted 1% success rate is probably optimistic). Nathan's model is all about reducing risk with large scale. That's great. It's not the only way. Another way (and there will be others) is to be clever about reducing risks at the invention (or much smaller portfolio) level. It was a bit of a shame to see Nathan's piece so heavily oriented to the United States and one might suggest a little condescending when dealing with developing countries. He's clearly not only thinking about the US in IV's business strategy, however. A little too trite on connecting market capitalization of entities like Qualcomm to their patent portfolios but probably just that he was limited on space for the piece. Is culture the main barrier to the emergence of a bona fide market for inventions? Well I'm not so sure, but thanks for your thoughts. The two cultural shifts Intellectual Ventures is looking for are: (1) product companies to see inventors as wellsprings of innovation and (2) IP rights to be respected, especially in developing economies. This is a great quote from the world's biggest patent aggregator: "we have never sued anybody to defend our intellectual property rights....It's expensive, it's unpredictable, and it takes years." I totally agree with the next statement and some thoughts on it will come out in a couple of interviews I haverecently done for leading IP magazines (I'll keep you posted): "I believe the market will start functioning well and will then grow rapidly...We will see a more intricate and efficient invention industry populated by professional patent finders and packagers, appraisers and underwriters, financiers and sales agents - and other roles not yet conceived." I can see how the Intellectual Ventures model suggests that an efficient market which extracts the full value from patents requires enormous capitalization. I'm personally not so sure that this is the only way, though. I am not aware of anyone who has seriously thought about attacking the cost side of things in a strategic way (please do disabuse me). There's a fair bit of marketing in the Intellectual Ventures manifesto, by the way. Intellectual Ventures' current approaches to turning inventions into money:
Nothing earth shattering there. Which is fine. So here's an opportunity - go dig deep in at the other end of things. For example, develop a process for reducing risk (of market failure) as you invent. It's not really our core business, but I've previously built one process that's been singing along and evolving for a few years. But there will be lots of others. If Chris Anderson is right about the new economics of the long tail of niches. Then perhaps instead of a few behemoths as Nathan suggests, what the world really needs (in addition) is a whole lot of much smaller, niche entities creating and adding value to invention markets. What do you think? [Photo credit: Ric e Ette]
Permalink | Comments (0) | + del.icio.us | + technorati | tweet this | email this Thursday, February 25, 2010 — PHARMA, BIOTECH & CHEM IP STRATEGY Pharmaceutical patent settlements - and what about patients?by Duncan BucknellDo patent settlements help or hurt patients? What do you think?
"Putting aside the benefits to either the innovator or generic company in settling pharma patent cases and the gripes of the FTC and other competition bodies that these settlements feel unfair (but there is nothing it can do to stop them) - shouldn't this question be all about benefit for the patient and/or the health services that often foot the bill for the patient's treatment? [Photo credit: Destinys Agent]
Permalink | Comments (0) | + del.icio.us | + technorati | tweet this | email this Tuesday, February 23, 2010 — IP ON THE NET, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF IP, GLOBAL IP STRATEGY You won't get what you want if you look in the wrong placeby Duncan BucknellMaybe a call for a Chief [insert whatever you like] Officer is the plaintive cry of a forgotten discipline?
My suggestion, and I've said it before: Stop thinking you're unique or different and start listening and learning from the broader business community. Here are some annotated excerpts from a recent post from the team at Branding Strategy Insider calling for a Chief Marketing Officer. (And thanks guys for a great post, by the way.) "Given the tremendous marketing potential offered by the new media and proliferation of distribution channels, companies have begun to realize the huge potential of marketing in guiding corporate level strategies and substantially contributing to the financial bottom line." Sounds just like the call to arms for Chief IP Officers to me. "Further, not many companies have a senior marketing representative in their C-suite." Same for IP. "Why do companies need a Chief Marketing Officer? As the business landscape evolves, marketing also evolves into an organization wide strategic discipline. Given marketer’s knowledge of the customers, it is imperative that the CEO and the corporate board have a representative of the customer to continually educate them." Yep, the IP community think the same thing about IP. "Additionally, companies need a strategic CMO to benefit from: Align marketing with the corporate business strategy:" I'd love a dollar for every firm hawking IP services banging on about 'aligning IP strategy with business strategy' without knowing so very much about either. "Connect the corporate boardroom with the customer:" Delete customer and insert 'technology', 'innovation' or some other buzzword and you have the CIPO rhetoric to a T. "Create a customer centric organization:" Another dollar please for everytime I've seen 'IP-centric business / organization / culture' "Challenges faced by the CMO It has been long argued that one of the fundamental challenges of marketing that has undermined the credibility of marketing, threatened the standing of marketing within a company, and even threatened the existence of the very discipline as a distinct entity is marketing’s failure to quantify its outcomes and justify investments into marketing activities." This is stunningly similar to IP's biggest problem, often blogged and talked about at conferences - demonstrating value. But isn't that a universal issue? "The three main impediments in this regard are: (1) Relating marketing activities to long-term effects; (2) Separation of individual marketing activities from other actions and (3) Use of purely financial methods for justifying and benchmarking marketing investments. As such, CMOs are not given the opportunity to participate in the strategic decision making of the company." I love number 3. Number 3 is IP's current achilles heel - purely financialy models and balance sheets don't work for IP either. "Two such daunting challenges are: Measuring marketing outcomes:" Ditto "Explaining marketing’s centrality in a company:" Ditto and maybe it's not always so central, guys. "Internal training:" Now there's an idea... "On the horizon In the future, the CMO will emerge as the strategic connection between the corporate boardroom, the top management team, the CEO and the customer. Companies should offer the CMO the requisite status and power within the company. Furthermore, companies must create an organizational structure where CMOs can guide the company’s vision and mission by integrating the myriad functions within the company. The time is not too far when the success of the company depends on the strength of its marketing and the CMO." Except the IP community bangs its fist and says the time is now, or yesterday. [Photo credit: xynt4x] Permalink | Comments (0) | + del.icio.us | + technorati | tweet this | email this Thursday, February 18, 2010 — STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF IP, IP WARS, PHARMA, BIOTECH & CHEM IP STRATEGY, GLOBAL IP STRATEGY Scratch that assumption - industrial applicability really does have teethby Duncan BucknellFor those dealing with patents, here's something to study closely.
Far reaching implications to say the least. The number of times that I've heard patent attorneys discount this ground is astounding. Check out Lee Caffin's article on the case in our articles section - 'Satisfying the requirements for Industrial Applicability' [Photo - Lord Justice Jacob (Sir Robin Jacob), of course.] Permalink | Comments (0) | + del.icio.us | + technorati | tweet this | email this |




















What would happen if patents were like copyright and lasted for 70 years? Here are some examples:
I really enjoyed Nathan Myhrvold's
There's an interesting post over in the
We've seen tons of talk in the IP Blogosphere about Chief IP Officers (CIPOs) (or
A patent for a Neutrokine-alpha protein invalidated for lack of Industrial Applicability.

