Grand (IP) Strategy

In the IP Strategy context, ‘Strategy’ is the way you use intellectual property to maximise commercial objectives.

‘Grand Strategy’ uses all elements (HR, Marketing, PR, Sales, Manufacturing, Legal, IP, Business Development, Distribution, etc, etc) to the same end.

An IP Strategy without the context of a Grand Strategy may work, but it’s likely to be inefficient, at best and at worst, contrary to your best interests.

5 Comments on “Grand (IP) Strategy

  1. Duncan;
    Music to my ears, Duncan. 
    When up-skilling management in matters IP, to point them in that same direction I have long used a catch cry… “Don’t ask for an IP strategy for your project.  There is no such thing.  There is only an IP tactical plan to deliver BUSINESS STRATEGY.”  Still, some people just don’t get it!  Sadly I fear many of our colleagues in IP management like to build up their own importance by claiming the grandeur of STRATEGY for their contribution.  But if business success is a team game then we should be satisfied with our tactical contribution to the grand strategy.

  2. Good debate.
    I do think the challenge in selling anything other than legal services (contracts, acquiring patents etc) there is an interesting challenge of “what are we”. We at ipVa wrestled with this for some while. We started with what we are not–a law firm or a firm of patent attorneys. With what we are we debated a business consultancy with an IP edge is where we ended up.
    We do strategy. Though I’d agree that with a few exceptions (mainly IP companies-see below) the IP strategy hangs off the overall, what you call Grand Strategy. I’d call it strategy (it involves the purpose, the vision, the implementation) and giving it that title means it is easy for our clients to understand what we do and where we fit. It also (as a help for anyone else setting out down the road we went down) really helps to answer the “what are you guys” question?
    The exception to the rule are IP companies. By which we mean companies with an IP business model-particularly IP and technology licensing companies which do not manufacture or sell products but enabling technology. There IP is the business. With those IP strategy and business strategy are almost indistinguishable.
    Good debate. Asever it increseses the depth of understanding of who does what in this nascent area.

  3. Hey, thanks Andrew – great points and great to have your comments.I should say that I don’t quite agree with Allan’s point about IP Strategy being tactics – tactics are not strategy.Even IP Companies need to be thinking about HR, Marketing, PR, Sales, Legal, Business Development, etc,- so I think the concept of Grand Strategy still applies to them

  4. I agree with your opinion
    Duncan. IP strategy should be
    part of the overall strategy of a company, so it will be most effective.
    Unfortunately, the views
    of Allan, that many companies have no IP strategy but only IP tactics is
    true. Many companies do not
    believe that IP strategy is crucial for them and because of that they having concluded
    that it is not worthwhile to be developed.
    But the role of us as
    specialists in intellectual property is to convince companies of the
    need for IP strategy that would lead to benefits for them.
    Maybe we should develop a
    new direction in the field of intellectual property- IP PR.

%d bloggers like this: