The discussion in the comments section of the post so far has been particularly interesting and as part of it I asked for suggestions about the next, practical step to take to move things in the right direction.
Bruce Berman wrote in with some great suggestions, here is an excerpt from his email:
"The first steps are for IP holders to acknowledge and answer some basic questions:
- Who are your IP stakeholders? (Most companies have at least seven key audiences.)
- What do stakeholders already know about IP? Is it accurate?
- How can IP holders help them to be better-informed?
- What about your IP assets or strategy do audiences need to know? Why?
- When and how should the information be conveyed?
- How does your business define patent “performance”?
- Whom at your company should be point-person(s) for communicating IP strategy, results and value?
- How can they be supported?
- What can outside advisors bring to the table?
- To what extent should c-level and other executives be involved in IP reporting?
- If IP holders, especially publicly held ones, do not provide some form of IA disclosure, what is the likelihood they will be forced to by the SEC, FASB or other regulatory body?
Smart IP holders should view increased transparency as an opportunity; not as a burden. It lowers risk factors rather than increases them."
So what do you think. What would you add?
(Photo credit: ucumari)