recentpopularlog in

jerryking : intellectual_property   85

« earlier  
Tech innovation needs a level playing field
January 19, 2020 | Financial Times | by Rana Foroohar.

.........Creating an even playing field will require both monopoly scrutiny and a close examination of whether the pendulum in the patent system has swung too far towards benefiting tech companies that depend more on data and networks than patents, or have an interest in making it tougher to obtain patents.

Because their own products (for example, smartphones) require so many different bits of technology, the companies have an interest in keeping these inputs as cheap as possible. They can deploy legions of lawyers to protect any crucial IP of their own while “efficiently infringing” on the patents that belong to others (that’s the term for violations done knowingly by big companies as a cost of doing business).
......The US, in particular, has work to do there. “Our leadership on the global stage depends on our ability to promote and protect the innovations of American creators, engineers, and scientists,” said Democratic Senator Chris Coons, who has sponsored bipartisan legislation to strengthen America’s own IP protection. “I’m concerned that while our competitors — like China — strengthen their intellectual property regimes, we have been weakening our own innovation ecosystem.”
.......But the US has another problem — that of trying to compete with a state-run economy like China’s when it has no national innovation strategy. While large American companies are busy fighting each other in expensive legal battles to see who gets to set standards for smart speakers (or 5G, or AI, or a host of other areas), China is using its Belt and Road Initiative to roll out its own equipment, technology standards and interests across nations from Asia to Southern Europe. That’s not duplication. It’s just smart.
Big_Tech  China  cross-licensing  entrepreneurship  Google  industrial_policies  innovation  innovation_policies  intellectual_property  national_interests  One_Belt_One_Road  patents  patent_infringement  Rana_Foroohar  smart_speakers  Sonos  technical_standards  U.S.-China_relations 
29 days ago by jerryking
Opinion: How patents really work in the innovation economy - The Globe and Mail
August 8, 2019 | NATALIE RAFFOUL
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED 3 HOURS AGO
intellectual_property  patents  patent_trolls 
august 2019 by jerryking
Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered With Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics - WSJ
By Chuin-Wei Yap and Dan Strumpf in Hong Kong with Dustin Volz, Kate O’Keeffe and Aruna Viswanatha in Washington
May 25, 2019
5G  Cisco  Huawei  industrial_espionage  intellectual_property  theft  trade_secrets 
may 2019 by jerryking
Jim Balsillie: Dragging Canada into the 21st Century | TVO.org
Technological innovation at the outset of this millennium has been nothing short of revolutionary. And it shows no signs of slowing down. Jim Balsillie, the former co-CEO of Research In Motion, says Canada is not keeping up. Worse, that policymakers and businesses still don't seem to fully appreciate the scope of the change underway. He's now chair of the Council of Canadian innovators, and he joins The Agenda to discuss his ideas.

#1 job. Accumulate valuable intangible assets. which you then commercialize. You acquire a lot of IP and data assets.
Jim_Balsillie  Canada  Steve_Paikin  policymakers  priorities  digital_economy  innovation  knowledge_economy  ideas  intangibles  intellectual_property  competitiveness  protocols  Sun_Tzu  under-performing  under_appreciated  21st._century 
february 2019 by jerryking
Dyson shifts HQ to Singapore to focus on cars
January 23, 2019 | Financial Times Michael Pooler and Peter Campbell in London and Stefania Palma in Hong Kong.

Move by billionaire’s business reflects strategy to be closer to customers and manufacturing centres....James Dyson’s decision to move his business headquarters to the other side of the world struck an odd note.

The switch to Singapore comes at a crucial juncture for his company, which is seeking to evolve from a household appliance brand to a manufacturer of electric vehicles. It is nothing short of his greatest gamble, which could secure his legacy or risk his fortune.....Dyson said it was simply for commercial reasons because most of its customers and all its manufacturing operations are in Asia, and to give management supervision over the construction of a car factory in Singapore that will be its largest investment to date......“This is to do with making sure we future-proof [the company],”......“What we’ve seen in the last few years is an acceleration of opportunities to grow from a revenue perspective in Asia.”......Dyson CEO, Jim Rowan insisted that the HQ move was not a bad omen for the UK, where Dyson ceased manufacturing in 2003, and pledged it would enlarge its 4,800-strong workforce there. “We’ll continue to invest in the UK,” said Mr Rowan, pointing out a proposed £350m expansion to one of two research and development centres in Wiltshire, south-west England, for autonomous vehicle testing.......far more likely that the move is linked to Dyson’s latest, and boldest, venture — its £2bn drive to break into the automotive arena. It has developed a UK site to test the vehicles, but also plans to expand its Singaporean research and development facilities, a sign that future vehicle work will take place closer to the manufacturing sites.....The company spreads its intellectual property around the globe, with about 1,500 of its 5,000 patents registered in the UK, according to data from patent research group Cipher. “Clearly if you have new business like cars that will generate significant IP,”.....A Dyson spokesman said the company had no intention of moving its current UK patents to Singapore.
Asia  automotive_industry  autonomous_vehicles  Brexit  Dyson  electric_cars  engineering  future-proofing  head_offices  intellectual_property  James_Dyson  manufacturers  patents  relocation  Singapore 
january 2019 by jerryking
U.S. Weaponizes Its Criminal Courts in Fight Against China and Huawei
Jan. 17, 2019 | WSJ | By Chuin-Wei Yap.

The federal pursuit of theft charges adds pressure on Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies Co. by further involving the criminal-justice system in the fight against China’s alleged encroachment on intellectual property. It is the second case in four months where federal prosecutors have built criminal allegations on civil litigation, risking uncertain outcomes as a verdict isn’t guaranteed.........The Trump administration wants to use indictments, along with export controls and other policy tools, as part of an arsenal to counter Chinese theft of trade and technology secrets, which U.S. officials increasingly view as part of national security.....That has meant a more aggressive effort to convert corporate squabbles into criminal charges.....the entry of federal prosecutors ratchets up global attention and the stakes in what had until then been less noticed civil filings.....High-profile prosecutions are part of a range of weapons the U.S. can call on to shape global perceptions of China’s state-corporate behavior, as well as China’s perception of how its options might be dwindling.....Other tools include sanctioning exports and redefining “emerging technologies” as a national security concern.....“The U.S. will pursue critical Chinese companies in any form possible,” ...... “The U.S. is aiming at creating a kind of sinking feeling for China. That is, no matter what China does, there will still be new angles for the U.S. to contain it.”.....an advantage of using the justice system is that it makes it difficult for China to feign ignorance when faced with a barrage of detailed allegations and corroboration.
China  criminal_justice  Department_of_Justice  hackers  Huawei  intellectual_property  legal_strategies  policy_tools  theft  trade_secrets  security_&_intelligence 
january 2019 by jerryking
After a Hiatus, China Accelerates Cyberspying Efforts to Obtain U.S. Technology - The New York Times
By David E. Sanger and Steven Lee Myers
Nov. 29, 2018

Three years ago, President Barack Obama struck a deal with China that few thought was possible: President Xi Jinping agreed to end his nation’s yearslong practice of breaking into the computer systems of American companies, military contractors and government agencies to obtain designs, technology and corporate secrets, usually on behalf of China’s state-owned firms.

The pact was celebrated by the Obama administration as one of the first arms-control agreements for cyberspace — and for 18 months or so, the number of Chinese attacks plummeted. But the victory was fleeting.

Soon after President Trump took office, China’s cyberespionage picked up again and, according to intelligence officials and analysts, accelerated in the last year as trade conflicts and other tensions began to poison relations between the world’s two largest economies.

