The End of a Patent Dynasty, IBM has been Dethroned

IBM is no longer King of the Patent World! 
Samsung now reigns supreme.

US Patents for 2016 by Fortune by IFI Claims Patent Services. IBM #1 with 8,052 patents issued. Samsung Electronics Co Lmt with 5,518. But, a better measure would have IBM coming in second in 2016, and even in 2015!... 

The other approach that consolidates related companies here, or more directly from Sqoop here.   IBM #2 when Samsung has more patents collectively with 8,551 issued in 2016.
In terms of patent applications, 

In terms of patent applications, Samsung really beats out IBM:

• Samsung -- 10,695
• International Business Machines Corporation -- 8,800

Samsung is way ahead of #2 Microsoft in Design Patents with ~1,500 vs. ~500. IBM is not in to the top 40 in terms of US design patents (as would be expected for the type of products (services, really) that they produce.

Wow, no 25 year run for IBM. A questionable 24 year run through 2016. And arguably, not even a 23 year.

When your IP gets the boot, AAPL boots IMG

WoW.
Imagination Technologies (IMG) dropped about 70% over the last day or so as Apple says that they will no use IMG's graphics processing (GPU) technology much longer. The stock dropped from a high of about $300 US to a low of $76. It dropped $180 in today's trading, stabilizing at about $90. You might have an issue when the largest company in the world says they don't intent to buy your products much longer, especially if they are your largest customer.

Read about it here.

Apple says that they will take other approached to get their graphics. IMG says that will be hard to do with their intellectual property protection.

IMG is very similar to ARM Holding who makes the technology, not the products. But last year ARM got gobbled up by SoftBank (which owns Sprint), so Great Britain is becoming even less great the day or so after BrExit (wondering if any relation there). IPZine blogged about ARM holdings not holding out here.

Yes, intellectual property will be an interesting problem for the UK as they work out the divorce agreement(s) with the EU.

Long-term good for R&D, Patents and Profits

A recent study shows how long-term focus pays off. This study concentrated on switching the CEO compensation to longer-term. From that point forward, what happened, on average to several things related to the performance over time.

Great study was by Flammer and Bansal (2016) and summarized in the WSJ, CEOs should focus on the long term, a study says. Although the study is coming out soon in the Strategic Management Journal, you can find it here.

The researchers selected companies that were long-term focused based on those companies that had a long-term compensation package presented to the board that was narrowly approved. The narrowly approved implies that this was a bit of a surprise to the executives resulting, potentially, in a paradigm shift toward longer-term focus. The board voting was reviewed from 2005 through 2012 so that there would be room for performance analysis.

There are many positives related to long-term focus all around. Companies with a long-term focus do better all around (profits, net profit margin, sales, stock price, etc.). Those long-term focus had a statistically significant improvement over the longer term (2 years and longer). Interestingly, they had a small dip insignificant dip in the short term.

Longer term companies spend more money on R&D, got more patents, had more patents that "flopped" and had more patents that were "hits". Flops and hits were based on the citations of their issued patents. Lots of citations means hit, not very many means flop. That has issues, but seems acceptable (unless you want to do a market analysis of the patented technologies).
They also did a analysis of exploratory vs. exploitive. This was based on 80% vs 20% of the patents citations being internal to the company. So if lots of citations in my current patent refer to my own prior technology then it is a incremental, exploitive patent. They used a log scale on the number of patents, so a 0.568 correlation could be extrapolated on a logarithmic scale! A 57% correlation meaning that the decision to go long-term-centric resulted in a 57% positive change in the patents. Because they argue a cause-and-effect, they are an argument for causal correlation.

Hits and flops of patents is interesting. First, the patent needs to be more disruptive (exploratory) and new to the company. Then the number of references to the patent were reviewed to see if it gets an abnormal amount of citation activity citing it. Flops would be exploratory that get very low citations. They first combined both hits and flops and indicate that total as a share of all (exploratory?) patents. This is statistically correlated at R-squared of 0.571. Trying a lot results in lots of failures and hits.
Note that the number of flops and the number of hits were statistically correlated: 0.457 and 0.427. This is very interesting, if you aren't trying, then you aren't innovating. In this case, long-term focus means that you are trying and getting a good splattering of both. (They use the methodology here of Azoulay et al., 2011)

Verdict. Boards should focus on long-term for compensation. This means that they have to be willing to take lesser profits in the short term.

