Read more
“The important thing is to maximise the value of your intellectual property, not to protect it for the sake of protection.“
After long thought, I agree with the statement.
Whenever an invention appears within company entrepreneur (or strategic manager) decides innovation strategy based on related risk analyses, on potential benefit to the company and on values defined by the company.
Protection of IP rights is by itself one of strategic plan that through, for example in case of patents, out-licencing, patent wars, is one of the method to provide benefit to companies (fees or stopping competitors to reach market, as it was the strategy of LEGO). However, such strategy is costly and does not guarantee all the time success in trials (the final decision is anyway made by local authorities who might be in favour or not for the company – as we saw lately cases for many companies in China, India, Canada or in developing countries where for some products is the more attractive market). I believe that patenting might be good method to protect the invention if it mostly aimed on so called “western” countries where law, polices and economy is well established. Of course it still requires budget for defending the patent and for reverse engineering of competitors product to search breach of patents, but at least the success of patent defence is predictable.
Another issues of the patent are:
– the invention is explained in details and it is readable by any competitor that most probably will try to manufacture it somewhere (most probably in developing countries) without out-licensing, joint venture or technology acquisition (transfer of technology ownership).
– the patents last only 15 years: strategic manager should develop innovation management plan for this period that will not only maximise the value of the invention but also increase the market for the company and also make possibilities for new business strategy (going toward a mix of open and closed innovation managements). I believe, just to patent the invention is not enough.
Of course, entrepreneur should do the main 6 steps shown during the course (and even more analyses) to see whether the invention should be patented or to keep the know-how as secret.
Surely, secret is good when invention is costly for reverse engineering (or even impossible). It is harder then to understand the secret. But it will cost the company to maintain secret safe (security systems, secure processes, etc) and there is always risk that somehow there might appear competitor with product based on similar invention (for example case of Coca-Cola and Pepsi). Such protection might be risky as the company might lose their share of the market, but also it might keep the market more than the 15 years dependently how good is in protection of the secret (Coca-Cola is still one of the leading company).
Is it only the protection that matters? Whatever is cost during the “registration: and even larger cost after “registration” (whether is the patent, or secret – registration is then to set up policies within company). I believe protection is not enough to maximize the value of IP.
Entrepreneur (or strategic manager in case corporations) makes all the time decisions regarding how company’s IP rights should be exploited based on sometimes even daily events. The new business opportunities should be identified beyond the current scope of the company.
There is now trend and understanding that currently innovation management is much complex work, when the know-how of company does not only rely on protection of IP rights. Currently it is easier for skilled workers to move; universities provides valuable know-how that might become a potential competitive advantage, and coming to market first does not guarantee benefits and exclusivity for long-term. Therefore, currently in research there is a debate what is more appropriate for entrepreneur to make close or open innovation.
The paradigm of closed innovation says that successful innovation (that maximize value for company) requires control and ownership of the IP rights. A company is controlling the creation and managements of inventions. At other hand, open innovation assumes that firms can and should use external inventions/know-how as well as internal know-how, IP rights together with different ways (internally and/or externally) to market, as the firm should look to advance their technology, promote their technology through collaborations and maximize their profit (or social responsibility). It is like innovating with partners by sharing risk and sharing reward. It has advantages like reducing the R&D cost while increase speed of product development (in era of internet and in involvement of Universities in commercial applications all companies need that – a faster improvement in development productivity). Of course open innovation is associated with risks and challenges like possible revealing of secret information, or lose of competitive advantage (what require smarter business strategy).
One might say that it seems open innovation is for SME like companies (as it is surely cheaper and require more flexibility) and closed innovation is more for corporations. I believe that this is not correct. Open innovation seems to be more appropriate for radical innovation where the market should be explored. Closed innovation is more suitable for exploitation of already established market where company let say incrementally innovate and defend their market. In my opinion, in order to maximize the value (the core of the questioned sentence) the entrepreneur (strategic manager) should actually mix methods used in open and closed innovation to fully maximize the value of the know-how (IP rights, skilled workers, tangible and intangible). And it should go even beyond the scope and use currently protected IP rights (or known know-how even if developed and “given” from company or as from other R&D centers) in order to look for new business opportunities (diversification).
