Posts Tagged: "foster innovation"

Many great companies accomplish innovation objectives under the leadership of household-name visionary leaders such as Bill Gates and Andy Grove. But we all know that people don’t stay with companies forever, and the culture must be prepared to innovate with or without their day-to-day presence. Companies that are overly dependent on the physical presence of their founders cannot be sustained. The marketplace seems to be confident, for example, that Apple® will continue to thrive without the dynamic leadership of Steve Jobs, may he rest in peace, because he established a genuine and sustainable culture of innovation. Team-driven innovation will create leaders at all levels that can sustain, perpetuate, and strengthen the founder’s vision long after he or she steps down from the helm of the company. Investments in training, commitments to empowerment and delegation, and the development of meaningful succession plans are all critical elements of this process.

Those who claim that patents harm innovation and stifle innovation see a patent at an insurmountable hurdle, or perhaps a brick wall. There is no way around the obstacle. The only option is to infringe or simply not offer the product or service, but to them that is not an option because if they can’t sell the product that they want to sell then that has to mean that innovation is being harmed. I have always found it odd how true inventors so frequently don’t think what they have come up with is unique enough to pursue a patent, but copycats who offer little or nothing unique conclude that their product represents innovation and it would be an afront to humanity if they are not able to sell it without having to pay a licensing fee to the innovator.

Innovation provides new therapies and breakthrough treatments that extend and enhance life. The scientific and financial resources required for these advances are an investment worth making and an important precedent for global health. Patents encourage those innovations, making cutting-edge treatments a reality. Patents give innovation life. Current efforts to amend existing intellectual property legislation to “fix” the patent system will only undermine the incentives that encourage innovation. All innovation, both breakthrough discoveries and incremental improvements, is valuable and should be protected and rewarded. India, Brazil, South Africa and other emerging economies should take note. Their proposed changes, aimed at weakening intellectual property rights protections, are misguided and potentially very damaging to public health.

In my opinion the best way to judge the success or failure of the patent system is by looking broadly at the type of competition it enables or disables in the marketplace. And that doesn’t mean focusing solely on patent litigation statistics – of course there are going to be fights when such a high stakes prize as mobile computing is up for grabs and of course firms competing with such different business models are going to come into conflict. But look at what that competition has done for innovation and product advances and for consumer choice and pricing. You need the option of patent protection to provide the necessary freedom of choice in market approach, (whether it is open, proprietary or a blend of both), to enable competition between firms employing different market approaches and the innovation engendered by that competition.. The correct focus for this issue is not the intrinsic merit of the concept of patent protection, but rather what the existence of patents does to promote business model diversity and what that in turn does to promote innovation. This is the important point and at least in my view it seems clear that having patents enables more business model diversity and consequently more innovation than not having them.

Those that do the complaining erroneously state that they speak on behalf of the entire industry. But I know they don’t speak for IBM, or Qualcomm or Tessera or the many other innovative companies that exist in the high-tech sector. They certainly don’t speak for the pharmaceutical industry that absolutely needs strong patents to survive, and they don’t talk for the biotechnology industry where start-ups and even large companies largely have little in the way of asset value outside their patent portfolios. And they absolutely don’t speak for the independent inventor who needs a patent system to protect their innovations from being ripped off by… well by those same Silicon Valley elite who so hate the patent system.

One just thinks of the fact that five years ago Blackberry was the industry standard, dominant forever, and now it is basically exposed to ridicule because virtually it’s dropped to third or fourth on the distribution list. You look at the rate of technological progress between then and now, it just doesn’t seem in any way, shape or form to have been slowed down so it seems to me that in face of rapid technological advance to say that the current system is a disaster is a mistake.

Innovation and how to foster next generation technologies is a topic of very active discussion within businesses across the country. But how can America continue to be one of the most innovative countries in the world? The rapid adoption of IP management and licensing platforms built around social collaboration seems to lead us to one answer – open innovation. Indeed, with today’s technology allowing for the seamless transfer of information – R&D departments have little to no choice but to begin to embrace the open innovation model and use it to their advantage. Understanding your intellectual assets and being able to capitalize on them in order to generate more revenue must be an important part of managing IP and fostering innovation.

If you are anti-patent then you are anti-innovation because those who innovate are not the behemoths of industry, but rather start-up companies that absolutely require patents in order to attract funding, expand and create jobs. Thus, given the hostility toward patents it is entirely accurate to characterize the Roberts Court as anti-innovation. The Roberts Court increasingly puts hurdles in the way of high-tech job growth. You see, it is easy for anyone to characterize the Supreme Court as “pro-business” because selecting a victor in a “business case” almost necessarily means that a business has been victorious. But what business? One that is likely to innovate, expand, create jobs and form new industry? Or one that once innovated and expanded, but now finds themselves stagnant and laying off employees?

I seem to have started a firestorm by writing a post openly questioning how a patent attorney (i.e., Stephan Kinsella) could be of the opinion that it is preferable to have weak patent rights.  I openly questioned how and why any individual or corporation would hire a patent attorney who does not believe in the patent system and seems to…