There are also very strong correlations to the KLD factors, collectively and all four components: employees, environment, consumers and society.
Verdict. Corporations should focus on sustainable, long-term targets for goals and for compensation.

They have some limitations to this study, but they also combine it with good literature support for long-term-centric management practices. And minimizing the principle-agent problem common to executive compensation.
We want everyone highly motivated by the long-term, sustainable success of businesses (& not-for-profits & Gov)...
Anything else is, well, short-sighted!

References
Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527–554.

Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2016). Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.2629

Readying a Patent Portfolio for Sale

In years gone by, companies with extensive patent portfolios were loathe to sell these assets, strongly preferring to license them.  These Patent Licensing Agreements (PLA) came in several flavors, most had some form of royalty payments for the licensor and the fundamental was that ownership of the patents remained with the original owner, i.e., the company granted the patent(s).

While not totally different today, much has changed in the disposition of thousands of US patents.  Patents are now sold in much greater numbers than in decades past.  Some of the reasons for this are:

·         Corporate decision to shut down or sell of an operating division

·         Near term need to financially rescue another part of the corporation

·         Shift in corporate direction/strategy

·         Pay a court imposed penalty

Patent sales are now so commonplace that online IP reporter sites like www.IAM.com recently devoted a webinar to the patent selling process.  This process, as one can see, includes seven steps.  The assumption here is that the seller completed a validity check to the extent possible on each patent offered for sale. 

It is noteworthy under Step 6 that the biggest buyers of patents review around 1,000 seller packages per year.  This clearly puts the onus on the seller to develop a first class patent package.  It also suggests that this is a buyers’ market putting more of a burden on the seller to find ways to get the most value for its assets.

Keywords: patent, patent portfolio, licensing, PLA, Patent Licensing Agreement, commercialization. 

Supreme Court Brings back Treble Damages - WSJ

Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Patent Holders to Win More in Damages - WSJ:

The unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court brings back the serious damages -- up to 3 times -- for willful patent infringement. Recent lower court rulings were making it virtually impossible to go after big, treble-the-losses, damages. That is the BIG STICK in patent infringement cases. Some companies strategy is to just keep infringing and simply let the lawyers do the heavy lifting. Smaller companies often do not have the resources to fight, especially if it becomes long and protracted.

The threat of treble damages, kind of keeps every honest, usually. Take that away and infringement becomes much less risky.

One of the first options for a patent holder is to enjoin the infringer from producing and selling. This can take some time; the patent claims are always contested, etc., etc. Fortunately, the USPTO has improved this process of patent review so that the strength and quality of the patent can be established early on.

Of course, one end result of infringement is a licencing agreement. However, someone who will infringe your patent, might also go to great lengths to avoid giving an accurate count of the units sold and the royalties payable.

During all this time, the infringing company is trying to develop a work-around so that they can continue selling the products but avoid the infringement. Market build, product established.

If the patent has not yet been issued, the game is even more convoluted.

On the flip side of treble damages is the patent troll (NPE). One would hope that judges would evaluate the case of a troll company that simply sits on a pile of patents with no intentions of producing any actual products and takes a toll off of any and all commerce in the industries/products where their patented technologies apply.

*** Update below on June 17, 2016. ***

An excellent Legal-centric focus of this ruling comes form Dennis Crouch at Patently-O. He also discusses "willful" and suggests that "egregious infringement" might be the new standard going forward.

From a more business perspective, Joff Wild at IAM-media offered some interesting insights about the Halo ruling. He noted that Justice Roberts gave us the first official definition of "Patent Trolls", there s also a discussion of "efficient infringer", and this ruling obviously is a great step forward for patent owners, but a small, first-step.