As I mentioned above, protecting (secrets, patenting, trademarks) is sometimes (not always) good prevention. It is still important, even against the own workers as to protect that the know-how will belongs to company so it will be harder to skilled workers to create their own spin-off companies. These IP rights should be however or exploited (mostly marketing, out-licensing, increase of sales distribution) or explored (mostly joint ventures, diversification through company’s spin-off, cooperation with rivals) dependently on market and current company’s sustainability conditions. It helps to establish good perception about the product and about the company (so let say after 15 years the company will have loyal customers or good brand name – Bayer case. In Poland, for example, most people knows that Bayer aspirin is good and it is by default preferable while buying aspirin in pharmacy).
Zbigniew
Ps. I think, that Bayer lost the case of using Aspirin trademark by competitors as the word “aspirin” became a commonly used word among people: “I am going to buy aspirin for my headache and I prefer Bayer aspirin than the J&J aspirin.
Show lessRead more
I think that IP calls in as a key asset for applying a thorough and sustainable strategy on local and global markets. Strategy-wise, you could start thinking about differentiation or cost leadership. Differentiators are business developers whom will look at distinguishing themselves from competition by adding unique value on the market with an idea. A good strategy is looking at the current market or new markets and investigating how you can gain properties with unique ideas which could differentiate yourself. Properties can be a design, patent, secret, copyright or trademark. You can also be unique by proceeding as the cheapest and most probably focusing on copying ideas at lowest cost, thus cost leadership.
The main matter might not be the invention itself but the innovation towards the market. Hence setting up a sustainable value chain which is bringing added value to the targeted market in order to generate profitable revenue streams with good cash conversion will be paramount in materializing your invention.
Whether you are an SME or a multinational, I think, if you have the capabilities of research and thorough steps have been followed to protect your intangible asset, you don’t have to be afraid on promoting inventions at all. Promotion might be a good defense and could create infinite perception of ownership of your invention in the customers’ mindset, even if the IP has legally been expired. Thus the perception link of the customer might sometimes be enough to maximize your market share. This perception can be created by promoting your IP and the commercializing your product thru strong innovation of your invention.
Multinationals have an intangible asset strategy nowadays and there are big money transfers on the market for patents, trademarks or other properties. Though, I still think there are IP opportunities for SME’s. By segmenting and targeting keen niches, SME’s can leverage their capital and trust on the market. Multinational companies will submit their offer for acquiring the intangible asset but that is the name of the game to my opinion.
Asperin is a perfect example of a “carved stone” in people’s mindset and this in the competitive generic pharmaceutical market. Asperin capitalized completely on their patent when it was not expired yet and the market kept on buying Asperin since it was perfectly positioned and commercialized. There seems to be an irrevocable ‘wonder’ perception in the customers’ mindset, continuously innovating in marketing (4P’s) has been the biggest contributor in maintaining this perception to my opinion.
Lego is perfectly managing and capitalizing on its intangible assets. The open innovation is boosting their corporate social responsibility by linking The Lego Concept to a contribution of the society. Improving ingenuity in the kids market is leveraging knowledge in education. Lego combines this with an incompatible brick strategy which invokes a unique and sustainable differentiation strategy.
Source: EMBA LSM Lecture content “Intellectual property strategies for start-ups”. November 9, 2013
Show lessRead more
Bayer and Lego use different IP strategies as the value of the IP they manage contributes differently to their respective businesses.
In the case of Bayer, the aspirin did no longer bear high technology nor ground breaking innovation but was still widely consumed for a series of minor health disorders. When a company sells a product that was highly technical and generated high yield but that matured as result of legal constraints (patents expiry) or product life cycle, the main options are to stop any form of investment and derive benefit from the sale of the commodity or expand its applications and invest into marketing as to differentiate the product (or newly created products) from the competition.
The story of Bayer is particularly interesting as pharmaceutical companies generally seem to massively invest on R&D in order to develop new drugs that will ensure them a high yield for a short time. Other will sell generics, hoping for reasonably good yields with minimal initial R&D investments. The world seems hence to be divided between innovation strategies leading to de facto temporary market monopolies or to cost leadership (most big pharmaceutical companies pursuing those two strategies simultaneously).
Bayer seems to have paved the road for alternative strategies as they heavily invested on developing marketing potential of what became a commodity and turned it into ‘something more’ than the competition, by creating brand awareness and new derivative products or applications. Contrarily to what would be expected, Bayer IP strategy successfully switched (regarding that product line) from a technical intangible to a purely marketing intangible.
