Calling the pace of technological advancement breakneck might be an understatement. Your smart phone, for example, is the almost unrecognizable relative of the simple analog cell phone so popular in the 1980s and 1990s. Even since the explosion of the smart phone market with the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, we’ve seen the subsequent growth of the tablet market and relentless improvements since then. Behind all of this technological growth are thickets of legal and bureaucratic red-tape surrounding the notion of intellectual property. Modern gadgets include a blend of so many ideas and patented technologies that managing these aspects of a product can and, according to recent research, should greatly influence how one designs a business around a product.
Creators of the new gadgetry aimed at the masses – smart phones, tablets and other new consumer technologies – have to wade through associated patents far before their inventions reach the public. Even industry-specific advancements must deal with multi-invention patent issues like high specialized medical equipment or pharmaceuticals in the health care industry or, in the legal field, online e-discovery services for managing electronically stored information.
A recent study by University of Illinois patent strategy guru Deepak Somaya suggests that businesses developing these patented products that involve integration of multiple pre-existing inventions should build their own patent process into their business strategy.
At stake is whether a technology or product might ever make it to market. From Somaya’s paper - co-authored by David J. Teece, of the University of California at Berkeley, and Simon Wakeman, of the European School of Management and Technology – "Innovation in Multi-Invention Contexts: Mapping Solutions to Technological and Intellectual Property Complexity," we draw two main insights:
· First, innovators must assess the organizational costs and benefits of the different organizational models for combining the relevant inventions, and they must choose the most efficient model for the given context as early in the process as possible.
· Second, you have to make sure you can turn a profit. According the research, innovators will not profit from innovations if they don't think through their commercialization strategy. It’s important to devise strategies that compensate the innovator for entrepreneurial efforts and related investments.
Simply put – when you are developing a technology, for example, make sure you have planned appropriately to maximize efficiency and (perhaps most importantly), make sure you will be able to make some money. After all, profit drives innovation.
The importance of making sure you have your intellectual property ducks in a row is paramount with modern-day technological advances. You’d be hard-pressed to find a recent example of a patented tech product that doesn’t include the already-claimed intellectual property of some other inventor.
Because the likelihood of utilizing already-claimed advancements is seemingly unavoidable, the authors of this paper are plainly suggesting that you build in the cost for using a multi-invention approach and you build in the time to make sure you are including the proper inventions; the cost to acquire the rights for use; and the existence of a reasonable profit margin.
Managing Intellectual Property With Multi-Invention Innovations
Creators of the new gadgetry aimed at the masses – smart phones, tablets and other new consumer technologies – have to wade through associated patents far before their inventions reach the public. Even industry-specific advancements must deal with multi-invention patent issues like high specialized medical equipment or pharmaceuticals in the health care industry or, in the legal field, online e-discovery services for managing electronically stored information.
A recent study by University of Illinois patent strategy guru Deepak Somaya suggests that businesses developing these patented products that involve integration of multiple pre-existing inventions should build their own patent process into their business strategy.
At stake is whether a technology or product might ever make it to market. From Somaya’s paper - co-authored by David J. Teece, of the University of California at Berkeley, and Simon Wakeman, of the European School of Management and Technology – "Innovation in Multi-Invention Contexts: Mapping Solutions to Technological and Intellectual Property Complexity," we draw two main insights:
· First, innovators must assess the organizational costs and benefits of the different organizational models for combining the relevant inventions, and they must choose the most efficient model for the given context as early in the process as possible.
· Second, you have to make sure you can turn a profit. According the research, innovators will not profit from innovations if they don't think through their commercialization strategy. It’s important to devise strategies that compensate the innovator for entrepreneurial efforts and related investments.
Simply put – when you are developing a technology, for example, make sure you have planned appropriately to maximize efficiency and (perhaps most importantly), make sure you will be able to make some money. After all, profit drives innovation.
The importance of making sure you have your intellectual property ducks in a row is paramount with modern-day technological advances. You’d be hard-pressed to find a recent example of a patented tech product that doesn’t include the already-claimed intellectual property of some other inventor.
Because the likelihood of utilizing already-claimed advancements is seemingly unavoidable, the authors of this paper are plainly suggesting that you build in the cost for using a multi-invention approach and you build in the time to make sure you are including the proper inventions; the cost to acquire the rights for use; and the existence of a reasonable profit margin.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments