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.