Innovationpartners

A lot of media reports that Nokia has sold 450 of their patents to Italian licensing company Sisvel. Even though Danish Computerworld goes as far as claiming that it is one 6^th of the Nokia portfolio (closer to one percent) and the rest of the reports claim that the sale is a big thing the fact is that this is a very small deal.
Looking at the press release it is obvious that the numbers are misinterpreted. Yes the deal concerns 450 patents, but only in 47 patent families. This means that the deal is about 47 inventions and not 450.
But…It is interesting that Nokia is selling off technology that is not essential to keep in-house. Nokia retains licensing rights to the patents. What Sisvel gains is an opportunity to further license those patents. How big the financial gains for Nokia remains to be seen. Nokia cuts IP costs but whether the licensing agreement gives the company billions is doubtful. I see the deal as cost cutting more than increasing revenue.

• Read More »

 It has been a long time since I gave the EPO appeal decisions a closer look so today I browsed thru some of the last quarter decisions from the Boards of Appeal. And as always I found some interesting stuff – all about information.

 In T 1086/07 Xerox had applied for a patent for a “Method and system for generating document summaries with navigation information”. The patent was rejected and appealed. The BoA decided that the patent application was relating to presentation of information and therefore not patentable.  Even though the BoA scolds the patent office a bit they clearly state that the claimed invention has no technical contribution and even if it did it would be obvious to a skilled person.

The Board reached the same conclusion in T 1235/07 where Microsoft tried to patent “NAVIGATING DATA POINTS IN A MULTIDIMENSIONAL DATABASE”. The application is in its essence about sorting customer data by different dimensions and is of course rejected by both the EPO and the BoA. The EPO rejects the application due to obviousness but is corrected by the BoA which points out that what is sought patented is merely a presentation of information. And comes the part that I really love about this decision: The BoA does not stop by referring to a general point about presentation of information but digs out the travaux préparatoires from the 1970 Washington Conference (PCT) to document their opinion. That is an awesome move, and exactly why I love the legal profession.

Yet another decision tree type application was considered in T 0844/07 where Computer Associates tried to patent “DIRECTORY SEARCHING METHODS AND SYSTEMS” – unsuccessfully. The claims in the application are long and seems - even to me – trivial. As the BoA says “The essential idea of the invention was the realisation that a more efficient search could be achieved by providing further searchable forms of attribute values in a second table, each additional form having a component identifier that could be specified in the search instruction.” This time the application is not denied because of “presentation of information” concerns but because of a lack of inventive step.

• Read More »

Today I read a story about Louis Vuitton suing somebody again. This time it´s Warner brothers because of the use of a fake Louis Vuitton bag in the movie Hangover 2.

In the movie one of the characters claim that his travelling bag is a LV, although it is a fake. See the clip with the bag here. Nobody has any chance of determining whether the bag is fake or not. Still LV is upset since a fake bag is claimed to be a LV bag.

There can only be one result of this case and that is yet another loss for LV. The scene is a commentary to both the luxury good cult and the fact that many people brandish their knock offs like they were the real thing. Instead of suing Warner brothers LV should have engaged the company in a more intelligent way fx with a suggestion that the fake bag has some role to play in the movie.
This is yet another example of dinosaur enforcement (enforcement like in the ancient days). With all those silly lawsuits by LV its no wonder their goods are so expensive.

• Read More »

Branding blog “branding strategy insider” has a fascinating post about the most influential slogans and taglines in the US. The impressive part is not what brand has the most influential tagline, but which brand has most longevity. I was surprised that a lot of well known brands has slogans that are older than me and still in use.

• Melts in your mouth, not in your hands, M&M 1954
  
• They’re gr-r-r-eat!, Kellogs 1950´ies
  
• Finger-lickin’ good!, KFC 1952
  
• We try harder, Avis 1962
  
• Because I’m worth it, L´Oreal 1967
  
• Have it your way, Burger King 1973
  

These are examples of how the right brand can make your company shine across generations. Some of the examples on the list has slipped into our daily language as ways of speech but still relates to the brand behind the words.

