Comments from Marshall Phelps and Bill Elkington

In a strikingly similar vein (and before Joff's post), Marshall Phelps (Microsoft) and Bill Elkington (Rockwell Collins) were kind enough to provide me with their thoughts on our recent post: Doers and communicators first  CIPOs after that . 

As Marshall has said a few times now, you might as well call a CIPO a Chief Aardvark Officer for all that the title matters.  Marshall's specific comments on the piece were:

"I think this is fine—you might want to clarify the “role” vs the “title”. One can have the role w/o the title. Indeed about 2 years ago the WSJ ran a lengthy article on the watering down of C suite titles—watered down by expansion and bloating. You may want to find that as a reference." 

Here's a link to the article Marshall mentioned:  'What's in a title? Ego Stroking, Chiefly'.
 

Here are Bill's detailed comments:

"First, the discussion about CIPO title is a bit misframed.  It isn't so much a discussion about a title as a role.  The implied question is whether the function of corporate IP strategy and management should report to a 21st century company's CEO or one of his direct reports, such as the Chief Legal Officer, Chief Technology Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or the Chief Strategy Officer.  The two questions driving this implied question are these:  (1) Aren't the skills, knowledge, behaviors, and actions concerning IP strategy and management different enough from the other skills, knowledge, behaviors, and actions required of the other C-level executives that a separate C-level position should be created? and (2) Isn't enough value associated with IP in the 21st century corporation that someone expert in its strategy and management should be given responsibility for optimizing that value?

Second, of course performance is important.  Corporate growth and profit and ROI and ROC are all of paramount importance.  And to keep your job in a 21st century for profit corporation you must perform well.  This isn't what is being discussed when the role of CIPO is being recommended for our consideration.  What is being discussed is the lack of visibility of the beneficial effects and potential beneficial effects of excellent IP strategy and management on the financial metrics of the corporation.

Third, in order for us to formulate a coherant concept of the CIPO, we need to ask a couple of additional questions:  (1) What does excellent IP strategy and management look like in various kinds of industries, in various kinds of companies, and in various positions in the value chain? and (2) What are the most useful and effective ways of measuring IP strategy and management in these many different kinds of companies?

Fourth, and finally, to attempt an answer to the above questions, I suggest we move the CIPO discussion on to the real world.  Thusfar, in the articles in IAM Magazine and in the discussions in the 2009 IP Business Congress, we have been treated to a number of quite useful but also abstract and honorific notions about the CIPO.  I think the best way to provoke the development of a real understanding of the CIPO role is to look at case studies in which real people (with all their flaws) are acting like CIPOs (in real, messy, corporate circumstances), even though they may not be C-level executives.  And I suggest we use those case studies to first understand the activities, behaviors, and reasonable expectations of real human beings in the role.  And then, as we explore the role through the case study method, we may also try our hand at some principles and measures that will hold water."

Go on, tell us what you think.
 

(Photo credit: Thomas Hawk)

3 interesting things in this issue of IAM Magazine were:
(1) The twice yearly ‘Practice Business Review’ sessions held at Microsoft and their ongoing efforts to quantify the value that the IP function adds;
(2) Despite great strides made by numerous large pharmaceutical companies, Oxfam still finds much to complain about rather than congratulate and collaborate about; and
(3) William Barret’s piece on crazy inventions and their place in allowing innovation (and invention?) to flourish – particularly when contrasted with Craig Opperman’s piece on the ‘Elephant in the Room’ (which basically highlights the elderly chestnut that senior executives should focus on patent quality, not quantity).

Most surprising was the quote: “At present we don’t have a coherent, unified approach to applying antitrust principles to IP-related activities and transactions.” from Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s Chief Intellectual Property Officer.  Actually, after the initial surprise, it makes a great deal of sense.  The overlap between IP and Competition law is incredibly complex, particularly when you overlay the many differences that arise across national boundaries.

Find out more at: www.iam-magazine.com 
 

Check out this article by our online specialist, Ben Lehman - "The world's most popular free patent search engines are..."

Ben ranks the top sites in order of popularity and explains how this is derived (we won't spoil the results here.)  He also explains how to measure popularity without looking just at traffic rank and provides practical insights into some of the basics of the world of internet metrics.

As always, please let us know what you think.

(Post by Ben Lehman)

Call them what you want, just as long as they get the job done.

(Photo credit: gopal1035)

Firstly, thanks

In our opinion, the biggest news in the IP world this month was the Swedish Pirate Party winning a seat in the  EU parliament.

There were also some big IP wins for some of our clients in the news, but we can’t mention them here, except to say congratulations again.

The best podcast moment was the US, Europe and China discussion with Hal Wegner, Weijiang Si and Jeremy Philips.