'via Blog this'

Busted, or not busted, our patent system

One of the most revered, trusted and enduring of America's industrial and technological advantages is our patent system.  Except that, it isn't anymore.  Patents are included in the US Constitution, proof positive that the Foundering Fathers considered them critically important to the future of the country.  That was then, this is now and you'll understand when you go to www.wired.com/2015/01/fixing-broken-patent-system.  It was written by Jay Walker,the founder of Priceline in the late 1990s.

Here is an insightful chronology of how much the patent system benefited the country up until the last several decades.  The system is now too cumbersome and costly such that 95% (Walker's data) of inventions are not available to small and medium size businesses.  Only the mega corporations have the human, financial and technological resources to fully utilize the system.  A study is cited stating that liberating the patent system from litigation-based costs and risks would create $200B/yr in increased economic output.
Although Hall & Hinkelman (2015) in the Patent Primer 3.0 boast of Intellectual Property, mainly patents, as one of "the great equalizers of our lifetime", not all companies who use patents are equally able to capitalize on them.
References

Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 3.0: Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property for inventors and entrepreneurs.  Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. ISBN: 978-1-329-17833-5  Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan

Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 3.0e: Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property with patenting cost estimates for inventors and entrepreneurs.  [Amazon Kindle eBook].  ASIN: B010ISU7ZG

Chinese Hoverboard Booth Raided by US Marshals at CES - Patent enforcement

Chinese Hoverboard Booth Raided by U.S. Marshals at CES | Watch the video - Yahoo Finance:

Also, there's a better story and another video on Bloomberg here.

That's very brazen. A Chinese knock-off shows up at a big gadget expo (Consumer Electronics expo) with samples of a single-wheel hoverboard that distinctly looks and functions like the Onewheel patented by Future Motion of California (inventor Kyle Doerksen). The Onewheel utility patent was already issued and this week a design patent was approved.

Federal Marshals showed up to take the knock-offs off in handcuffs (so to speak).

It is the responsibility of a patent owner to enforce patents. A willful infringer can be subject to treble damages (civil suit). But to really shut down a determined pirate, requires a diligent effort.

To do this so quickly and so forcefully, requires some pretty impressive action on the part of Future Motion.

Note the part that Alibaba, the Chinese answer to Amazon on steroids, plays in the infringement process. If you are buying a one-wheel for $500 but the real manufacture sells Onewheel at $1,500, you might be buying into something that is too good to be true.

Note the part that Kickstarter played in launching this invention with a massively successful $630k campaign. See here.

Note, lastly, that there appear to be quite a few patents within this space. (The Chinese company may have been infringing on dozens of patents, not just 2.)

Well, time to go levitate.

'via Blog this'

Bottoms Up Draft Beer Dispensing System on CNN - YouTube

Bottoms Up Draft Beer Dispensing System on CNN - YouTube:

Bottoms up! This is an invention that changes the way you think -- I mean drink!

And then combine that with promotionals that can be sold with each cup (designer magnet). Great for brand building for those people who are contemplating the bottom of their cups.

The fastest beer in the world. The most consistent pour.

This could make the absolute perfect black-n-tan too.

CHEERS!

'via Blog this'

The Refractive Thinker® Radio Show: Trademark, Patents, and Perpetual Innovation 07/07 by Cheryl Kulikowski Lentz | Entrepreneur Podcasts

The Refractive Thinker® Radio Show: Trademark, Patents, and Perpetual Innovation 07/07 by Cheryl Kulikowski Lentz | Entrepreneur Podcasts:
(30 minute broadcast on BlogTalkRadio.)
This is an interview with Dr. Elmer Hall about Intellectual Property and the types of information included in the Patent Primer 3.0.

Hall talks about the basic processes that entrepreneurs can take to capitalize on Intellectual Property (IP). This interview is an excellent overview of that the approaches that creators and inventors should consider in bringing IP protection to their creative efforts.