• Read More »

Thompson has published this year’s list over the world’s most innovative companies – from a technological view. Several factors are compiled to make the list, which contain several interesting points.
No Danish companies in the top 100 but our Swedish neighbors make up about 7% of the most innovative companies.
Different regions have different strengths or focus areas: USA does semiconductors and electronic components, Asia does computer hardware and cars and Europe does machinery.
The companies on the top 100 list created 400.000 new jobs in 2010 and ¾ of the companies saw an increase in stock value. Innovation is the mother of growth it would seem.
It is remarkable that only 4 software companies are on the list. Has software lost its innovation power? To be fair companies like Apple and IBM are software companies as well but are listed as hardware producers. Also there are only 2 pharma companies on the list, which is surprising to me.
In my opinion there are several conclusions to be drawn from the list.
For one that innovation is the key to growth, the problem being supporting an innovative culture. Many of the companies on the list are well known for their integrated innovative company culture, which mean that in order to ensure growth companies must be living innovation not just doing innovation as a bi-product.
Second it is interesting that the analysis does not include a green focus. Not just to see which companies are the most innovative in green tech – and indeed if there are any in the top 100. But also to see if there is the necessary innovation in green technologies. If you take the “petroleum” category, this could be a sign of research activity in better use of fossil fuels. This category is at the bottom of the list. Chemicals could be an indicator of green tech and is doing pretty well. A comparable analysis of the top 100 most green innovation companies could be interesting.

• Read More »

The Danish Patent and Trademark office just launched a new portal to encourage transfer of knowledge. The site although it has a somewhat long and very Danish sounding name (IP-Handelsportal) collects a lot of useful information and templates for startups wanting to sell or license IP. There is even 4 different standard contracts. The aim of the portal is to save innovative companies time and money.

One of the parts I really liked is the area describing different ways of valuating IP. The website also offers Excel templates for conducting evaluations of your patent, trademark or design.

What companies or the lone inventor will find difficult about the portal is getting started with all the information. A new startup may not be capable of making a market analysis or an overview over available protection methods. A more thorough guide would be helpful here…but then again consultants have to make a living too.

• Read More »

IP strategy should be a central part of your company’s daily business. The strategy could have a direct impact on decisions being made. IBM´s new service - SIIP – demonstrates just what such an impact could be. SIIP is a platform that aggregates patent and scientific literature data and offers powerful search and analytics capabilities (it chews your food for you). This allows a company to map the technologies needed to produce new products or services. The map will show some areas that are littered with expired patents, some that are heavily fortified and some that are only described in journals. This allows your company to identify which road not to take, potential partners and unseen opportunities. In the figure below I sketched out three companies – Blue, red and green.

Blue wants to market a new product but red and green have more advanced technologies. So what to do? Collaborate with red – looks expensive. Collaborate with green – looks less expensive. Promote a cheaper product less advanced? Or use the white spots which are expired patents or non-patented technology (yes there is such a thing)? Your decision will depend on what your company wants to sell – a high end product, a cheap “copy” or a niche product. With the right information your choice gets easier. Read more about SIIP here:

http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bao/siip/

• Read More »

In a Danish newspaper today is a story about a woman who did some internet shopping and ended up with less than she hoped for.
The woman saw a Canada Goose jacket online at 1/3 of the normal price. Ignoring a lot of warning signs she buys the jacket. When the jacket arrives it is everything but original. The quality is appaling and in the deal she got an awful smell as well. The manufacturer (which is not the Canada Goose company) saved some money on not cleaning the feathers of the unfortunate birds stuffed in the jacket as filling. This of course results in the organic materials in the feathers rotting – with a pretty disgusting smell surrounding the jacket.
What surprises me is the fact that this woman (a school teacher) ignored all the signals clearly signaling that this is of course a fake jacket she is buying.

• The price, if it’s too good to be true, that’s just what it is
  
• The vendor. I saw the website and it looks all fake. If she had bothered checking up on the site, she would have found out that the website is listed as a site selling fake jackets…by Canadian Goose! I tested some of the other sites and it is very obvious that they are fake. For one thing the sites in Danish language are horribly translated probably via Google translate.
  