The nature of China’s espionage has also changed. The hackers of the People’s Liberation Army — whose famed Unit 61398 tore through American companies until its operations from a base in Shanghai were exposed in 2013 — were forced to stand down, some of them indicted by the United States. But now, the officials and analysts say, they have begun to be replaced by stealthier operatives in the country’s intelligence agencies. The new operatives have intensified their focus on America’s commercial and industrial prowess, and on technologies that the Chinese believe can give them a military advantage.
China  cyberattacks  cyber_security  espionage  intellectual_property  international_trade  U.S.  David_Sanger  industrial_espionage  security_&_intelligence  intelligence_analysts 
november 2018 by jerryking
Canada’s IP strategy is not in step with our innovation and commercialization goals - The Globe and Mail
JIM HINTON AND PETER COWAN
CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED 57 MINUTES AGO
UPDATED NOVEMBER 25, 2018
Jim Hinton is a principal at Own Innovation and Peter Cowan is a principal at Northworks IP

There is a global arms race for artificial intelligence-related intellectual property. The United States and China are amassing thousands of patent filings related to AI and machine learning.....The hype surrounding R&D funding has not translated to commercialization of AI outside of a small handful of domestic high-growth companies, such as Hatch and Sightline Innovation. This confirms what we already know: Innovation and IP funding announcements alone are not a strategy for growth. What Canada needs is a strategy to own its AI innovations and turn them into prosperity engines for the Canadian economy.

Lost in the hype around Canada becoming an AI hub is an absolute lack of follow-through to ensure intellectual property (IP) rights are preserved for current and future Canadian commercialization needs. There is currently no strategy in any of the taxpayer-funded programs ensuring IP ownership is maintained for the benefit of the Canadian economy. ......Companies such as Alphabet, Huawei and others will continue to partner with Canadian universities and use Canadian taxpayer-funded technology to their global advantage: Of the 100 or so machine learning-related patents that have been developed in Canada over the past 10 years, more than half have ended up in the hands of foreign companies such as Microsoft and IBM.......

.........To reverse the status quo, Canada’s IP strategy must include at least four key tactics: (1) IP generation, ensuring that Canadian firms own valuable IP and data stocks; (2) IP retention; (3) freedom to operate strategies for our innovative high-growth companies; and (4) alignment of the national IP strategy with the national data strategy.
arms_race  artificial_intelligence  Canada  commercialization  innovation  intellectual_property  IP_generation  IP_retention  Jim_Balsillie  machine_learning  property_rights 
november 2018 by jerryking
Canada doomed to be branch plant for global tech giants unless Ottawa updates thinking, Balsillie warns | Financial Post
James McLeod
November 16, 2018
7:27 PM EST

Canadian governments need to radically rethink their approach to the knowledge economy if the country is to be anything more than a branch plant for global technology giants,.......“I think they confuse a cheap jobs strategy … (and) foreign branch plant pennies with innovation billions,” .........Balsillie has argued that the “intangible” economy of data, software and intellectual property is fundamentally different from the classical industrial economy built on the trade of goods and services, and that because Canadian policymakers fail to understand that difference, they keep being taken for rubes.......Balsillie was particularly critical of the federal government’s policy when it comes to “branch plant” investments in Canada in the technology sector.

He said that in the traditional economy of goods and services, foreign direct investment (FDI) is a good thing, because there’s a multiplier effect — $100 million for a new manufacturing plant or an oil upgrader might create $300 million in spinoff economic activity.

But if you’re just hiring programmers to write software, the picture is different, he said. It’s a much smaller number of jobs with fewer economic benefits, and, more importantly, the value created through intellectual property flows out of the country.

“Our FDI approaches have been the same for the intangibles, where, when you bring these companies in, they put a half a dozen people in a lab, they poach the best talent and they poach the IP, and then you lose all the wealth effects,”....“Don’t get me wrong. I believe in open economies. They’re going to come here anyway; I just don’t know why we give them the best talent, give them our IP, give them tax credits for the research, give them the red carpet for government relations, don’t allow them to pay taxes, and then have all the wealth flow out of the country.”...if small countries such as Canada make a point of prioritizing the intangible economy, there are huge opportunities. He pointed to Israel, Finland and Singapore as examples of how smart policies and specialization can reap big rewards.

“I could literally see enormously powerful positions for Canada if we choose the right places. I mean, there are some obvious ones: value added in the food business, and precision data and IP in agriculture; certainly in energy extraction and mining, which are data and technology businesses,” he said.

“We actually have enormous opportunities to build the resilience and opportunity,” he said. ”And how can you threaten a country with a picture of a Chevy and 25 per cent tariffs when you’ve built these kinds of very powerful innovation infrastructures that you can’t stop with a tariff because they move with the click of a mouse?”
agriculture  branch_plants  Canada  data  digital_economy  energy  FDI  Finland  food  GoC  industrial_economy  IP_retention  intangibles  intellectual_property  Israel  Jim_Balsillie  mining  policymakers  property_rights  protocols  Singapore  talent  technology  wealth_effects 
november 2018 by jerryking
The AI arms race: the tech fear behind Donald Trump’s trade war with China | Financial Times
Shawn Donnan in Washington YESTERDAY

While the headlines about the Trump administration’s trade war with Beijing often focus on raw materials such as steel, aluminium and soyabeans, the underlying motivation of the new protectionist mood is American anxiety about China’s rapidly growing technological prowess.......
At a time when the US is engaged in a battle for technological pre-eminence with China, the ZGC project is exactly the sort of state-backed Chinese investment that American politicians across the political spectrum view with scepticism.

“China has targeted America’s industries of the future, and President Donald Trump understands better than anyone that if China successfully captures these emerging industries, America will have no economic future,” .....US tariffs on $34bn in imports from China that are due to take effect on Friday as part of a squeeze intended to end what the US says has been years of state-endorsed Chinese intellectual property theft. But it is also part of a broader battle against what the White House has labelled China’s “economic aggression”......Viewed from America, President Xi Jinping’s Made in China 2025 industrial strategy is a state-led effort to establish Chinese leadership in the technologies of the next generation of commerce and military equipment — notably AI, robotics and gene editing.

Many US officials are now questioning one of the basic assumptions about how the American economy operates: its openness to foreign investment....While some technology executives extol the potential for co-operation in areas such as AI, the Washington establishment increasingly sees them as central to a growing geopolitical competition....Many Chinese investors are looking for US companies that they can help move into China. .....Even though Mr Trump’s focus on Chinese technology has strong bipartisan support in Washington, its tactics have been heavily criticised. The biggest blunder, many critics argue, has been the Trump administration’s willingness to wage concurrent trade wars. The IP-driven tariffs push against China has been accompanied by one that has hit allies such as Canada and the EU that might have joined a fight against Beijing.

........“We’re treating the Chinese better than we are treating our friends,” says Derek Scissors, a China expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who sees the tariffs Mr Trump is threatening against European car imports as a similar bit of malpractice.
arms_race  artificial_intelligence  China  CFIUS  Donald_Trump  economic_warfare  economic_aggression  FDI  geopolitics  international_trade  investors  investing  intellectual_property  industrial_policies  protectionism  politicians  robotics  One_Belt_One_Road  security_&_intelligence  Silicon_Valley  SOEs  start_ups  theft  U.S.  venture_capital  Washington_D.C. 
july 2018 by jerryking
Trudeau urged to probe Chinese telecom giant Huawei’s role in Canada - The Globe and Mail
ROBERT FIFE , SEAN SILCOFF AND STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED MAY 27, 2018

Andy Ellis, now chief executive of ICEN Group, said the Prime Minister should assemble a team of deputy ministers and top security officials to examine what − if any − threat that Huawei poses in its drive to scoop up and patent 5G technology that draws heavily on the work of Canadian academics.

“If I was Mr. Trudeau, I would say I want all of you in the intelligence community to tell me the length and breadth of what is going on here and to recommend to me some actions that mitigate it … [and] if we are at risk,” he said in an interview Sunday.
5G  Canada  Canadian  security_&_intelligence  telecommunications  China  Chinese  cyber_security  Justin_Trudeau  Huawei  intellectual_property  threats  patents  Colleges_&_Universities 
may 2018 by jerryking
The challenger - Technopolitics
Mar 15th 2018 | HONG KONG AND SAN FRANCISCO.

Technology is rarely, in and of itself, ideological. But technosystems have an ideological side—witness the struggles of open-source advocates against proprietary-software developers—and can be used to ideological ends. The global spread of a technosystem conceived in, and to an unknown extent controlled by, an undemocratic, authoritarian regime could have unprecedented historical significance.

China is not just in a better position to challenge America’s hegemony than it used to be. It is a good time to do so, too. It is not only the roll out of 5G. AI has started to move from the tech world to conventional businesses; quantum computing seems about to become useful. All this creates openings for newcomers, especially if backed by a state that takes a long view and doesn’t need a quick return......To focus on individual companies, though, is to miss the point. China’s leaders want to bind firms, customers and government agencies together with “robust governance”, in the words of Samm Sacks of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a think-tank in Washington, DC. They want to build a technosystem in which incentives to use other people’s technology are minimised. These are, as it happens, the same goals as those of the companies which run America’s large technology platforms, whether they are operating systems, social networks or computing clouds.

Gardening tools

A cardinal rule of managing such walled gardens is to control access. Developers of apps for Apple’s iPhone have to go through a lengthy application process with an uncertain outcome; for example, in an unexpected but welcome development, the firm now seems to reject apps using emojis. Similarly, foreign technology firms that want to sell their wares in China face at least six different security reviews, each of which can be used to delay or block market access. As with America’s worries about Huawei, this is not entirely unreasonable. The NSA has in the past exploited, or created, vulnerabilities in hardware sold by American companies. Local firms, for their part, are pushed to use “indigenous and controllable core cyber-security technology”, in the words of a report presented at last year’s National People’s Congress.

In the driving seat
Good platform managers also ensure that all parts of the system work for the greater good. In China this means doing the government’s bidding, something which seems increasingly expected of tech companies. About three dozen tech companies have instituted Communist Party committees in the past few years. There are rumours that the party is planning to take 1% stakes in some firms, including Tencent, not so much to add to the government’s control as to signal it—and to advertise that the company enjoys official blessing.

Many of China’s tech firms help develop military applications for technology, too, something called “civil-military fusion”. Most American hardware-makers do the same; its internet giants, not so much. “There’s a general concern in the tech community of somehow the military-industrial complex using their stuff to kill people incorrectly, if you will,” Eric Schmidt, the head of the Pentagon’s Defence Innovation Advisory Board said last November, when he was still Alphabet’s executive chairman. When it recently emerged that Google was helping the Pentagon with the AI for a drone project, some of its employees were outraged.

And then there is the walled gardens’ most prized bloom: data. China’s privacy regulations can look, on the face of it, as strict as Europe’s. But privacy is not a priority in practice. Control is.
China  U.S._Navy  ecosystems  Silicon_Valley  semiconductors  artificial_intelligence  quantum_computing  intellectual_property  military-industrial_complex  dual-use  walled_gardens  new_tech_Cold_War  self-sufficiency 
april 2018 by jerryking
‘Splinternet’ to herald a trade war for the ages
Rana Foroohar | FT| March 5, 2018.

Steel and aluminium tariffs announced by President Trump have, of course, sucked up all the attention in recent days....but the bigger fight will likely be over intellectual property, and who gets what slice of that pie in the coming years. Most corporate wealth is now held in the top 10 per cent of IP rich companies, most of which sit on the West Coast of the US......China, however, is gaining ground in key areas like AI and quantum computing, and has also ringfenced most of the tech sector as a “strategically important” area in which domestic companies are given preference......A more interesting question is whether data and technology will become the subject of broader national defence-related protectionism. In many ways you could make a much easier case for section 232, the “national defence” clause that Mr Trump invoked around steel, in technology. The steel sector in the US has plenty of spare capacity and section 232 also stipulates that national allies could fill any gap, something which the president seems to have overlooked. Technology, meanwhile, is much more proprietary and sensitive — not to mention crucial for every industry and every part of national security.

A tech-based trade war would likely splinter the US, China and Europe into three separate regions. The EU is already going in a very different direction to the US in terms of regulation of the high tech sector, with more stringent privacy rules and limits on how much data can be used by companies for AI, and in what fashion.....Such a Balkanisation, which experts now refer to as “the Splinternet”, would change the functioning of the internet as we know it. It would also represent a trade battle for the ages.
China  crossborder  decoupling  digital_economy  FAANG  intellectual_property  international_trade  NAFTA  new_tech_Cold_War  privacy  protectionism  Rana_Foroohar  tariffs  trade_wars 
march 2018 by jerryking
Canada 200: How to build a business superpower by 2067
Ottawa's upcoming IP strategy should include training for academics, entrepreneurs and administrators about the strategic importance of patents. But those same players must also collectively push to create global standards for technologies developed here. Other countries, including China and the United States, effectively ensure new global standards incorporate their homegrown technology, locking in value for their emerging champions. Canada, by comparison, is a "boy scout," says Michel Girard, vice-president of the Standards Council of Canada.
Artic  biotech  Canada  cannabis  cleantech  Colleges_&_Universities  digital_economy  elitism  gender_gap  infrastructure  intellectual_property  life_sciences  patents  ports  technical_standards  universal_basic_income  uToronto  Vancouver  women 
july 2017 by jerryking
Google vs. Uber: How One Engineer Sparked a War - WSJ
By Jack Nicas and Tim Higgins
Updated May 23, 2017

Anthony Levandowski started outside tech companies while working for Google, which alleges he took driverless-car secrets to a competitor.....Google parent Alphabet Inc. and Uber are embroiled in a legal fight over driverless-car technology, with Mr. Levandowski playing a starring role. The two firms, along with several other companies, are locked in a race to automate cars, a contest that could affect the future of transportation......Google’s approach [i.e. encouraging entrepreneurship amongst employees] helps it create new businesses, it also can spark disagreements between the company and its employees over who owns certain technology......Alphabet accuses Mr. Levandowski of stealing its trade secrets around driverless-car technology and bringing it to Uber, which he joined as its head of its driverless-car project last year after earning more than $120 million at Google. Alphabet has filed two arbitration claims against Mr. Levandowski and is suing Uber for allegedly conspiring with him.....
Google  Uber  automotive_industry  autonomous_vehicles  litigation  conflicts_of_interest  side_hustles  employment_contracts  intellectual_property  noncompete_agreements  start_ups  talent  Alphabet  trade_secrets  entrepreneurship  engineering 
may 2017 by jerryking
Canada needs an innovative intellectual property strategy - The Globe and Mail
JAMES HINTON AND PETER COWAN
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, May 19, 2017

Canada has never before had a national IP strategy, so getting it right will set the stage for subsequent innovation strategies. Here are some factors that our policy makers must take into account:

(1) Canadian innovators have only a basic understanding about IP

Canadian entrepreneurs understand IP strategy as a defensive mechanism to protect their products. In reality, IP is the most critical

(2) Focus on global IP landscape, rather than tweak domestic IP rules

Canada’s IP regime, including the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, needs a strategy that reflects global norms for IP protection, protects Canadian consumers and shrewdly supports Canadian innovators.l tool for revenue growth and global expansion in a 21st-century economy.

(3) Canadian businesses own a dismal amount of IP

Although IP has emerged as the most valuable corporate asset over the past two decades, it is overlooked by Canadian policy makers and businesses.
(4) Building quality patent portfolio requires technically savvy experts

A high-quality patent portfolio needs to include issued and in-force patents, including patents outside of Canada in key markets such as the United States and Europe. Strong portfolios will also have broad sets of claims that are practised by industry, spread across many patents creating a cloud of rights with pending applications.
(5) IP benefits from public-private partnerships are flowing out of country.