The books (and eBooks) in the Perpetual Innovation(tm) series are:

Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2013). Perpetual Innovation™: A guide to strategic
planning, patent commercialization and enduring competitive advantage, Version
2.0. Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. ISBN: 978-1-304-11687-1  Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan

Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 3.0:
Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property
for inventors and entrepreneurs. Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. ISBN: 978-1-329-17833-5  Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan

Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 3.0e:
Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property
with patenting cost estimates for inventors and entrepreneurs.  [Amazon Kindle eBook].  ASIN: B010ISU7ZG  Retrieved from: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B010ISU7ZG   

Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). Perpetual Innovation™: Innovator’s  primer 3.0: The basics on intellectual property protection for the creator and inventor.  Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press.  ISBN: 978-1-329-23954-8  Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan  

Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). Perpetual Innovation™: Innovator’s  primer 3.0e: The basics on intellectual property protection for the creator and inventor.   [Amazon Kindle eBook].  ASIN: B0115BG35I  Retrieved from: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0115BG35I   

'via Blog this'

WSJ. Eveything that can be invented, has been.

Economists Debate Whether Technology Will Save the World. WSJ article.
It's true. Everything that could be invented, has been. Right?
Well, there's the 11 inventions posted last week. And there is 3d printing, all the applications of nanotechnology...
I'm anxious to see what happens with the death of the computer chip, as we hit the limits of silicon... The next generation of computing should be very interesting. With that type of power at your fingertips, the nature of computing as we know it will change?

Robots?

There are all the applications of sustainability, moving most of us, if not all of us, to a zero footprint world.

One thing that is interesting is the ability to actually apply the masses of knowledge that has been accumulated, but not integrated and applied over time. The best application of the best technology, as and when needed...

Possibilities are endless, literally.

Strong Copyright Law supports journalism and more

This is a great editorial by Caroline Little (June 8, 2014) on the value of good journalism and the part that IP law plays in supporting good journalism:
TBO: news-opinion-commentary/strong-copyright-law-supports-journalism-and-informs-communities
We totally agree.
The parallel problem is with pirating, knock off, and just plain duplication. It Is hard to make money on something, when most of the copies sold are illegal sourced or counterfeit.
The additional problem, now, is that everyone has a license to write, the solo publisher and the blog journalist.
There needs to be protection for the people who do the real work and the real research.
There also needs to be accountability for everybody, those who generate content and those who perpetuate it.
Ideally, there needs to be ways to "call out" those who would borrow and steal the works of others.

The belief that our patent system is broken is patently false | freep.com ... Broken as designed?

The belief that our patent system is broken is patently false (guest column) | Detroit Free Press | freep.com:

This is a very interesting article by David Kappos (IP attorney and director of the USPTO). Intellectual Property, especially patents, is a critical foundation of the US economy and of our entrepreneurial proficiency.

But we shouldn't take it for granted.

That's why some of the IP, Hi-Tech companies have joined together into an American alliance of innovation: Partnership for American Innovation  http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org/.

Companies need to take advantage of IP and use it aggressively both domestically and abroad. Especially if we are in the US where we do have strong rule of (IP) law. We must avoid allowing countries with lax IP laws to overrun us on our own strengths, our strengths to innovate.

We need to aim for Perpetual Innovation(tm). Hall & Hinkelman talk about Perpetual Innovation(tm) in their 2013 book on Patent Commercialization argue that many companies are broken-as-designed. They are not designed around managing their intellectual assets; they still operate as if most of their assets and most of their value comes from physical assets.

The US Patent system may not be broken, but many companies are. And IP is a critical part of all innovation and the pipeline of new products.

Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2013). Perpetual Innovation™: A guide to strategic planning,
patent commercialization and enduring competitive advantage, Version 2.0.
Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan

Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2013). Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 2.0:
Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property
with patenting cost estimates for inventors and entrepreneurs.  Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan
(or Kindle at http://tinyURL.com/IPPrimer2) 

'via Blog this'

Pfizer says U.S. court invalidates Celebrex patent; generics loom -- Reuters

Pfizer -- U.S. court invalidates Celebrex patent; generics loom | Reuters:

Ouch!:-(

Knocking the block of of the buster.

