Assumptions in recent trademark studies slammed.  "How Many Jobs Does Intellectual Property Create?"  Here is the link to a paper by Eli Dourado and Ian Robinson from George Mason University.  http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=a6321d86-0de2-4edb-8f15-e541f27a5086

The challenge here is to a USPTO & Economics and Statistics Administration report, "IP and the US Economy: Industries in Focus" and the USCOC Global IP Center campaign called "IP Creates Jobs for America."  The authgors take issue with some of the claims about how powerful IP is in the US economy with respect to job creation and the inpact of infringement on revenue losses.

How many jobs does Intellectual Property create?  It is a complicated response- some are easy to indentify, others not so much.  In today's global economy,  IP is the only remaining competitive advantage.  It is the Safe Harbor if managed appropriately.  (That is, the owner has to be diligent in protecting it from infringement, piracy.)  That in itself, frequently means new jobs that do not create new output, but protects what exists.

As to jobs created by IP, the authors suppositions and examples tend to reinforce the the assumption that they are academics who never worked in private industry.  Jobs, as they say, are not ends in themselves, but, how is that relevant?  Jobs are created to meet defined needs in many areas of an enterprise.  A janitor's job would rarely be associated with IP but an electrical engineer hired into Bell Labs would be expected to have some involvement with IP in his/her career.  Which, or both, is the IP counted job?

IP, be it a utility or design, trademark or an instruction set for a new dance, is a result not a precurser.  Are those associated jobs counted as IP or is it 'when' they are counted?  Most jobs are filled based on need and relevant skill sets.  The newly hired patent attorney is an immediate count.  The new IP data base manager and the new retail store phone salesman who just handled a defective product?

The authors state that "it is fallacious to equate employment within an IP intensive industry with an economic benefit of IP."  Huh?  Why then does IBM get more patents every year than any other enterprise and how do they annually gain nearly a billion dollars in royalty revenues?

To summarize, IP is the only Safe Harbor left and it would be irresponsible of leadership not to protect it by any and all means.  And, dealing with infringement to recoup some lost revenue is a valid cause for job creation that does not result in economic gain but minimizes loss.  The authors should claim valid skepticism  in job numbers based upon what appears to be oversimplifying assumptions.  Rather than levy criticism at the results, it would have been far more meaningful to scrutinize the assumptions.

Building a Business Plan: The basic components video, and IP too.

Building a Business Plan: The basic components - YouTube: "

Here's the basics about a business plan by yours truly, Dr. Elmer Hall, President of

Strategic Business Planning Company. We help develop the plans that every business needs(tm).

"
A business plan helps to plan out the future of the business and estimate its profitability. Also, as the company grows quickly it may outgrow itself. That is, you can fund the growth with profits, but if you exceed that rate then outside funding will be needed. Look at the sustainable growth rate model in finance.

This is the basics of a business plan, but we modify a basic business plan to accommodate Intellectual Property protection (read, sustainable competitive advantage). As you watch Shark Tank to see how venture capitalist think, you will see how seriously important intellectual property is to the success of a business -- and the likelihood of a shark investor taking a BIG bite of the action.

A business plan would likely include these component, as shown in the video, and then have some modification to show the (potential) strength of the IP. We call this IP-centric plan a Patent Business Plan., or for larger companies an IPplan.

Look at the Patent Primer to get an idea of the various aspects of IP and how to build a strong patent competitive advantage.

• Patent Guide 2.0 & Patent Primer 2.0: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan
• (Primer 2.0 Kindle eBook: www.tinyurl.com/IPPrimer2e) 

As it pertains to environmental sustainability -- triple bottom-line planning -- look at discussions over at www.SustainZine.com. The plan here would be a specialized business plan we call a Sustainability Plan. This would be a business plan that also maps out moving to full zero foot print over time: say 5, 10, 20 years, depending on the business/industry.