Canada’s innovation strategy must consider ownership and retention of our IP as one of its core principles. Are we satisfied with perpetually funding IP creation while letting foreign countries reap the benefits?
21st._century  Canada  Canadian  defensive_tactics  digital_economy  digital_savvy  digital_strategies  high-quality  intangibles  intellectual_property  IP_generation  IP_retention  Jim_Balsillie  overlooked  patents  policymakers  portfolios  portfolio_management  property_rights  protocols  strategic_thinking 
may 2017 by jerryking
Empty talk on innovation is killing Canada’s economic prosperity
Mar. 19, 2017 | Globe & Mail | by JIM BALSILLIE.

Immigration, traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, tax policy, stable banking regulation and traditional trade agreements are all 19th- and 20th-century economic levers that advance Canada’s traditional industries, but they have little impact on 21st-century productivity.

The outdated economic orthodoxy behind our discourse on innovation is causing the steady erosion of our national prosperity.

Over the past 30 years, commercialization of intellectual property (IP) became the primary driver of new wealth. The structure of the 21st-century company shifted and IP became the most valuable corporate asset. IP is an intangible good that requires policy infrastructure that’s completely different than the infrastructure required to get traditional tangible goods to market. IP relies on a tightly designed ecosystem of highly technical interlocking policies focused on scaling companies, which are “agents” of innovation outputs.....Canada doesn’t have valuable IP to sell to the world so we continue exporting low-margin resource and agricultural goods while importing high-margin IP. If our leaders want to create sustainable economic growth, Canada’s growth strategy must focus on creating high-margin IP-based exports that the world wants and must pay for.........IP ownership is the competitive driver in the new global economy, not exchange rates that adjust production costs. That’s why despite the strong U.S. dollar, U.S. company valuations and exports are soaring – IP-intensive industries added $6.6-trillion (U.S.) to the U.S. economy in 2014. So what is Canada’s strategy to increase our ownership of valuable IP assets and commercialize them globally? Supply chains in the innovation economy are different than in traditional economies because IP operates on a winner-take-all economic principle with zero marginal production costs. IP is traded differently than tangible goods because IP moves across borders on the principle of restriction, not free trade. Trade liberalization increases competition and reduces prices, but increased IP protection does the exact opposite. The economy for intangible goods is fundamentally different than the one for tangible goods. Productivity in the global innovation economy is driven by new ideas that generate new revenue for new markets. What Canada needs is a strategy to turn its new ideas into new revenue.....The Growth Council missed our overriding priority for growth: a national strategy to generate IP that Canadian companies can commercialize to scale globally.

We urgently need sophisticated strategies to drive the commercialization of Canadian ideas through our most innovative companies.
innovation  Jim_Balsillie  happy_talk  intellectual_property  scaling  tax_codes  winner-take-all  productivity  intangibles  digital_economy  ideas  self-deception  patents  commercialization  national_strategies  global_economy  property_rights  protocols  borderless 
march 2017 by jerryking
Umbra struggles with copycats worldwide - The Globe and Mail
SUSAN SMITH
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jun. 09, 2015

Umbra sends cease-and-desist orders to manufacturers and vendors around the world who are copying or selling copies of its' designs for household products such as garbage cans, storage devices, kitchen utensils, picture frames and chairs....Protecting intellectual property has always been a concern for companies such as Toronto-based Umbra, but the problem has grown exponentially since manufacturers began making goods overseas to take advantage of lower labour costs. ... By the mid-1990s, half of its production was being done in contract factories in Asia, and some of these factories were copying its leading-edge designs and selling the products on their own.... Umbra's first line of defence is making sure products are made as efficiently as possible and offered at a competitive price. Another way Umbra seeks to remove temptation is to manufacture goods for private labels so that copiers don’t get that business. It has also designed products specifically to serve the discount market, such as the Umbra Loft line sold by Target.
Umbra  design  copycats  households  fast_followers  household_products  patents  intellectual_property  China  retailers  e-commerce  private_labels 
june 2015 by jerryking
Canadians can innovate, but we’re not equipped to win - The Globe and Mail
JIM BALSILLIE
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, May. 08 2015

[For Corey Reid and UpSark]

...We can make commercialization of ideas a source of our prosperity if we apply strategic approaches....The commercialization of ideas is a chain of systematic and deliberate events. This is how wealth is generated in an innovation economy. Growing and scaling up a critical mass of ideas-based companies in the global marketplace is difficult, but not impossible. Yet for us to expect that the results of our current innovation policies and investments will miraculously spur new companies and significant economic growth is, as many people like to say, the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result....Canada’s innovation performance will not improve unless the country’s business, university and political leadership comes together to consider radically different policies, programs and tools.
angels  commercialization  digital_economy  ecosystems  ideas  innovation  industrial_policies  innovation_policies  intellectual_property  Jim_Balsillie  patents  policy_tools  property_rights  protocols  scaling  systematic_approaches  wishful_thinking 
may 2015 by jerryking
Strong intellectual property rights are key to prosperity - The Globe and Mail
BRIAN LEE CROWLEY
Strong intellectual property rights are key to prosperity
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Feb. 10 2015,

The stability of property and its transference by consent were thus rightly deemed by the great Scottish philosopher David Hume as two of the three rules that underpinned truly civilized societies (the third was the keeping of promises). Strong, reliable and consistent property rights unlock prosperity because they reduce conflict, promote stewardship and reward investment..... A strong IP regime therefore unlocks creativity, surely one of the keys to prosperity in a society increasingly dependent on intangible services for its wealth creation. Ultimately, all wealth is created by human knowledge, and increasingly the wealth of societies such as Canada takes the form of the fruits of our fertile minds, in software, design, film, fashion, engineering, disease control and more.
capitalism  intellectual_property  rule_of_law  Congo  Zaire  property_rights  abuses  impunity  intangibles  patents  wealth_creation  think_tanks  counterfeits  creativity  digital_economy  protocols  David_Hume  knowledge_economy  prosperity 
february 2015 by jerryking
James Surowiecki: America’s History of Industrial Espionage
JUNE 9, 2014 | The New Yorker | BY JAMES SUROWIECKI

One of these artisans was Samuel Slater, often called “the father of the American industrial revolution.” He emigrated here in 1789, posing as a farmhand and bringing with him an intimate knowledge of the Arkwright spinning frames that had transformed textile production in England, and he set up the first water-powered textile mill in the U.S. Two decades later, the American businessman Francis Cabot Lowell talked his way into a number of British mills, and memorized the plans to the Cartwright power loom. When he returned home, he built his own version of the loom, and became the most successful industrialist of his time.

The American government often encouraged such piracy. Alexander Hamilton, in his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” called on the country to reward those who brought us “improvements and secrets of extraordinary value” from elsewhere. State governments financed the importation of smuggled machines. And although federal patents were supposed to be granted only to people who came up with original inventions, Ben-Atar shows that, in practice, Americans were receiving patents for technology pirated from abroad.

Piracy was a big deal even in those days. Great Britain had strict laws against the export of machines, and banned skilled workers from emigrating. Artisans who flouted the ban could lose their property and be convicted of treason.
Alexander_Hamilton  China  copycats  espionage  history  industrial_espionage  Industrial_Revolution  intellectual_property  James_Surowiecki  security_&_intelligence 
june 2014 by jerryking
Why Canada’s tech companies fail - The Globe and Mail
RICHARD BLACKWELL

The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Apr. 10 2014,

Missing in Canada, though, are advanced skills related to intellectual property rights. At companies, sophisticated IPR capacity is a “precondition to commercially scaling innovative technologies,” he said, noting only U.S., Japanese and South Korean companies have been among the top patent filers in the United States. BlackBerry is the only Canadian company in the top 100.