• The origin. The jacket is shipped out of Shanghai and the company mail address is a Hotmail address.
  

And still she bought the jacket. Why? Because she probably knew it was fake but hoped that  the quality would be ok and saved some money. Instead she got a smelly rag and lost her money. The incredible thing is that in the article it is said that she bought an original jacket afterwards but still wears the fake one when walking the dog…what’s up with that?
Many years ago I heard a story about a guy buying a fake Canadian Goose jacket with the same result as in this case. I always wondered if it was an urban legend. Now I know its true.

• Read More »

Yesterday’s blogpost made me think of something a colleague told me recently.
Apart from his day job he is a photographer and is selling his snapshots through a licensing company. Let’s start with the ending: He had discovered that his pictures had been used in 35 websites without compensation from the licensing company. This represented around 32.000 DKK which is not much but still a nice sum.
He is one of the starving artists that Neelie Kroes was talking about and he got cheated, not by copyright but by a licensing company and maybe internet users.
However my colleague is different from Ms. Kroes image of the starving artist – he anticipated the problem and was prepared. He has set up a system where he himself regularly scans the net for his pictures and compares his results with the reports from the licensing company. The results show how big the problem is and who the sinners are. It also gives him a good starting point for a dialogue with his licensing company.
The difference lies in thinking business. Starving artists today need to have a commercial sense as well as an artistic one. Not all artists need to graduate from the business academies but even a small effort could raise their income and make them less starving.
If you want to know more about the system of my colleague don’t hesitate contacting me.

Speaking of starving artists…that subject always makes me think of Knut Hamsuns Novel “Sult” where a starving artist walks around trying to make a living. The movie is very good as well.

• Read More »

In a speech given by Neelie Kroes Vice-President of the European Commission at the Forum d´Avignon last week, the Commissioner really got my blood pressure up. The speech was called “who feeds the artist” and centered about copyright.
The commissioner asked if “the current copyright system the right and only tool to achieve our objectives?” In her opinion the copyright is a trollish system seeming evil to consumers and not rewarding the artists.
Instead she suggests the following “ICT can help in other ways too, supporting a system of recognition and reward. A Global Repertoire database to find out what belongs to whom. Tracking technologies, to permit a totally transparent process for artists and intermediaries to find out who is looking at what artwork when and to distribute revenues accordingly. Digitisation, to make artworks available for instant transmission to distant fans.”
Basically she suggests that all content on the net (any net, any platform) is monitored and revenues are taken from the users and distributed to the artists. Even if such a model was even remotely possible, is it desirable? And the result would be that the popular artists get all the money, not the struggling ones that Ms. Kroes wants to support. Reviewing data from Danish public libraries reveal that people go for the main stream and not for the niche.
Her quick fix to the copyright system is flexibility that allows many business models. Especially licensing must be made easier. Out with the old rules in with the new. Licensing is easy already. What is needed is for the collection societies and distributors to open up more and create cross platform licensing agreements – One license to rule all platforms. Such a move requires the artists to demand this from their organizations and publishers.
Ms. Kroes has jumped the IP-bashing bandwagon and as many others she does not bring any new suggestions to frameworks, business models or regulation with her.

• Read More »

Today the Danish cartoon Character known as Rasmus Klump – Bruin in English – celebrates his 60^th birthday. An interesting thing is that in Denmark this curious character is more known than Coca Cola. In a recent survey the degree of recognition was 99,1 (out of 100) which is very impressive.

The impressive part lies in the fact that the character was created in 1951 and have fans in all age groups. Your granddad would never recognize Gumball or Hanna Montana, but you could have a conversation with him about Rasmus Klump. That is what makes a strong brand.

• Read More »

I recently read an interview with Google legal counsel Tim Porter about the mobile wars. In the interview he complains about the current patent system sucking out the resources of companies. However he cannot say that the development of Android has slowed due to patents. The same arguments were used in connection with Linux years ago, and no slump in innovation was registered there either.
Porter briefly touches on the root of the current US situation as he says that “damages, injunctions and remedies have to be proportional…” As I have commented on before the toxicity of the American legal environment is the biggest threat to innovation and progress. The patent system is one small tickle that adds to the otherwise free flowing river of problems.
In the end Porter comes off like the fox being cheated of the succulent grapes in Aesops fable.
Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, ‘Oh, you aren’t even ripe yet! I don’t need any sour grapes.