The case of Lego is a different one. The company understood the interest of enforcing IP rights were it could bare the competition and leveraging on open innovation for extending its product offering through non-core competencies. To this extent, the company clearly managed its IP in a way that brought maximum value to the organization.
These two articles teach us that the best value originating from the management of intellectual property does not necessarily derive from the mere protection of the said IP. The management of IP depends on the type of industry the player competes in, the importance of technology on the product market, as well as the competitive advantage of the firm itself.
Show lessRead more
IP is one of the key success factors for companies in different sectors. In some sectors it can be more critical from than others. For example, in case of mobile companies it’s more for company’s interests and in case of pharmaceutical companies apart from company’s interests, also has to take into consideration the economic impact on masses, government policies, etc. Thus IP management is very critical in long run for companies to fuel innovation and growth and add value to intellectual property. IP is like an intangible and financial asset to the company. IP is not anymore related to only legal issues but more as a business/strategic issue and can leverage the value of a company during M&A strategy.
In today’s competitive and strategic business world, IP can be used as a differentiator to create competitive advantage and hindrance to new market entrants. Having said this, corporations who apply for IP protection might have some secrets which they do not present in the documentation. For e.g. Coca-Cola Company might never reveal the composition of ingredients in drinks but may also not mention some ingredients. Instead prefer protecting their IP which is the drink recipe in a highly secured vault which is built and monitored by Coca-Cola Company privately. Similarly technology companies like Samsung, Nokia can do for their mobile patents.
The scenario and ethics in terms of IP are different in Western world and developing world. In India, Novartis lost an IP case on cancer drug against Government authorities. Novartis was not granted a patent for its drug to protect the interest of common people and promoting use of generic medicines. This shows that even a big corporation can fail to protect its interest if Government policies of a country does not support its efforts and want to make generic medicines available to its population as cheapest possible cost. As an outcome eventually investment can soar in India for R&D and loose creative and innovation edge.
This is opposite in western world where IP policies and interests of companies are protected with governmental support. Due to globalization, the scenario is changing to enhance the corporate IP policies/strategies to advance in competitive advantages in domestic and international markets.
For SME, the process, time efforts and cost of a patent can kill a company of its core business and stop it from entering the market. Thus market looses an opportunity towards possible future innovation SME/new entrants. Thus corporations always have an upper hand against new entrants and SME. In my opinion, IP is certainly useful in long run vision of corporations. But it can also limit new inventions. This restricts the economies to grow and healthy competition in diversified markets. So, a more balanced approach is needed.
You’re right to point at international differences in these matters.
Read more
These two articles showcase 2 examples on how IP management can be managed in different ways. In the Bayer case, despite the fact that IP was protected, An uncontrollable event made it out of use or worthless. However, Aspirin continue to be strong product, and Bayer to be a strong and profitable company. IP was important, yes, but not the only way to make a brand profitable on a long term. Other management techniques such as brand management, innovation and marketing have proven to be as important as IP protection. The success of the Aspirine in our case was mainly due to management techniques, innovation and the quality of the product. The Aspirine wouldn’t have been so successful if it was not curing headache or a pain. This is a perfect example of the confirming the statement from Shapiro that says “The important thing is to maximise the value of your intellectual property, not to protect it for the sake of protection.“ Bayer has maximised the value of the Aspirine ( presence on the market, strong brand and good quality) more than relaying of its IP. This is also valid for SMEs who do not have enough resources to spend in protecting their IP. They are other ways to get value out of an invention without at all cost filling for an IP protection.
In the second case, we see how Lego spends a lot of money to at the same time be open to innovation and ideas in their technology, but fighting also to protect the same technology. In this case, Lego is in one side maximising the value of their IP by investing in branding and innovation, while using the protection IP as an extra defence or a counter strategy against competition. Yes, innovation is there, yes there is a strong brand, Yes there is exposure towards our clients and competitors, but there must be uniqueness. Lego is playing on the safe side.
At the end, personally I would say that its always important to protect an IP whenever possible at least to recognise creativity and ingenuity. People or company spend years doing research and trials to be able to benefit of it. It will be unfair to let go the results of a long time investment to public knowledge. Also, for a SMEs or Students or “unprivileged people” who have the right discovery and that can protect it, would give them the necessary leverage to build on their discovery.