Mr. Balsillie said Apple Inc. and Google Inc. spend more on acquiring intellectual property rights than they do on research and development.

IPR skills are crucial if Canadian companies are to compete internationally, he said, or else they will end up as a “lambs for slaughter” in the global marketplace. “They will never grow and Canada will continue to fall behind at a [national] level.”

In an interview after his speech, Mr. Balsillie said Ottawa’s role should be to “sophisticatedly understand how the game is played, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, and make sure that companies are trained to thrive in the game.”

He said currently there are no professors in Canada teaching the global patent system in law, business or engineering schools, and there is no training in the subject in the civil service.

Intellectual property is so important, Mr. Balsillie said, that bilateral issues concerning IPR will eventually overtake traditional trade irritants between countries.
failure  Canada  start_ups  technology  Jim_Balsillie  intellectual_property  scaling  patents  property_rights  protocols  Canadian  industrial_policies  Ottawa  rules_of_the_game  civil_service  UpSpark  sophisticated  bilateral  competitive_strategy 
april 2014 by jerryking
Apple, Samsung ready for latest patent faceoff - The Globe and Mail
MARTHA MENDOZA

SAN JOSE, CALIF. — The Associated Press

Published Sunday, Mar. 30 2014
Apple  Samsung  patents  litigation  intellectual_property 
april 2014 by jerryking
Don’t expect BlackBerry’s patents to stay in Canada - The Globe and Mail
BARRIE McKENNA

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Sep. 29 2013

The way to extract real value from BlackBerry’s IP is to use the patents in cross-licensing deals between tech companies, allowing players to use each others’ technologies. Patents can also be used in litigation – either on offence to protect turf, or to defend against infringement by others.
Blackberry  cross-licensing  defensive_tactics  intangibles  intellectual_property  IP_retention  litigation  patents  patent_infringement  portfolios  portfolio_management  property_rights  offensive_tactics  sellout_culture 
october 2013 by jerryking
Sanofi head sees cures for what ails Canada’s pharma sector - The Globe and Mail
Jun. 16 2013 |The Globe and Mail | SOPHIE COUSINEAU.

Canada and Quebec, where the country’s pharmaceutical R&D is concentrated, must also adapt quickly to the downsizing of in-house research.

“The business model has changed not only for financial considerations, but because the science has shifted,” he said. “It has become so complex that no single organization has all the disciplines to be successful.”

The collaborative approach that Mr. Viehbacher has tried to instill at Sanofi since he took over the company in late 2008 relies on creating an ecosystem like the one found in Boston, where the company acquired rare-disease specialist Genzyme Corp. for $20.1-billion (U.S.) in 2011.

In Boston, researchers from universities, biotech firms and pharmaceutical companies often work together from the get-go, in a public-private partnership, or PPP, culture. Big pharma doesn’t wait around to pick the biotech fruits when they are ripe. “We can accelerate the development or, in certain cases, kill a project earlier, so that resources can go elsewhere,” Mr. Viehbacher explained.
attrition_rates  stage-gate  pharmaceutical_industry  Montreal  CEOs  Sanofi  competitive_landscape  patents  intellectual_property  PPP  partnerships  Sophie_Cousineau  accelerators  kill_rates 
june 2013 by jerryking
Following Up With Dan Brown, Inventor of the Bionic Wrench - NYTimes.com
November 26, 2012, 7:00 (share with Paul Boldt)
Following Up With Dan Brown, Inventor of the Bionic Wrench
By GENE MARKS

we definitely need some changes if our country is ever going to protect our significant investments in innovation. Most people do not know it, but we have a double standard in the protection and punishment of intellectual property theft. Without going into all of the detail, the punishment for willful copyright and trademark infringement is a criminal penalty. This is a very strong deterrent for copyright and trademark infringement. The punishment for willful patent infringement is a civil case and not a criminal case. As it stands today, this piracy model for patent theft allows infringers to proceed unchecked for years in the marketplace, often destroying the market, business, and investment of the patent rights owner. The current system forces the victim to fight a protracted and expensive legal battle. If Congress were to simply make those cases of willful patent infringement a criminal case, and we began holding the responsible individuals and officers of the companies personally accountable — as it is in willful infringement of copyrights and trademarks — I believe these infringers would think long and hard before they risked infringing a patented product....Unfortunately, the sales cycle in this business runs well ahead of the delivery cycle. Pioneering a new product into a retailer is very challenging, especially when attempting to convince a buyer whose paradigm is almost totally based on purchasing imported products at very low costs. That is why we worked so hard with Sears to prove the viability of the product and sales program.
delivery_cycle  double_standards  intellectual_property  inventors  litigation  new_products  patents  patent_infringement  patent_law  retailers  sales_cycle  Sears 
november 2012 by jerryking
In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword - NYTimes.com
By CHARLES DUHIGG and STEVE LOHR
Published: October 7, 2012
Historically, the United States has awarded ownership of an innovation to whoever created the first prototype, a policy known as “first to invent.” Under the America Invents Act, ownership will be awarded to whoever submits the first application, or “first to file.”

The shift, inventors like Mr. Perlman say, makes life harder for small entrepreneurs. Large companies with battalions of lawyers can file thousands of pre-emptive patent applications in emerging industries. Start-ups, lacking similar resources, will find themselves easy prey once their products show promise........“Start-ups are where progress occurs,” “If you spend all your time in court, you can’t create much technology.”
Apple  intellectual_property  inventors  litigation  Nuance  offensive_tactics  patents  patent_law  Silicon_Valley  Steve_Lohr  USPTO 
october 2012 by jerryking
With Smartphone Deals, Patents Become a New Asset Class - NYTimes.com
September 24, 2012, 1:21 pm4 Comments
With Smartphone Deals, Patents Become a New Asset Class
By STEVE LOHR

patents have become a new asset class.

Traditionally, patents sat on corporate shelves and were occasionally used as bargaining chips in cross-licensing deals with competitors. But that began to change in the 1990s, when technology companies like Texas Instruments and I.B.M. started to regard their patent portfolios as sources of revenue, licensing their intellectual property for fees.

Today, companies routinely buy and sell patents, mostly in deals that draw little attention, for millions of dollars instead of billions. The question, experts say, is how big the market will become.

“Patents are a tricky asset to trade,” said Josh Lerner, an economist at the Harvard Business School. “But there is clearly a huge amount of value in intellectual property. And I think what we’re seeing is the beginning of a lot more monetization and trading of intellectual property rights.”

A sizable specialist industry has developed to build the marketplace for trading ideas. The players include patent aggregators like Intellectual Ventures and RPX, patent brokers like Ocean Tomo and ICAP, hedge funds, investment banks and law firms.
smartphones  patents  intellectual_property  law_firms  asset_classes  Steve_Lohr  valuations  Ocean_Tomo  markets  monetization  portfolio_management  cross-licensing 
september 2012 by jerryking
Apple Gets Decisive Win in Patent Case - WSJ.com
August 24, 2012 | WSJ | By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO.

Apple, which cited more than 28 Samsung products, sued Samsung last year and accused the South Korean company of infringing seven patents. Samsung fired back, alleging that some iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch models infringed up to five patents....Apple has won big...being awarded $1.05 billion in damages and providing ammunition for more legal attacks on mobile-device rivals.

Jurors Friday found that Samsung infringed all but one of the seven patents at issue in the case—a patent covering the physical design of the iPad. They found all seven of Apple's patents valid—despite Samsung's attempts to have them thrown out. They also decided Apple didn't violate any of the five patents Samsung asserted against it.