Google can’t act like they want and can’t get other companies to act like them as well so they claim the system has gone sour.

• Read More »

Yesterday a Danish court decided that is fake replicas can be confiscated even if the purchaser has broken no laws. This is somewhat controversial since not breaking the law seldom results in punishment.
The court however focused on the fact that the item in question – a replica Rolex – did infringe on Rolex IP and therefore the customs were allowed to confiscate it. The Court referred to the Council Regulation 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights. Here they said that article 10 and 16 prohibited the importation to Denmark. Article 16 states that “Goods found to infringe an intellectual property right at the end of the procedure provided for in Article 9 shall not be: - allowed to enter into the Community customs territory“.
The ruling seems to help the right holders a great deal since most of the cases regarding imported fakes involve consumers buying infringing goods online.

Even if it is odd that you as a consumer can lose a product you purchased legally, it would be equally odd to release the product which is obviously a fake. Of two evils choose the less evil. This could be a case for the Supreme Court.

• Read More »

When I read about the UK Dyson case where hoover invertor Dyson lost out to Chinese company Wax over the design of a type of vacuum cleaner, my first thought was that the two products weren’t similar at all. The two vacuum cleaners seen below do not look similar to me (or the UK appeal court). Dyson is on the left.

I decided to test the story on a non-vacuum cleaner expert: my 15-yr old daughter. I asked her the question “are these two products produced by the same company?” Her unwavering answer was: Yes. So maybe Dyson has a case anyway.
The level of design freedom seen in light of the functional features is a center point of the case. The judges come to the conclusion that VAX has not crossed the line between features decided by functionality and features purely based on design purposes.
 

• Read More »

Sometimes you come across a text that seem to put things into perspective and change your view on the world. I love that kind of texts.
Now one of my favorite authors Neal Stephenson – who´s stories have rocked my world view several times – have published a column in Wired about innovation. The column has a unique perspective on the possibilities for innovation in the world today.
In the column “Innovation starvation” Stephenson points to the fact that earlier ages major achievements have not been matched by todays innovation. We have no space program, no nuclear invention, no giant leaps for mankind (Iphone 4S might be cool but won’t even leap over a burnt match).
Stephenson blames this situation on the fear of failure and the access to information. About the first he says “Today’s belief in ineluctable certainty is the true innovation-killer of our age. In this environment, the best an audacious manager can do is to develop small improvements to existing systems — climbing the hill, as it were, toward a local maximum, trimming fat, eking out the occasional tiny innovation — like city planners painting bicycle lanes on the streets as a gesture toward solving our energy problems.”
About the second he says “Most people who work in corporations or academia have witnessed something like the following: A number of engineers are sitting together in a room, bouncing ideas off each other. Out of the discussion emerges a new concept that seems promising. Then some laptop-wielding person in the corner, having performed a quick Google search, announces that this “new” idea is, in fact, an old one — or at least vaguely similar — and has already been tried.”
When I read the text the truth of it seemed very strong to me. His column describes situations I have been in many times. The risk averse approach to innovation results in the bar being set very low. The concept of incremental innovation has invaded out whole approach to innovation.
So what to do?
We need to live with the high bar not just think we set it and leave it there. At a workshop this week one of the participants scoffed at one of the goals set by another participant dismissing it as impossible. With Stephensons column in mind what is needed is to set that impossible bar and get cracking.
Maybe it’s because its Friday and I’m seduced by the text but I really really want to make a space elevator, create synthetic nonpolluting fuels and other great achievements. I want to eat in big chunks not in small bites.