Read more
Those two cases are showing us how important it is for most companies to really manage the intellectual property. Many companies have understood that, in today’s economies, IP management is crucial and may make the difference between organizations that succeed and those that fail. As “Physical assets and traditional sources of competitive advantage such as manufacturing capability or location have far less relevance. The value of many of the world’s largest companies is increasingly vested in knowledge-based, intangible assets. An economy based on these assets is often known as the ‘weightless economy’”.
The management of knowledge or intellectual property is far more than the patenting of inventions. It is an understanding of what intellectual property is, when intellectual property has been created, the value of the created knowledge, and of how to protect intellectual property that has value. It is the use of systematic processes to understand the intellectual property of others and to generate your own. IP is a valuable strategic and financial asset for every organization.
Like any other resource, IP should be carefully managed. Without appropriate management, the organization may be unaware of its IP, its value or benefits, or may expose itself to unnecessary risks. The management of IP is an ongoing task, which lasts throughout the life of the IP, until expiry. The diagram below illustrates the lifecycle of an IP asset, and the decision points you may need to consider at each stage of its life for the effective management of your IP. (1)
Today, we assist to the “development of business models where IP is a central element establishing value and potential growth. In addition to these systemic changes, U.S. and international accounting practices place pressure on firms to recognize and value all identifiable intangible assets of a firm as part of a transaction (in a merger or acquisition, for example)”.(2) Intellectual property (IP) contributes enormously to economies by creating and supporting high-paying jobs, driving economic growth and competitiveness, protecting consumers and families, generating breakthrough solutions to global challenges, and by encouraging innovation.(3)
In her article, “ First, let’s kill all the intellectual property lawyers!: Musings on the Decline and Fall of the Intellectual Property Empire”, Doris Estelle Long mentions that “despite the undeniable relationship between intellectual property protection, the encouragement of innovation and its economical benefits in both the domestic and international arenas, intellectual property protection appears to be losing ground. Hostility to the incentivizing role of intellectual property protection has mounted in recent years. (4)
The reason therefore is that the innovation usually starts from existing knowledges. If those are covered by IP protection, I may refrain innovation and competition.
To my opinion, IP management is essential for companies to survive, progress and compete. On the other side, overprotecting IP may kill innovation and refrain economies to grow. A balanced approach is essential.
(1) http://www.spruson.com/au/pdf/IP_Management_Guide_(lowres).pdf, page 3
(3) http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/why-are-intellectual-property-rights-important/
(4) FIRST, LET’S KILL ALL THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS!”: Musings on the Decline and Fall of the Intellectual Property Empire, Doris Estelle Long, 34 John Marshall L. Rev. 851 (2001) to be found on http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2223808
Show lessRead more
From the classes, we learned that: “In the knowledge economy, IP protection is used in order to sustain the competitive advantage”. However; “Changes in the global economic environment have influenced the development of business models where IP is a central element establishing value and potential growth. In addition to these systemic changes, U.S. and international accounting practices place pressure on firms to recognize and value all identifiable intangible assets of a firm as part of a transaction (in a merger or acquisition, for example)” [1]. This statement emphasizes the importance of IP in today’s context but also shows its limits. On one hand IP protection is at the core of our economy; it creates and protects high paying jobs, it drives economic growth and competitiveness, it helps generate breakthrough solutions to global challenges and, finally, it rewards entrepreneurs [2,3]. On the other hand this statement shows the open door to over-protection, which could maximize the valuation of the firms but would potentially destroy competition, kill innovation and finally skew markets.
In the Bayer case, the 6 step approach tells us to patent the molecule (the product). Obviously, as the molecule was designed more than 100 years ago, Bayer cannot claim patent rights for long time. Anyway, the name ‘Aspirin’ is part of the vocabulary. Therefore, Bayer’s competitive advantage doesn’t rely on the product (molecule) but on the brand image; the name and its perception by customers (efficiency, numerous benefits). In order to sustain the competitive advantage, it is important that most of the potential customers and new customers get to know the name ‘Aspirin’. It is also important to continue developing benefits and new ways of consuming ‘Aspirin’. In this context I think that trademark protection maximizes the value of the company:
– Marketing costs to promote ‘Aspirin’ have a return directly related to Bayer and not to the molecule. If you think that aspirin is good for your heart, you will buy aspirin from Bayer and not acetylsalicylic acid from Rhodia (Solvay) while it would be the same product.