The damage award is shy of Apple's request for more than $2.5 billion, but much larger than Samsung's estimates and still ranking among the largest intellectual-property awards on record.
litigation  Apple  Samsung  patent_law  patents  smartphones  intellectual_property 
august 2012 by jerryking
Managing Risk In the 21st Century
February 7, 2000 | Fortune | By Thomas A. Stewart.

Take risk management, a responsibility of the treasury function. Most risk managers haven't begun to cope with the real threats 21st-century companies face. Like the drunk in the old joke who looks for his lost keys under the streetlamp because the light is better there, risk management is dealing with visible classes of risk while greater, unmanaged dangers accumulate in the dark.

Risk--let's get this straight upfront--is good. The point of risk management isn't to eliminate it; that would eliminate reward. The point is to manage it--that is, to choose where to place bets, where to hedge bets, and where to avoid betting altogether. Though most risk-management tools--insurance, hedging, diversification, etc.--have to do with reducing loss, the goal is to maximize the gains from the risks you take (alpha? McDerment?)

So where should we look for these new risks?

--Your reputation or brand. When a bad batch of carbon dioxide in Coca-Cola sickened some Belgian children last summer, Coke's European operating income fell about $205 million, and Coca-Cola Enterprises, the bottler, incurred $103 million in costs. What about the cost to brand equity? One highly imperfect proxy: Coke's market capitalization fell $34 billion between June 30 and Sept. 30, 1999.

--Your business model. Asset-free, knowledge-intensive competition is to entrenched business models what the Panzer was to the Maginot Line. MP3s changed the music business more fundamentally than anything since radio. E*Trade, 18 years old, forced Merrill Lynch, 180, to change its way of doing business. Yet the new guys' very nimbleness creates its own risks, which traditional risk management can't help. You can protect the hard assets of a brick-and-mortar mall. Click-and-order stores are much more exposed: Cash flow is just about all they've got.

--Your human capital. The obvious human-capital risk is flight--especially in a tight labor market--but it's only part of a larger, subtler problem. When the CEO intones, "People are our most important asset," he's wrong, even if he's sincere. People are your most important investors. Your stock of human capital matters less than your flow of it. Any turbulence--and is there anything but turbulence these days?--can disrupt the flow, damaging your ability to attract human capital or people's desire to collaborate. Says Thomas Davenport, a partner at Towers Perrin: "Uncertainty is a real enemy of human capital. People rebalance their ROI by cutting back the investment."

--Your intellectual property. Many risks to intellectual property--theft, for example--can be dealt with in obvious, if sometimes onerous, ways. Here's the cutting-edge question: How do you manage risk in the process by which new intellectual property is created? How do you cope with the fact that the safer a given R&D project is, the less likely it is to be a big-money breakthrough? How do you balance the virtues of specialization against those of diversification?

--Your network. No company is an island, entire of itself; odds are your business is embedded in a network you do not control. It's not just that AOL might crash and cost you a few days' sales; your whole business may depend on tangible and intangible assets that belong to outsourcing partners, franchisees, sugar daddies, or standard-setters.
There are a couple of patterns here. First, an ever-greater part of business risk comes from sources your company can't own--people, partners, environments. Second, volatility isn't just a currency or stock market risk anymore. Labor markets, technologies, even business models oscillate at higher frequencies--their behavior more and more resembling that of financial markets.

In those patterns are hints of how to manage intellectual risks--which we'll examine next time.
risk-management  21st._century  risks  Thomas_Stewart  reputation  branding  business_models  financial_markets  talent_management  intellectual_property  networks  human_capital  turbulence  uncertainty  volatility  instability  nimbleness  labour_markets  accelerated_lifecycles  intellectual_assets  e-commerce  external_interaction  talent_flows  cash_flows  network_risk  proxies  specialization  diversification  unknowns  brand_equity  asset-light  insurance  hedging  alpha  Michael_McDerment 
june 2012 by jerryking
Finding a New Niche May Offer Better Chance at Fat Margins - WSJ.com
May 13, 2003 | WSJ | By JEFF BAILEY | Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
These days, with information and capital zipping around at warp speed, a business or industry with fat margins essentially has a target painted on its back.

And yet, plenty of small and midsize companies in less-than-glamorous industries manage, some year after year, to post enviable margins. Some have patents or other intellectual property that protect them from competition. Others have invested large sums in plant and equipment to acquire economies of scale that scare off new market entrants. Some defend themselves by knitting together extensive sales-and-distribution networks that would take years to replicate.
patents  intellectual_property  entrepreneur  business_models  dealerships  automotive_industry  barcodes  medical_devices  hospitals  niches  unglamorous  differentiation  proprietary  small_business  mid-market  barriers_to_entry  economies_of_scale  margins  warp_speed  defensive_tactics  distribution_channels 
may 2012 by jerryking
Google's Turn to Quake? - WSJ.com
April 4, 2012 | WSJ | By ROBERT HAHN.

Google's Turn to Quake? IBM and Microsoft fought antitrust authorities on multiple continents, even as they lost their fleeting dominance....Antitrust policy is built on the notion that market concentration, collusion or nasty behavior toward rivals undermines efficiency by allowing producers to charge more and to block innovation. That's not a bad rule of thumb for "old economy" industries. Before Japanese auto makers broke through the barriers, Detroit charged too much, divvying up most of the surplus between workers and managers. Worse—much worse—auto industry technology and productivity stagnated, as stakeholders sheltered their pockets of privilege from the winds of change.

But high-tech industries in general, and information technology industries in particular, are an entirely different sort of beast. Market concentration and huge profits are typically a consequence of economies of scale and returns to intellectual property, not monopoly power. (It costs no more to produce 10 million copies of Microsoft Office than 10 copies.) And while the management of the current crop of winning companies may be as eager as monopolists of yore to bar the doors to rivals, rapid technological change denies them the opportunity.
Google  IBM  Microsoft  antitrust  competition  competitive_landscape  increasing_returns_to_scale  collusion  market_power  corporate_concentration  monopolies  economies_of_scale  intellectual_property  automotive_industry  productivity  winner-take-all  market_concentration  technological_change  returns_to_intellectual_property 
april 2012 by jerryking
Moving beyond that flat-world theory - The Globe and Mail
May 2, 2011 | Globe and Mail | Harvey Schachter.

Declining global stability is real and the days of a stable world are gone. Mark Anderson, editor of the Strategic News Service, lays out 10 provocative pieces of advice.
Climate change is real
Global consumer explosion is on
Your company will lose money if you go to China
Don't try to serve both the consumer and enterprise technology markets
Innovation is a creative process
Protect intellectual property
The world is not flat
Be prepared for Chinese competitors
Manage for currency manipulation
flat_world  Harvey_Schachter  climate_change  BRIC  China  Chinese  competition  innovation  intellectual_property  volatility  currencies 
october 2011 by jerryking
Exporting I.P.
May 14, 2007 | The New Yorker | James Surowiecki.
business  copyright  economics  trade  intellectual_property  free-trade 
october 2011 by jerryking
Rolls-Royce Powers Ahead in High-Wage Countries - WSJ.com
OCTOBER 20, 2011| WSJ | By DANIEL MICHAELS. While many American and European manufacturers transplanted production to low-wage countries in Asia and Latin America in recent years, British industrial giant Rolls-Royce PLC has taken a contrarian course. It gravitates to high-wage hot spots.

The turbine producer has factories in England, the U.S. and Germany, where it recently bought into an engine maker for more than $2 billion.

...Preserving even a limited amount of high-end manufacturing in advanced economies can help stem a vicious cycle of industrial exodus that plagues parts of the U.S. and U.K. Each specialized marine or aerospace manufacturing job creates around three more jobs nearby at suppliers, maintenance operations and in services such as design or finance, according to studies.