'via Blog this'

Software Patents, soft patents, Hard Litigations

This article from the Institute for Policy Innovationhttp://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/what-software-patents-have-wrought-a-lottery-ticket-to-a-lawsuit comments on yet another issue in the turmoil of today's IP landscape- one that resembles a war zone.  Because software has become such a vital part of today's tech and semi-tech products and services, it makes sense to provide some real protection for the originators if the invention is unprecedented and provides value.  The flood of software patents has opened Pandora's box however and the box is in a coutroom.

Intellectual Property Counterfeiting- more than an Ownership Problem

IP counterfeiting doesn't get alot of press these days and hasn't for decades, but, this article definitely needs reading.  Here is the link:IP Counterfeiting

Yet another in a growing list of situations in which crime appears to pay- or, it is clearly worth the risks involved.
IP owners have another aspect of commercialization that must be continually addressed on a corporate level.

Control of IP on Business Side of Corporation

There's a key point in this IAM magazine article by Joff Wild in the July 9, 2014, issue.  Note that the Chief IP Officer is not an attorney- he a business professional.  This is a significant change, a recognition that commercialization of Intellectual Property in a marketed product, a Patent Licensing Agreement with Royalties, a technology transfer or an outright patent sale is a business decision, not a legal one.  In some companies going back nearly 50 years, (AT&T, IBM, DuPont, Xerox to name a few) the decisions on IP were made by the business side.  But, for most, it has only been since the late 1980s that brought the marked change from predominantly physical assets in a corporation to intellectual assets that has prompted more and more corporations to view IP as a key revenue generator that has a place in the strategic plan.  The business development organization would be an appropriate place for decisions on IP revenue generation.

Intellectual Property is going to POT (Marijuana, that is) - Bloomberg

Marijuana, Motorola, Moroccanoil: Intellectual Property - Bloomberg:

You have to laugh about the ideas being plant patents on Marijuana. But this is serious business.

First, if you come up with a new strain of a plant, you can apply for a "Plant Patent". If the patent is issued, you can use DNA testing to determine if/when someone else is infringing on your patent. Monsanto is the king (or Redwood) of plant patents.

HOWEVER, it is not possible to patent something that is illegal. The USPTO will say "offensive to public morality" (USPTO.)

So now, you as a happy pot grower have the dilemma. You would like to get ahead of the competition. You would like to get your strain of Mary Jane out there, protected by patent, but you can't because it is an illegal product. Of course, you could move to a state where it is legal. Then presumably you would be able to legally grow it, legally sell it, and legally patent it. You would, of course, want to trademark the name, and copyright the slogan and the official description.

No wait, come out of the smoke-filled fog and clear your slow and soggy head!... Marijuana is still illegal Federally, as in the good olde US of A. That's were the USPTO lives and all patents are federal. Hmmm...

All in all, the intellectual property could be quite valuable. And Monsanto and Altria will probably leave you alone for years; the market's too small and the legal risks are too big.

Now you are wondering, prior to the allowance of IP into the pot market, how did you protect your strain. Once the buds left the dealer's hands there was no way to corner the market. Any common criminal who didn't want to smoke it today, could sow the seeds of happiness, indefinitely into the uncertain future.

I can't wait to see the patent applications over the next few years as marijuana continues it rapid path down the rabbit hole of decriminalization. An Alice in Wonderland adventure awaits.
KEY: Patents, plant patents, USPTO, Illegal, Crime, Monsanto
'via Blog this'

The Refractive Thinker Brain Teaser Game App by Dr. Cheryl Lentz — Kickstarter

The Refractive Thinker Brain Teaser Game App by Dr. Cheryl Lentz — Kickstarter

Interesting game idea. Having fun while you learn...

Or just having fun, that can be okay too!:-)

I think it would be cool to create RT Teasers for each volume of the Refractive thinker books. (maybe starting with the next one). I could see Profs using it with articles and books that students were (supposed) to read. Have a little fun with it. This isn't really a question, just a comment.

I hope this project makes the goal, 'cause I can't wait to see it.

'via Blog this'