• Read More »

In the Wired article ” Can the Cult of Bang & Olufsen Last?” the author Rob Walker asks that very question but gives no answer. I’ll try and give some pointers to the left out answer.
As Walker depicts in the article Band & Olufsen produces high end and high prices audio and video sets. The products boasts a futuristic design but somehow gives the impression of being a thing of the past. How can a company like that survive?
Part of the answer is the cult around the company. Like Apple the B&O followers are devoted to the company products. My own father still sees B&O as the best of the best and was very proud when I got my first B&O TV set. Whenever he visits we always seem to be watching that set instead of the newer one in my living room.
Also similar to Apple the company has ground breaking designs compared to others. A TV is never just a TV and a loudspeaker never just a loudspeaker. A very distinct design ideology obvious in every product. I remember in the late 90´ies I tested a piece of B&O mp3 software. That software was designed as you would a piece of hardware, and gave you that B&O feeling. When all TV´s began looking like the old B&O products (large slabs of black basalt) the company set themselves apart from the rest by redefining the TV with Beovision 10. If you want to signal that you are apart from the pack the obvious choice is B&O.
Lastly the quality of the product is unmistakable. It might be that you want a TV every 2 years but for some a TV that lasts for 15 years both technically and design wise B&O is the answer – the only answer.

That is why the Cult can last - Love, Innovation, Quality

• Read More »

We have all tried to be inspired by an artist and created out own work in that artists spirit. Rihanna learned the hard way that even if you love an artist you should be careful of how your love is expressed.

When making her “S&M” video Rihanna looked a bit too close at one of her Idols David LaChapelle. The artist famous for his photos decided that it was a bit too close for comfort and filed a lawsuit. He is quoted for saying that although he liked her music business is business. The case is now settled out of court after getting a court opinion saying that Rihanna was infringing on LaChapelle.

A good example of a bit too much inspiration.
As I told my daughter the other day copying is an important starting point learning to draw, but when you reach a certain point you have to get your own style.

• Read More »

Yesterday the European Court of Justice gave its opinion in the case C-34/10 regarding the patentability the use of human embryos for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes.
The case originates in Germany where Greenpeace succeeded in overturning a patent.
 

The interesting part is that in the news story on BBC the story is painted as a great loss to European research and a researcher is quoted as saying “This unfortunate decision by the court leaves scientists in a ridiculous position”.
 

Reading the case the matter becomes more clear however.
 

A German researcher searched for a way out of the prohibition against patenting of human embryos. He did this by not mentioning embryos in the patent application. However the use of the process where the implementation of the process requires either the prior destruction of human embryos or their prior use as base material. The Court decided that the meaning of the word “embryo” in the Bio-directive (98/44/EC) also covers “ A non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted and a non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis must also be classified as a ‘human embryo”. The opinion of the Advocate-General is very good in this part.
 

The court also looked upon the question if scientific research was considered an “industrial or commercial purpose”. The court concludes that the scientific research cannot be separated from the patent – and “the exception to the non-patentability of uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes concerns only inventions for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it.” For my part I can’t understand howyou could consider a process non-commercial and still apply for at patent? By definition a patent protects your commercial rights.
 

The case is interpreted as halting the development of medicines which I think is a bad argument. If you develop a cure for cancer because of this process the medicine is patentable under normal requirements. Therefore that argument does not hold.

• Read More »

The mobile war is still raging with companies like Apple, Samsung and HTC putting their bids in for the mobile supremacy.
The next strike from Samsung may originate from a Danish inventor. Comon reports that when “antenna gate” unfurled last year a patent solving the IPhone antenna problem was already on its way through the system. A Danish professor has analyzed the new IPhone 4S and thinks that it may infringe the patent by Danish inventors in collaboration with some Korean scientists.
The problem could be a major setback but may not be that big after all. If you look at the patent you see that the patent family only consists of an American and a Korean patent both with priority from 2005. This means that it’s long overdue for an international application and not valid (or can be) in Europe. This means that you can sell that IPhone 4S in Europe without trouble, but Apple can face problems in Korea and the US.

• Read More »

I read a piece on BoingBoing about online distribution of movies along with a long interview clip, where Miramax CEO  Mike Lang says that the greatest threat to the movie industry is not piracy but distribution monopolies. He points to Apple as the first and largest online distributor which has to have competition.