– All Trademarks account for around 4000 M€ in Bayer’s Balance sheet (2012) on a 52 000 M€ balance sheet, almost 8% .Trademarks are therefore important in the book value and in the valuation of the company.
In a billion dollar industry, Trademark seems to be a very cost efficient tool in order to protect market share. The intellectual property is not in the design of the molecule anymore but it shifted to other aspects of the business.
As in the Bayer case, LEGO had time to build a brand image and can now move to other means of protection. Depending on the situation, LEGO used a closed strategy when defending its core business to an open strategy when enhancing the brand. This case shows the importance of IP management towards opportunities and threads. It also shows that many strategies for IP protection can co-exist within the same company and should be adapted constantly.
“The important thing is to maximise the value of your intellectual property, not to protect it for the sake of protection“. Both companies try to maximise the value of their intellectual property, they do not focus on the protection. They try to protect their competitive advantage by many ways, legal ones included.
On one hand, these cases are examples for many companies developing a product. While patents protect the markets, the firm should dedicate its effort to growth and getting return on its investments. During this period it should aim at transforming the name of the product into a brand. After 20 years, the IP strategy can than move from patent protection to other forms such as trademark.
“With limited resources and bottom line pressures from stakeholders, companies need a high rate of return on their IP investments and appropriate protection for it”. [1] Not taking action could pose a serious threat to the success of the organization. Nevertheless, patenting is not the only way to protect markets; secrecy (coca-cola), constant innovation (lead time) and brand image are other ways to sustain the competitive advantage. This IP is part of the valuation of the firms but it doesn’t appear in the balance sheet published in the annual report.
On the other hand these cases are not about protecting innovation but about protecting market shares of established companies, selling long lived products. Some economists and activists compare intellectual monopoly (mainly patents) to medieval trade monopolies, destroying markets [4,5]. They believe the current patent/copyright system is mainly used by big corporations and that it discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. To my opinion, the complexity of the process and cost of a patent and the cost incurred to defend it is partly responsible for this situation.
[1] http://usa.marsh.com/NewsInsights/ThoughtLeadership/Articles/ID/5228/The-Importance-of-Intellectual-Property-Valuation-and-Protection.aspx
[2] http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/why-are-intellectual-property-rights-important/
[3] http://gipcdev.blackbarn.net/sites/default/files/documents/iparguments.pdf
[4] http://www.againstmonopoly.org/
[5] http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/13656.aspx
Thanks for the interesting links.
Read more
First, I want to emphasize two different concepts, the first one is IP protection, and the second one is IP management, IP protection is ex post remedies to protect what already exists from plagiarism, and intellectual property management is the prevention beforehand, and also includes to make the value of IP throughout the management process maximized, meaning just reflects ”The important thing is to maximize the value of your intellectual property, not to protect it for the sake of protection.”
Second, we must admit that IP protection to some extent hindered the process of generic development, Lego and aspirin in the absence of IP protection so that the products got the universal globalization and rapid development, which makes the whole mankind gains, aspirin bailed out more people and applied to more areas, Lego’s products enable more children to benefit especially in poor countries. However, humans still need IP, whether or not it makes some companies and even countries can benefit, more importantly, it inspires and protect innovation, is the source for the overall progress and development of mankind.
Third, in some developing countries, such as China, the concept of IP protection and management is very backward, although the Chinese products may have advantages in price and advantages in quality, but it can be defeated easily by IP from developed countries, many Chinese companies had paid or are paying a heavy price for the IP issues, so Chinese enterprises have to start focusing on improving and perfecting the corporate IP development strategy to enhance its core competitiveness in the domestic and international markets.
Show lessRead more
Intellectual property is undoubtedly a key success factor for companies mainly driven by creativity and innovation. Therefore it must be, in one or another way, hidden to competitors. The management of the intellectual property is therefore crucial for companies.
With the Bayer case we learn that even if the patent is no longer valid, the product can still be a success if you focus on alternative ways to keep a competitive advantage (aggressive marketing strategy, constant product improvements, constant innovation,….)
