Comments on: A fourth week in the life – Cracking the IP Value Code http://www.tangible-ip.com/2009/698.htm ipVA's blog on adding value through intellectual property Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:43:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Jones http://www.tangible-ip.com/2009/698.htm/comment-page-1#comment-6269 David Jones Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:42:15 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=698#comment-6269 I broadly agree. I see patents as currently being mid-way through a state of high flux which will, at its conclusion, see them re-classified or re-appraised altogether as something other than simple private property rights. The pressures on patents and patenting are simply too varied and too important to allow patents to merely stay as they are, or even to be left to develop incrementally. And if a decisive change in the character of patents coincides with the maturing of the theory of 'intangibles' becoming (commercial) orthodoxy, so much the better: we have the box seats! I broadly agree. I see patents as currently being mid-way through a state of high flux which will, at its conclusion, see them re-classified or re-appraised altogether as something other than simple private property rights. The pressures on patents and patenting are simply too varied and too important to allow patents to merely stay as they are, or even to be left to develop incrementally. And if a decisive change in the character of patents coincides with the maturing of the theory of ‘intangibles’ becoming (commercial) orthodoxy, so much the better: we have the box seats!

]]> By: Andrew Watson http://www.tangible-ip.com/2009/698.htm/comment-page-1#comment-6266 Andrew Watson Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:45:14 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=698#comment-6266 I don't think its just you and I. I know there are economists, consultancy firms, analysts and others who believe that there is a connection between IP/intangibles done well and business performance. And the common link to all the conversations we have is that the early market of trading and enforcing patents tells us one thing, but is 1-D in its thinking. I do agree that patents are the tangible-intangible and easy to see (therefore, easy to assess, easy to rate and rank, easy to use NLP or other tools to search etc etc). An evolution from 1-D would be a start at least. I picked up an interesting insight from a head of IP at a Fortune 500 company who believes that patent numbers are likely to fall quickly over the next few years, with more focus on quality and far fewer being granted. I think this plays into both of our hands as advisory firms. As IV's slow down in buying has impacted on the market, patent quality is critical to broking, and as patents maybe move away from being the weapon of only choice, businesses need to think way more creatively about what and how to protect their key innovations. A space worth watching. I don’t think its just you and I. I know there are economists, consultancy firms, analysts and others who believe that there is a connection between IP/intangibles done well and business performance. And the common link to all the conversations we have is that the early market of trading and enforcing patents tells us one thing, but is 1-D in its thinking. I do agree that patents are the tangible-intangible and easy to see (therefore, easy to assess, easy to rate and rank, easy to use NLP or other tools to search etc etc). An evolution from 1-D would be a start at least.

I picked up an interesting insight from a head of IP at a Fortune 500 company who believes that patent numbers are likely to fall quickly over the next few years, with more focus on quality and far fewer being granted. I think this plays into both of our hands as advisory firms. As IV’s slow down in buying has impacted on the market, patent quality is critical to broking, and as patents maybe move away from being the weapon of only choice, businesses need to think way more creatively about what and how to protect their key innovations.

A space worth watching.

]]> By: David Jones http://www.tangible-ip.com/2009/698.htm/comment-page-1#comment-6263 David Jones Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:40:18 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=698#comment-6263 Andrew, I hope it’s not just you and I having this discussion! I sympathise with your argument. The ‘problem’ with patents is that they are the most tangible intangible (if you see what I mean), and in a business world that has little understanding (or even inclination to understand) of the full impact of intangibles (taking your 5 categories of intangible as an eg), patents become a convenient placeholder for all that is ‘intangible’. Added to this, for those companies active in transacting patents, there is the fact that patent AAA sold for amount XXX, and then patent BBB sold for YYY, and so on, and so on. This – the ready turning of patents into cash – of course highlights their ‘tangibility’ even further, and possibly at the expense of the other intangibles in their business. Your point about France is very interesting, and leads to a whole different discussion about how the civil codes/moral rights systems have traditionally dealt with patents and whether that is perhaps preferable to what we have. In the context of a more holistic view of intangibles (like the one you outline), I suspect it undoubtedly is. On the issue of Trade Secrets v Patents: as Coca-Cola will testify, some things (eg, recipes) truly lend themselves to being kept as a Trade Secret whilst others (eg, demonstrable mechanical processes) truly do not. Though, again, I suspect that the balance here is changing as technology increasingly blurs the distinction. Andrew, I hope it’s not just you and I having this discussion! I sympathise with your argument. The ‘problem’ with patents is that they are the most tangible intangible (if you see what I mean), and in a business world that has little understanding (or even inclination to understand) of the full impact of intangibles (taking your 5 categories of intangible as an eg), patents become a convenient placeholder for all that is ‘intangible’. Added to this, for those companies active in transacting patents, there is the fact that patent AAA sold for amount XXX, and then patent BBB sold for YYY, and so on, and so on. This – the ready turning of patents into cash – of course highlights their ‘tangibility’ even further, and possibly at the expense of the other intangibles in their business. Your point about France is very interesting, and leads to a whole different discussion about how the civil codes/moral rights systems have traditionally dealt with patents and whether that is perhaps preferable to what we have. In the context of a more holistic view of intangibles (like the one you outline), I suspect it undoubtedly is. On the issue of Trade Secrets v Patents: as Coca-Cola will testify, some things (eg, recipes) truly lend themselves to being kept as a Trade Secret whilst others (eg, demonstrable mechanical processes) truly do not. Though, again, I suspect that the balance here is changing as technology increasingly blurs the distinction.

]]>