Pfizer is taking a big hit with this court ruling against Celebrex patent. Surprisingly, the stock price, not so much so. Almost not even a jitter as it stays around $32 per share.

That's $3B in annual sales with $2B in the US (relevant to the US court ruling, obviously).

IF the company repeats its $51B in sales from last year (revenues have been dropping over the last 3 years) then that represents about 4% to 6% of the companies sales. But it has to represent a huge hit to the bottom line, let's say 8% to 15%. (It doesn't take much to milk the cash cows; it does however, take a lot of money to invent the cow, clone it, raise the herd to maturity, and then milk each cow for all she's got for about 20 years.)

It look like the patent would have expired in 2015 anyway, so there would be generics already sitting on the sidelines (or the storefront in other countries).

This must have been totally expected. It is hard to imaging a $204B company (based on market cap) that doesn't take a serious tumble when one of its blockbuster products takes a hit.

It is blockbuster patents in Big Pharma going off patent like this that contribute to the slowing of Healthcare spending. That's right. Healthcare spending has only been increasing at about 4% over the last couple years. A big part of that is the patent cliff for big pharma drugs.

'via Blog this'

Pono - HiRes Music - Kickstarter 250% funded - Muzak will never be the same!

Pono Music - Where Your Soul Rediscovers Music by the PonoMusic Team — Kickstarter:

Pono Music... a project funded at Kickstarter. http://kck.st/1g5xVf3

High resolution music in a world that has gone Digital!

Finally, I can put those olde (analog) records back on the shelf!

This Kickstarter.com campaign is set to roll over $2M in fund raising today. !Oops, took too long to blog! It is already over $2M! Original goal was only $800k. It is headed by Neil Young but has lots and lots of celec muzak backers. Two more added since I took too long to write this (James Taylor autographed player).

If you like this idea, jump on board. You can get a Pono muzak player for $300 this way with 128GB of storage. That actually is less than 1,000 tracks if you store them at the highest resolution. Of course, nobody has music at that high resolution... 

Pono will work with any artist or music company to get the highest resolution available (from masters) for the site. They won't stream initially in part because the size of the stream. Compression gets us the muZak we have today for our MP3 players -- maybe good, but definitely not great.

So, for 300 bucks or so, you to can sponsor this event, and the music site and the player devise. You will get a Pono player free for your sponsorship... well, $99 off of a $399 player. It should play any music, and the high resolution music you can put on it (now, really from PonoMusic.com, once the project is launched). Since the project is 200% funded, one can assume that it will launch. The plan is to build by this summer everything if the money came through from pre-sales and such on Kickstarter. Then all of the sponsors could expect their memorabilia and Pono players soon thereafter, say August.

The IP behind the player.I'm asking the question at Kickstarter about the IP behind the player. But, one of the key components of their IP is a patent by none other than Neil Young, himself. 

Patent Application: PCT/US2012/038099
Title: Multiple-resolution audio and video systems, methods of production, delivery and uses thereof
Priority date: Jan 20, 2009.

It will be interesting to see if it issues?

It will also be interesting to see if they go for a more open architecture like MP3 or proprietary approach.?

Kids, who have been listening to bad (quality) muzak all their lives, will never be the same.:-)

'via Blog this'

Google to sell Motorola to Lenovo for $2.91B - FierceWireless

Google to sell Motorola to Lenovo for $2.91B - FierceWireless:

This is a pretty good take on the strategic transaction that Google has entered into with Lenovo.

The headlines will be very misleading related to the Motorola Wireless deal that Google just made for selling the handset division (hardware) to Lenovo. People will look at the almost $12.4B deal where Google bought some 17,000 and the Motorola wireless division that comes with it in May of 2012. and say that Google gooped up on this transaction. (Somewhat reminiscent of the Skype deals where Microsoft ended up with the technology at a small price compared to what eBay paid a few years earlier.)