In other news we’re delighted to be adding a second outstanding Indian team member to our firm.  We’re looking forward to when she can start.  We’re currently in discussions with potential team members from China and the USA.

Finally, we’ve decided to open up the IP Think Tank’s virtual doors to allow others to publish high quality articles in our articles area.  We have a number of research projects ongoing and will be keen to collaborate when appropriate as well.  Please do let us know if you would like more information about this initiative.
 

(Photo credit: marcelgermain)

And, yes, we're opening our virtual doors to publish (or republish) high quality, research based articles from others.  We will collaborate on some of these articles, when appropriate.)  

Here are a few interesting excerpts from the article:

'What can be done to calm the situation and to stop the international “IP war”? The crucial element in this exercise is to understand the concept of “incentives”. Both, business and civil society have an “incentive” to move from a stage of war to a constructive, solution driven approach.'

'So far, IP has been largely looked upon from a legal perspective, which comes as no surprise since current educational systems worldwide only train lawyers in IP.'

'A different perspective on IP, one that looks at it as a strategic asset more than a legal framework gives way to new managerial perspectives on intellectual property.'

'It needs political will, business initiative and the concerted effort of both business and the public sector to foster inclusion and knowledge equity rather than further marginalization and discrimination.'

Please do come and add your thoughts to the debate.

(Photo credit: ~jjjohn~)

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)

(photo credit: Michael Aston)

A (the?) pioneer in communication strategy in the intellectual property space is Bruce Berman - the IP ecosystem would do well to listen to him.  In fact, they are - you'll see many of the things he has been saying for years being repeated at conferences like IPBC.  So hat tip to Bruce, for all of the ground work he has done.

Communicating value sounds easy, doesn't it?  It's not.

You first have to figure out what value is (and it may have nothing to do with money).  This is tremendously context specific. 

Perhaps the intellectual property evangelists would do well to learn from change management and communication specialists to succeed in the quest for wider understanding and therefore, one would assume wider utilization of IP to leverage business strategy.

What do you think?

(Photo credit: katiebate)

With that in mind, intellogist.com is definitely a site to spend some time on.  I've recently become aware of it and I think it is fantastic.  It has separate sections for:

1. reports on patent an dnon patent search systems;
2. an interactive map showing geographical coverage of leading patent databases;
3. a tool to easily compare patent information and search databases;
4. a section on best practices in prior art searching; and
5. an enormous prior art resource finder.

Hat Tip to Landon IP for creating this and making it freely available.

Thanks to David Donoghue over at the Chicago IP Litigation Blog for setting this up, and to Ed at Blawg Review for also publicising the event.

See you there.

David's directions - "The Billy Goat is just down and below the street from the Four Seasons at 430 N. Michigan Avenue.  Go to the Tribune Tower on Michigan Avenue and take the stairs below the sidewalk to find the Billy Goat."

3 interesting things were:

(1) Francis Gurry's description of his approach to his role as Director General at WIPO;

(2) predictions by some that the drop in patent litigation in 2008 is only a temporary lull (I'm not so sure about that); and

(3) Richard Brass's characterization of online IP auctions as an ongoing game

Most surprising was that Ronald Crawford (IP manager at Arsenal) hadn't been fully aware of the passion behind Arsenal IP assets.

Find out more at: http://www.cpaglobal.com/ip-review-online

In 2006 I came up with the 6T's, a simple tool to use to get a quick handle on IP issues, including a due diligence.  Although helpful, maybe that's a bit simplistic here.

So, what are you thoughts on how to pick the winners?  Clearly some searching of patent and trademark databases is going to give you some extra insight - but does that only help you select amongst the ones you're already aware of?  And how will you gain insight into what's been going on internally?  What indicators would you look for to find an 'IP Bargain'?

(Photo credit: PetroleumJelliffe)

UK fast tracks green patent applications

On 12 May the ‘Green Channel’ came into force at the UK IPO offering accelerated processing of environmentally-friendly technology patent applications. According to the UK IPO’s Fast Grant Guide, filing to grant may occur in as little as 9 months.  Intellectual Property Watch reports that the UK IPO has secured agreement from China to use the fast track system and is seeking to do the same with other major trade partners. 

(Further coverage at IAM, IPKat and Green Patent Blog.)

Copyright and access to education

The case of an Argentinean philosophy professor who has posted Spanish translations of Derrida’s works on a website in an attempt to make the works available to Spanish-language readers has drawn attention to the limitations copyright can place on access to education.   According to copyright lawyer, Carolina Botero, Latin America generally relies on foreign publishers to provide academic texts and the price is unaffordable for many (see Intellectual Property Watch).   Jeremy Phillips offers some very sage advice on the matter at At Last... the 1709 Copyright Blog that ‘some infringements are better tackled as commercial propositions than as legal issues’. 