Until the recent economic crisis, many advanced economies had looked to service industries, such as finance and information technology, as substitutes for vanishing manufacturing employment. But the spillover job creation from such services is "effectively trivial,"
exodus  manufacturers  United_Kingdom  China  intellectual_property  Singapore  shipbuilding  value_creation  engineering  high-wage  hotspots  spillover  Rolls-Royce  downward_spirals  developed_countries  contrarians 
october 2011 by jerryking
Intellectual property is a new kind of arms race, with patents as ammo - The Globe and Mail
john manley
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Oct. 05, 2011 .

​To spur innovation and economic growth, Canada needs an intellectual property framework that fairly balances the rights of creators, consumers and society as a whole. In addition to passing a new copyright bill, the federal government should undertake a comprehensive IP policy review to address barriers that hinder opportunities for companies and inventors. Such a review, says the Canadian International Council, should examine “how much of an obstacle our corporations face when obtaining licences from Canadian patent holders, and the extent to which this barrier impedes innovation and growth.”

Of equal importance is the need to improve the quality of patents issued in Canada and internationally. By some estimates, close to a third of all new U.S. patents are of questionable quality, often because the invention claimed is not new or because the patent is vague or overly broad. One way to address this is to make it easier for third parties to challenge these applications without resorting to litigation.

At the same time, it’s vital to speed up the patent application process. Obtaining a patent now takes as many as three years in Canada, 3½ years in the U.S. and a decade in Europe. As the CIC points out, “Such delays hurt innovation, particularly in the informative-technology sector, where the commercial value of a patent may last only a year or two.”
John_Manley  CCCE  intellectual_property  patent_law  patent_trolls  patents  frameworks  arms_race 
october 2011 by jerryking
Google in Talks With InterDigital - WSJ.com
JULY 21, 2011 ANUPREETA DAS. Google in Talks With Wireless Patent Firm
google  mergers_&_acquisitions  M&A  wireless  patents  intellectual_property 
july 2011 by jerryking
Analysis: U.S. Tech Companies, China Tangle Over Contracts - WSJ.com
APRIL 18, 2011 John Bussey. Despite an agreement between
President Obama and President Hu in January, U.S. technology companies
are again complaining about how China awards contracts...The bigger
issue, Mr. Murck adds, is that this is just one piece of China's broader
industrial policy, a large array of mostly new rules designed to speed
the growth of national champions and foster home-grown innovation.

The list is long: new patent laws that could make it easier to seize
foreign innovation; the setting of standards that require products to be
re-engineered to meet Chinese specifications; national-security
initiatives that give preferential treatment to Chinese companies in
several industries; limitations on market access for U.S. services
companies; continued weak enforcement of intellectual-property rights.
China  contracts  global_champions  home_grown  Hu_Jintao  indigenous  industrial_policies  innovation  intellectual_property  non-tariff_barriers  patents  patent_law  predatory_practices  property_rights  technical_standards  technology_transfers 
april 2011 by jerryking
Peter Huber: Digital Innovators vs. the Patent Trolls
APR.18, 2011|WSJ|PETER HUBER.U.S. patent laws have drifted way
off course.Real innovators in the digital realm add new s/w modules,
chips & ntwking capabilities to the toolkit.Biochemists do the same
in their field, isolating genes & proteins & build new tools for
re- engineering them.In these & other areas of the economy, much of
the innovation is embodied in plug-&-play building blks, which are
easily combined in different ways to perform a variety of tasks.But the
proliferation of smart building blocks makes it easier for anyone to
write a patent that simply describes what a keen invention will do,
contributing little more than a sketch for how someone might build it
from off-the-shelf parts..The issue isn't whether IP rights should be
enforced, it's whether we have a reliable process identifying who really
supplied the intellect.We don't.A sys. that issues & upholds junk
patents will devalue IP much faster than one that scrutinizes patents
carefully & enforces only the good ones.
Peter_Huber  patents  patent_law  USPTO  patent_trolls  U.S._Supreme_Court  innovation  intellectual_property 
april 2011 by jerryking
China Could Game the U.S. in Intellectual Property -
January 10, 2011 | BusinessWeek | By Vivek Wadhwa
The dubious Chinese patent process poses growing risks for U.S.
companies, which could be forced to pay license fees or withdraw from a
market left free to exploit their technologies
patents  China  intellectual_property  Vivek_Wadhwa  predatory_practices 
january 2011 by jerryking
The New Alchemy At Sears
APRIL 16, 2007 | BusinessWeek | By Robert Berner.