This is a very smart deal by Google. Google is apparently keeping all of the software patents. The licensing (cross-licensing) agreements will probably give Google freedom to do whatever they want in the space. It takes them out of the hardware business, which made handset makers nervous (as an unfair competition with the bundle of handsets with Android OS).

When Google bought Motorola Mobility as a defensive maneuver. The problem is that Google's "free" operating system and products tromp on thousands and thousands of patents (and copyrights). So they needed the patent portfolio to fight the patent war in computing and mobility. (Just as Microsoft needed the AOL patents.) Steve Jobs and Apple have been very irritated with Google giving away (their) technology; but it is a little more complicated to sue and make money from a product being sold for $0.00 per unit.

Even though Google gives many of its products way for "free", it does make quite a lot of money, primarily from advertising. About 70% of Google's stock value is attributable to its advertising (about half PC and half mobile). Google now is at a market cap of $380B bringing it up quickly onto size of the two largest market cap companies in the world Apple ($450B) and ExxonMobil ($411B) as of Jan 30 2014.

So now Google has the patent protection they had to have, and they have sold it too. Beautiful. Now they can move into the offensive position in the patent wars. This is a game of Risk, but with multiple dimensions like 3-level chess. There is what you see above the board, but what is below the board -- where the patent portfolios live -- is where the armies are being amassed.

Make no doubt, small players will be crushed. Blackberry and maybe even Nokia will likely be completely isolated. Orphaned.

This will give Samsung a little competition. Samsung dominates the cell phone market, especially among android phones. See add to Samsung Worries. Google can not afford to allow Samsung to get too big and too strong.

From Googles perspective, this is a work of motion art. Beautiful.

Other players, say Apple, may not appreciate the beauty of it so much.

'via Blog this'

The Energy Roadmap - The Edison of our Age: Stan Ovshinsky ... Who killed the Electric Car?... a who dun it of history.

The Energy Roadmap - The Edison of our Age: Stan Ovshinsky and the Future of Energy [Video Interview Part 1]:

Ovshinsky is compared to Edison as a prolific inventor... He hold patents on NiMH batteries. His solar cells power the MIR space station.

Good question on Cobasys and the restrictions on next-gen batteries by the patents held within the company.!:-) The batteries that have become so critical in the next generation of batteries, electric cars, etc. are subject to patents by Ovshinsky (and the Cobasys company).

Cobasys is a 50/50 joint venture with Chevron/Texico and Ovonics. Ovonics has the Stan Ovshinsky inventions and GM now has a big ownership stake in that company.

So let's see, a BIG oil and a BIG auto have a BIG stake in the very batteries that make an electric car viable.

Look at "Patent encumbrances" at Wikipedia. The discussion on "Who Killed the Electric Car?" seem far truer than I ever imagined. This whole topic requires a lot more reading. But before picking up the thread again, I want to watch the movie.

Anybody out there have big ideas (substantiated by facts, I hope) on the issue.

Keywords: electric car, EV, oil, auto, battery, patent, patent encumbrances, inventor, Ovshinsky 

See similar blog over in www.SustainZine.com. 

'via Blog this'

Secrecy cloaks patents on inventions in Canada: NSA for IP

Secrecy cloaks patents on inventions hidden far from public eye by Industry Canada:

Wow.
So in Canada you can have your patent applications totally shielded from all view/publication. And, we presume, against your will and better judgement. But only for National Security.

One would assume, that you will have lots of problems, then, if you were to consider bringing it to market commercially (non-military).

And, here in the US of A, we are grappling with how best to spy on our citizens. (President Obama's news conference today. See here on News conference.

Patent applications are the agreement between government and inventor to arrange and organized disclosure of inventions and grant monopoly power over that invention for up to 20 years. US patent law & USPTO.gov.

Public disclosure is a key word here.

This is kind of interesting: secret patents. Canada must be taking its lead from the NSA!:-(

Don't you love it.?!

'via Blog this'

Patent law changes alter entrepreneurs' planning

Patent law changes alter entrepreneurs' planning:

This is a nice article by Laura Baverman about patents and how they needed to be integrated into the business plan and entrepreneurs' strategy. Since the US is now first-to-file, inventors must get their foot in the proverbial patent door early, often with a provisional patent while the details are being worked out.