(Further coverage at IP tango)

China National Space Administration logo – coincidental similarity to Star Trek logos?

Last month there was a flurry of reporting on the uncanny similarity between the new logo of the CNSA and two logos belonging to the Star Trek series, more precisely the United Federation of Planets crest and the lapel communicator design. Here are links to some of the posts covering the story, all finding some amusement at the apparent mimicry: IP Dragon, Cool Aggregator, Inventor Spot, Shanghai ist. However, the plot thickens – Strange Tales from a Modern Chinese Studio reports on a comment it received on its blog from an anonymous reader who defends the CNSA’s logo, explaining the history and symbolism of the logo components. Convincing? I’m not sure.

Event – Managing distressed intellectual property seminar

This seminar, also available via live webinar will take place on 10 June. The seminar will be led by the Honorable Michael B Kaplan (US Bankruptcy Court) and Eric D Kirsch (Cooper & Dunham).  For further information, go to Business Development Academy.

•    Damon Matteo, PARC
•    Carl Horton, GE
•    Sherry Knowles, GSK
•    Peter Cicala, Shire Pharmaceuticals
•    Todd Dickinson, AIPLA
•    Ruud Peters, Philips IP & Standards
•    Marshall Phelps, Microsoft
•    John Squires, Chadboure & Parke (ex Goldman Sachs)
•    James Malackowsi, Ocean Tomo
•    Bo Heiden, CIP Gothenburg
•    Shinjiri Ono, Yuasa & Hara
•    Bill Elkington, Rockwell Collins
•    Beatrix de Russé, Thomson
•    Ian Harvey, IP Institute
•    Anne Culotta, Halliburton
•    Scott Frank, AT&T

(Here's the press release, and the story at TradingMarkets.com).

It will no doubt be a lot fun and very productive.  With Luke Hohmann's assistance, the group will explore the ideal CIPO profile and the organizational environment within which the CIPO should operate, as well as the responsibilities that should come with the role and the metrics by which CIPO performance should be measured.

The results of the meeting will be shared with IP Business Congress delegates during breakout and plenary sessions.  Looking forward to your thoughts on what we come up with.

I'd be delighted if you wanted to share your thoughts before the meeting by adding comments to this blog post.

1 - Develop a common language

2 - Get some perspective

3 - Educate

4 - De-emphasize the litigation effect

5 - Communicate clearly

What would you add?  Do you think there really is a problem?

I think that the IP ecosystem tends to think of itself as in some way separate or more important than the rest of the world.  It's not.  Intellectual Property needs to be thought of in the context of the broader goals of an organization, whatever they may be.  It should be used to inform and leverage the broader strategy, it should not drive it.  Once this is properly understood, then it becomes much easier to fit IP and its concepts into the broader context - which is much more digestible for those not so familiar with IP.

(Photo credit: Desiree Delgado)

So the book looks at economics and the old economic paradigm of equilibrium within systems and compares it so perhaps a more pragmatic approach which views the world in evolutionary terms - survival of the fittest, and adaptive change and all that.

I'm a big believer that IP Strategy has to be flexible and move with the times, experiment with the environment, learn, adapt and keep going.  Sure you need to put in place long term goals and be heading towards them - but think of them more like a compass - pointing you in the right direction, and less like a rigid set of rules that have to be followed.

What do you think?

Photo credit: an untrained eye)

Having said that, if you're so minded, by all means, please do head over to Gene's blog and vote for IP Think Tank - much appreciated.

It's also a great way to discover some great patent blogs, so take a look.

(Photo credit: farlane)

Random House’s decision to disable the text-to-speech feature on all their ebooks has been widely reported.  A visit to Random House’s FAQ page confirms the reports to be true.  This must be rather a disappointment to those who purchased Kindle 2 on the understanding that any ebook downloaded could be converted from text to speech.  Where do their consumer rights come in?

Perhaps of greater concern still is the setback for those with vision impairment or other print disabilities.  Text to speech technology offers the promise of evening up the balance to allow those with print disabilities equal access to literature.  In their early April statement, the Authors’ Guild espoused their commitment to making Kindle accessible to the print disabled but there is no evidence to date that  they have made any progress toward fulfilling this commitment.  In fact, KEI reports that the Authors’ Guild is actively campaign authors to ‘turn off’ text to speech.  

While the Kindle debacle continues the US Copyright Office has recently held a public meeting to consider the need for national law reform to ensure the needs of the blind are fairly represented in US copyright law.  This week in Geneva the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights  will consider, amongst other things, the whether there is a need for an international treaty to ensure member countries’ laws encompass a minimum standard of copyright exceptions and limitations to meet the needs of the visually impaired.

So where do you stand on the issue?  When economic rights and civil rights clash, which should prevail?  And to what extent can we rely on the market to get the balance right?

(Photo credit: madaise)