With the Lego case we learn that different IP protection strategies can be used in different cases. For instance, when competitors try to infringe on the core business of Lego, they use a « close » strategy to defend their products while if infringement can bring an added value to their products (Lego Factory and Open Source OS for Mindstorms robotics kit), they use an « open innovation» strategy and do not suit. As show in some cases (Mc Donalds, Mountain Dew, Durex, …). Operating an open innovation strategy can bring some surprised if no limits are set and there is no control/monitoring of the feedback provided by the consumers.
These two cases are however focused on two big multinationals that have sufficient financial resources to spend in patents and infringement trials to defend their protected IP.
Unfortunately, in Europe and in many other places of the world, the structure of the economies are mainly composed of SME’s for which patenting their IP and defending it against infringement from competitors can reveal to be far too expensive, especially in Europe where SME’s represents 99,8% of the firms. The patenting procedures are long and costly and must be done in each European country (no one-stop-shop exists yet). The access to patent for these firms are then more difficult and they have to focus on other ways of protecting their IP such secrecy, Publishing, Trade Mark or registered Trade Mark. However, these companies should not forget than even secrecy has a cost that might be more or less important depending on the size of the company and the industry they are active in.
As written by Shapiro & Varian (Information Rules, A strategic guide to the network economy, Harvard Business School Press, 1999) : « The important thing is to maximize the value of your intellectual property, not to protect it for the sake of protection. ». I agree with that point of view and I don’t see Intellectual property as a company asset that must be protected at any costs.
As an entrepreneur running a SME, I would rather focus on the advise of Peter Drucker (“Innovative and Entrepreneurship, Practice and Principle”, 1995, Harper & Row Publisher Inc.) and constantly improving my product design/services by investing in R&D and their awareness on the market using, for instance, creativity marketing, try to move faster than competitors, established the right partnerships and I would certainly think about the future profit that strategy would bring to a sustainable company growth.
Finally, we can question ourselves about the existence of too many patents that could have a negative effect on innovation (1). In fact, risking to be seen as a bit too much optimistic, for the benefits of all, is the future of innovation not in opening our knowledge to each other to provide the best product at the best price to everyone. This might, by the way, be a good case of application of the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights : “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
(1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/27/do-patents-kill-innovation/
Show lessThank you for this balanced and insightful comment.
Read more
“The important thing is to maximise the value of your intellectual property, not to protect it for the sake of protection.“
The two cases show us the importance of a strong strategic planning in order to maximize the IP value. According to Fisher (2013), limited integration of IP management and strategic planning reflects a number of obstacles. An integrated approach needs a strong collaboration between lawyers, ingeneers and business executives, as IP can not anymore be only a legal action that reflects market demand but needs to be more adapted to the market evolution context in order to exploit legal opportunities, as Lego and Bayer use to do.
Lego chooses to exercice market power, by changing the nature of competition (mindstorms, designbyme) and Bayer by diversification of uses and products, under a strong trademark management.
But exercice market power can undermine the long-term profitability as it increases incentives for innovation by competitors. It is the reason why, according to me, the LEGO case, they adapt their IP strategy in order to transform this constraint into an oppurtunity, and use smaller markets for complements. Using direct and indirect network effects increase the value of the product.
Those mechanisms can raise attractiveness of sharing IP with rival companies through licensing, collaborating or ever donating IP.
Companies need to protect what adds the most added-value to their product, and it can be business processes, not the product itself ( e.g Dell).
According to Kevin G. rivette (1999), they are three ways patent can maximize the value :
1) Boost R&D and branding effectivness
2) Improve financial performances as revenues from licensing reduce cost by managing patents, for example donate to non profit helps reducing taxes.
3) Enhance corporate value
According to me, LEGO deals with the three of them where BAYER focuses on the brand effectivness and the corporate value, investing in keeping its large market presence thanks to its trademark and diversification.
I could conclude that IP is not anymore the output of a company’s process toward competitors, but an actor of the process, which needs to be considered in a systemic way in order to add value to companies. Protection by itself has proved its limitations and through these two cases, we learned that without a strong strategy, this can lead to nothing.
Bibliography:
1. W.W. Fisher III; F. Oberholzer-Gee (February 17, 2013) ; « Strategic Management of Intellectual Property – An Integrated Approach » . Special Issue on Intellectual Property Management: In Search of New Practices, Strategies, and Business Models. California Management Review.
Show less2. D. KLINE ; K.G.RIVETTE (january-february 2000) « Discovering new value in intellectual property ». Harvard business review