This article also slips in the key provisions related to the laws and fees that were enacted in March of 2013.

Although the fees have all been dramatically increased, especially the follow-on maintenance fees, there is actually a micro-entity option that is only 25% of the full fee structure for large entities. (To qualify as micro, you must not have a high income and not have too many patents in your name.)

There are a few things that are are perfectly touched on in such a short article. There's a quick look at the staging process to protect the invention without bankrupting the small inventor. There's a side story about the great use of a business incubator for a specific company, EnerLeap, the next-best Lithium battery.

There's the indication of how IP must be specifically budgeted into the business plan. Your business plan must have the budget for IP, it must have the timing for IP expenses (patent, TM, Lawyer, R&D, engineering, etc.), and it must accommodate contingencies for litigation.

Of course, you still want to include the high margins and royalties from licensing in your income stream, you simply need to demonstrate that you have a sound plan for getting to that point.

Great article Laura!

Check out the Patent Primer 2.0, part of the Perpetual Innovation(tm) series, by Hall and Hinkelman (2013) at: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan   ... or ... Kindle eBook at: www.TinyURL.com/IPPrimer2

Visit SBP's IP web site at: www.IPplan.com 

'via Blog this'

The Intellectual Property Landscape: USPTO to Update Patent Bar Exam Again Reports Wysebridge Patent Bar Review

The Intellectual Property Landscape: USPTO to Update Patent Bar Exam Again Reports Wysebridge Patent Bar Review:

Raising the BAR on the IP Bar.

The exam would change because of all the new laws. As well, the backdrop in the courts is very fluid.

Some of the problems, of course, is that a lot of the changes are just starting to filter into the books and web sources.

With 1/3 of the Patent Bar exam new, it will be a bit of a trick for the lawyers to come up to speed. And the ones that are faced with the bar will have to do so in a hurry.

Plus it may be that the exam is simply harder too.

Ouch... Double Ouch.

'via Blog this'

eBook Patent Primer 2.0, Patents, the Great Equalizer of our Time! An Overview of Intellectual Property with Patenting Cost Estimates for Inventors and Entrepreneurs (Perpetual Innovation): Elmer B. Hall, Robert M. Hinkelman: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

Patent Primer 2.0, Patents, the Great Equalizer of our Time! An Overview of Intellectual Property with Patenting Cost Estimates for Inventors and Entrepreneurs (Perpetual Innovation): Elmer B. Hall, Robert M. Hinkelman: Amazon.com: Kindle Store:

Kindle eBook version of the Patent Primer 2.0 is here!!!

Of course you can still buy the hard copy of the Primer 2.0 over a LuLu Press: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan

Patent Primer 2.0 is an overview of IP protection in the US and globally with a focus on patents and the patenting process. Intellectual property – especially patents – provides one of the greatest competitive advantages of our time. Patents are a great equalizer, putting the individual inventor on the same footing as corporate giants.  The Patent Primer is an update from the original edition that was included as Appendix B in Perpetual Innovation, Hall and Hinkelman’s 2007 patent commercialization book. (Look for edition 2.0!)

With so much depending on intellectual property, inventors and entrepreneurs must have a good understanding of IP tools to be successful. Patent Primer 2.0 is what everyone needs before launching new product development and invention commercialization. It gives a quick overview of IP and brand building. It addresses the various patent-protection alternatives. The Primer offers example of costs for a small entity to bring a patent-protected invention to market-readiness. The 2.0 version of the Primer includes major changes in U.S. patent laws and the new fees initiated in March 2013.

Hall and Hinkelman are executives of Strategic Business Planning Company (SBP), a company that helps businesses and individuals Plan for Sustainable Success™. SBP helps innovators build strong IP Business Plans. The company is active in sustainability and advocates initiatives that offer payback of investment in 1 to 5 years while delivering perpetual savings to the business, to the community and to the environment – win, win, win!

'via Blog this'