Sears is on the cutting edge of a financial innovation: it has created $1.8 billion worth of securities based on the brand names Kenmore, Craftsman, and DieHard. In essence, it has transferred ownership of the brands to another entity, which it then pays for the right to use the brands. The deal, carried off last May, was the biggest "securitization"
of intellectual property in history....Such daring shouldn't come as a surprise at a Lampert-run shop. When he looks at a company, he sees value hidden from plain view—value that traditional accounting methods often miss. That keen eye is what prompted him to buy up a majority of Kmart's bonds at a deep discount after it filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002. He saw that Kmart's real estate was deeply undervalued by creditors, and figured that would protect his investment.
He was right....Sears says there is nothing unusual about securitizing assets; many companies, including most of the largest retailers, evaluate alternatives to create value from their brands, real estate, and other assets.
Sears  intellectual_property  securitization  brands  hedge_funds  latent  hidden  financial_innovation  undervalued 
december 2010 by jerryking
In China, Western Firms Keep Secrets Close - WSJ.com
AUG. 30, 2010 | WSJ | By DANA MATTIOLI .In China, Western
companies are increasingly expressing concerns about the safety of their
intellectual property in arrangements (e.g.joint ventures) involving
tech transfers "that require sharing their technology/IP with a Chinese
partner. Firms like BASF and Motorola have, alternately, expressed
concern and sued to protect their trade secrets....These concerns are
changing the China playbook for Western firms, counterbalancing the
prospect of cheap mfg, & a massive consumer mkt....It's no longer
about getting into China, it's about HOW you do China." Strategies that
Western companies are adopting include: Not sharing the most sensitive
IP; sending more of their own employees to oversee mfg.; partnering with
a smaller firm that's less able to become a rival; splitting up the
mfg. process; encrypting design plans (inaccessible w/o a special code)
& creating plans that "expire" and cannot be saved, forwarded or
printed.
BASF  China  Dana_Mattioli  defensive_tactics  encryption  impermanence  intellectual_property  joint_ventures  Motorola  playbooks  technology_transfers  trade_secrets 
november 2010 by jerryking
Experts question copyright law review
Nov 8, 2010 | Financial Times. pg. 4 | Mary Watkins. Mr
Cameron said that Google's founders had indicated that they could not
have started their business in the UK because the search engine services
they provide depend on "taking a snapshot of content on the internet at
any one time and they feel our copyright system is not as friendly to
this sort of innovation as it is in the US". Mark Owen, an IP lawyer at
Harbottle & Lewis, said that the government had failed to
understand that many IP issues were largely dictated by EU law and "the
UK has little room to manoeuvre on them. It is also unlikely that the
current state of the defences is why the US has Silicon Valley and the
UK does not". He said the government should focus on improving the
UK's investment climate, risk-taking culture and tax regimes. "Another
review of IP laws smacks of kicking the issue into the long grass," he
added.
ProQuest  United_Kingdom  intellectual_property  Google  copyright  Silicon_Valley 
november 2010 by jerryking
Build and Protect Your Company's Brand -
October 1, 2010, BusinessWeek By Karen E. Klein.The authors of
Brand Rewired urge entrepreneurs to emphasize intellectual property
protection when working on a branding strategy. A company's intangible
assets, including its brand, may represent up to 80 percent of its
corporate value, according to the United Nations' World Intellectual
Property Organization. But many small businesses don't protect their
brands legally in a manner commensurate with their potential monetary
worth. Branding and intellectual property experts Anne H. Chasser and
Jennifer C. Wolfe hope to change that with their new book, Brand Rewired
(Wiley, July 2010).
entrepreneur  intellectual_property  branding  small_business  book_reviews 
october 2010 by jerryking
Paul Allen Sues Apple, Google, Others Over Patents - WSJ.com
AUGUST 28, 2010 | Wall Street Journal | Dionne Searcey.
Patent litigation in general is on the rise, in what is becoming a
lucrative endeavor. Ocean Tomo, a Chicago-based merchant bank that
tracks the intellectual-property market, values the licensing market at
as much as $500 billion. Mr. Allen's lawsuit comes amid high-profile
successes of firms such as NTP Inc., which enforce patents without
making products and have been called "patent trolls" by critics. Courts
have tried to rein in patent litigation, with mixed results, and
Congress has yet to act on legislation that would do the same....patent
licensing strategy
Paul_Allen  patents  patent_law  Ocean_Tomo  intellectual_property  patent_trolls  lawsuits 
august 2010 by jerryking
Gordon Crovitz: Government Drops the Ball on Patents - WSJ.com
JULY 19, 2010 | Wall Street Journal | By L. GORDON
CROVITZ. Without guidance from Congress or the Supreme Court, industry
turns to self-help. "Patent law is a few years behind copyright when it
comes to self-help. Patents are at the tectonic plate shift between the
Industrial Age and the Information Age. That's because so much new
technology, especially software, becomes valuable only when combined
with other innovations. This is very different from protecting a new
plowshare or cotton gin."....The pharmaceutical industry, which must
invest fortunes to clear regulatory hurdles for new drugs, needs a
different approach to patents than do software companies. (See also
Larry Downes, author of "The Laws of Disruption.")
patents  patent_law  intellectual_property  L._Gordon_Crovtiz  copyright  DIY  books  seismic_shifts  industrial_age 
july 2010 by jerryking
Reading and the Web - Texts Without Context - NYTimes.com
March 17, 2010 | New York Times | By MICHIKO KAKUTANI. ..."the
contentious issues of copyright, intellectual property and plagiarism
that have become prominent in a world in which the Internet makes
copying and recycling [simple]..." "the [Web], is encouraging “authors,
journalists, musicians and artists” to “treat the fruits of their
intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the
hive mind.” "online collectivism, social networking and popular software
designs are changing the way people think and process information, a
question of what becomes of originality and imagination in a world that
prizes “metaness” and regards the mash-up as “more important than the
sources who were mashed.”"
culture  media  reading  social_media  trends  mashups  intellectual_property  plagiarism  copyright 
march 2010 by jerryking
The Protocol Society
Dec. 22, 2009 | NYT | By DAVID BROOKS. A protocol economy has
very different properties than a physical stuff economy. The success
of an economy depends on its ability to invent and embrace new
protocols, its' “adaptive efficiency,” -- how quickly a society can be
infected by new ideas. Protocols are intangible, so the traits needed to
invent and absorb them are intangible, too. First, a nation has to have
a good operating system: laws, regulations and property rights. Second,
a nation has to have a good economic culture: attitudes toward
uncertainty, the willingness to exert leadership, the willingness to
follow orders. A strong economy needs daring consumers (China lacks
this) and young researchers with money to play with (N.I.H. grants used
to go to 35-year-olds but now they go to 50-year-olds). See “From
Poverty to Prosperity,” by Arnold Kling and Nick Schulz and Richard
Ogle’s 2007 book, “Smart World,” When the economy is about ideas,
economics comes to resemble psychology.
David_Brooks  innovation  books  culture  adaptability  ideaviruses  risk-taking  R&D  N.I.H.  property_rights  regulations  rule_of_law  institutional_integrity  services  digital_economy  rules-based  intellectual_property  demand-driven  psychology  customer-driven  intangibles  behavioural_economics  protocols  poverty  prosperity 
december 2009 by jerryking
Shielding Intellectual Property - WSJ.com
NOVEMBER 30, 2004 | Wall Street Journal | by BHARAT ANAND and
ALEXANDER GALETOVIC. Below we set out a selection of strategies that
have allowed companies highly dependent on their intellectual property
to live to fight another day.
(1) Nip it in the Bud. Some companies combat infringement by acting
before competitors can catch their breath. Intel famously pre-empts
misappropriation of its core assets by dominating the market long enough
to realize huge profits before reverse engineering, imitation, or
piracy can eat into them.(2) Overwhelm competitors by fashioning
internal operations into an engine of innovation.(3) Make a Bundle. If
one danger of piracy is to drive down a company's prices, why are smart
companies charging nothing for some of their products? (4)Move the
Goalposts. When the threat to their core assets is overwhelming,
companies must take more extreme action -- sometimes expanding into
related businesses.
bundling  competitive_strategy  copycats  core_businesses  counterfeits  defensive_tactics  Intel  intellectual_property  internal_systems  innovation  patents  patent_infringement  piracy  pre-emption  property_rights  reverse_engineering  threats 
december 2009 by jerryking
Inventors Have Rights, Too! - WSJ.com
MARCH 30, 2006 | Wall Street Journal | by NATHAN MYHRVOLD. "The
roots of this case lie in differing corporate cultures and attitudes
about the patent system. In some industries, like pharmaceuticals or
biotech, patents are crucial to the business model, so they support and
respect patent rights. Tech companies, on the other hand, win by
muscling their way to sufficient market share to become a de facto
standard (some would say monopoly). Because patents don't figure in this
business model, tech companies don't hold the patent system in high
regard. Patents are simply not a priority for many tech companies. Ebay,
for example, has only 11 issued patents."..."The patent system exists
to give economic incentive to create inventions -- not products. "
inventors  U.S._Supreme_Court  intellectual_property  patents  patent_law  Nathan_Myhrvold  Intellectual_Ventures 
december 2009 by jerryking
'Innovation' Increases Patent Law Turmoil - WSJ.com
APRIL 17, 2006 | Wall Street Journal | by Ogan Gurel, M.D. "Now
imagine a situation whereby a court injunction -- empowered by a claim
on just one of these components -- prevents a life-saving technology
from reaching the market. This is why this patent issue is so important.
We need to put aside the polemics and develop a system that fosters
both invention and innovation. Lives, and not just fingers tapping on
BlackBerrys, are at stake."
letters_to_the_editor  intellectual_property  patents  patent_law  innovation 
december 2009 by jerryking
Crovitz: The Supreme Court v. Patent Absurdity
NOVEMBER 16, 2009 | - WSJ.com | By L. GORDON CROVITZ.
Technological change is fast outpacing the ability of government to deal
with it. ...The bottom line [is] that business-process patents deserve
to be invalidated. The most telling moment in the Bilski argument was
when Justice Breyer asked how the balance should be struck between
granting patents for methods that applied to machines as opposed to
methods that apply to how information is used.
L._Gordon_Crovtiz  U.S._Supreme_Court  patents  intellectual_property  technological_change 
november 2009 by jerryking
Book Review: "The Laws of Disruption" - WSJ.com
OCTOBER 12, 2009 | Wall Street Journal | by JEREMY PHILIPS who
reviews The Laws of Disruption, By Larry Downes
Basic, 298 pages, $26.95. The central thesis of "The Laws of
Disruption" is that "technology changes exponentially, but social,
economic and legal systems change incrementally." When it comes to the
digital revolution, Mr. Downes says, our laws have not kept pace with
the changes that it has brought about. Downes counsels that authorities
(regulators and judges) use a light touch--as opposed to introducing
ever new laws and regulations --because the rapid pace of change makes
it impossible to predict the course of technology.
book_reviews  disruption  innovation  Internet  technological_change  intellectual_property  structural_change  regulation  competitive_landscape  incrementalism  regulators  books  digital_disruption  digital_revolution 
october 2009 by jerryking
« earlier      
per page:    204080120160

Copy this bookmark:





to read