• Chief IP Officers (CIPOs);
• Communicating value;
• Openness;
• Pirates;  and
• Small to medium enterprises.

We hope you enjoy this special edition, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback.

We hope you enjoy this week's show, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback.

Links:

People

Jeremy Phillips - http://www.jeremyphillips.eu;  http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/

Mary Adams - http://www.i-capitaladvisors.com/

• entrepreneurs and IP;
• are brands really that important to smaller entities and entrepreneurs?;
• recent changes made at the UK IPO to assist smaller entities;  and
• 'mosaicing' in patent cases.

We hope you enjoy this week's show, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback.

Links:

People

Jeremy Phillips - http://www.jeremyphillips.eu;  http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/

Barbara Cookson - http://www.filemot.com/

Other

Entrepreneur site - www.thefunded.com

Woolworths twitter feed - http://twitter.com/#search?q=woolworths

Wellworths twitter feed - http://twitter.com/#search?q=wellworths

School for Startups - http://www.schoolforstartups.co.uk

1. The GPL isn’t magic

Even after twenty years, the GPL still seems to have a certain magical aura and in part that has been the reason for its success. But reality is that the GPL is much more mundane than has been made out. It’s just a private contract between two parties ... or is it?

Perhaps the most interesting and still debated technical point is whether the GPL is a bare "licence" or a "contract", and that’s really a point of interpretation based on the jurisdiction. In summary, if the GPL is enforcing obligations over and above what is governed by copyright, it’s a contract. If it’s just providing a permission to do something, it’s a licence. Breach of a licence would be a copyright infringement issue. Breach of a contract is a contractual issue. So it depends, and in some countries it just doesn’t matter.

2. The GPL needs copyright

Regardless of whether the GPL is a licence or contract, it relies on copyright.

This point is often missed and is fundamental the GPL. If I own copyright in some software, I own the exclusive right to permit reproduction of that software (and in most countries, some sort of distribution right). If I own the exclusive right to permit reproduction, I can dictate the terms on which that reproduction is made. In this case, I make those terms the terms of the GPL.

If we didn’t have copyright, you could just reproduce the software without my consent and without agreeing to my choice of terms. (Obviously I could just keep the code secret as a practical step, but open source isn’t really about confidential information). So copyright, open source and the GPL are actually best friends, not enemies.

3. The GPL isn’t a model document (for something designed to be used globally)

Now I’m not saying it’s a bad document, but if there are any complexities from the GPL, they come from within itself. At least in earlier versions it was very US centric, non-legalistic (when some terms of art were required) and inconsistent. Much of this has been improved in the recent version, but there remains issues in using the one document in different legal systems all around the world (such as what is meant by “distribution”).

None of that means open source is a poor business model or the GPL is ineffective at achieving what it’s designed to achieve. It just means that relying on a strict legal interpretation of the terms is more difficult.

4. The GPL has a strong following of enthusiastic supporters

For me, this is the key point. Ignoring all the legalities and issues, there’s a community understanding of what the GPL “should be”, not necessarily what it is. At very least as a public relations issue, working against that community spirit is a disaster. There are many examples of non-litigious “enforcement” of the GPL through community pressure. And rightly so, after all it’s the community that has often done the heavy lifting in development. As a consequence though, something more often enforced through community pressure than litigation means the legal issues raised are somewhat academic.

Even the current version of the GPL has issues, including issues relating to the global nature of software, inconsistent copyright regimes and difficulties with interpretation. On top of that, unlike many other “business grade” software licences, there is no indemnity – so if something goes wrong, you’ll likely be without coverage. The GPL is a popular licence and will continue to be. It’s just not any more or less complex than other licence agreements.

[Photo credit: jin.thai]

1. Would it allow free online content to all?  How would it reward creativity?
2. Would it allow free medicines to all?  How would it reward research and development?
3. Would it eliminate counterfeiting?  How would you know?
4. Would you simply do away with intellectual property altogether? 

The truth is, you can't design the perfect intellectual property system.

No one can.

What you can do is understand how it works, where it can improve, think and plan strategically, act and iterate.

That doesn't mean you should not generate and participate in public debate about how the intellectual property system should evolve.

(And contrary to the views of some recent commentors on this blog, I do believe it needs to continue to evolve to continue creating value.)

[Photo credit: Stuck in Customs]

We've often talked about the need to use a common language, and the language of business.  Sure.

Communication isn't just words.  It's culture, it's body language, it's positioning and so many other things.  The culture and positioning of the IP world at large at the moment has got more than a few feathers ruffled (see Mary Adam's comment on this blog post for example and for a good illustrator of why this may be justified see some of the comments further below).

More than anything, the IP world needs to stop yelling and start listening to the culture(s) they are trying to communicate with.  That's the broader community and the business world.  IP needs to grow bigger ears.

If not, you might as well be saying "The use of closed school buildings in the atmosphere, let us make a grilled family!"

(Footnote - both garbled messages were taken straight from machine translations.)

[Photo credit: seanomatopoeia]

Amongst the general public this is a frequent issue raised - what if someone patents the technology but fails to bring it to market for the benefit of everyone?  Shouldn't patents reward bringing the technology to commercial use, shouldn't the period of monopoly depend on that?  Well maybe that could actually work.  (You get say 10 years and then another 10 after providing evidence of commercial use.)  But that's a separate discussion.

So, patent lawyers the world over will cite compulsory and crown use licenses as the eternal fix-all for such situations - if you don't use your patented technology within a set period (usually around 5 years) then in almost every country in the world, a third party has the ability to ask the court for a licence.

Sure.

But who has heard of this problem actually being real let alone widespread?  How many cases are there where the technology never makes it to market at all?  (And we're not talking here about technology utilised in some but not all countries, such as pharmaceuticals.)

There are very few if any proven examples of this.  Why is that?

This was all sparked by a recent question sent to me from Denmark via the illustrious Jeremy Philips:

"Do you know of any interesting scientific evidence or comment that points directly to (specific) patent owners withholding patents? ...I am speaking with a non-patent audience - as business people, they are very interested in practical illustrations of course..."

Here's part of my answer, what would you add?

"I'm not aware of any clear-cut cases.  The problem is that there is such a large gap between filing a patent application and getting a product to market that it is not a simple task at all to interpolate that a product was kept from the market after being 'patented'.
There are all sorts of reasons why the product may have failed, or may need further technology to be developed first.  Or indeed, that simple commercial considerations suggest investment in marketing rather than this technology today."

[Photo credit: Curious Expeditions]

• The recent New York times article on non practicing entities;
• The new IP law in China;
• Adwords and trade mark infringement in China, the US and Europe; and
• A hopeless appeal attempt in Europe.

We hope you enjoy this week's show, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback.

Links:

People

Jeremy Phillips - http://www.jeremyphillips.eu;  http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/

William Yang - http://www.panawell.com/

Bruce Berman - http://www.brodyberman.com/

Other

The New York times article - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/21patent.html? r=1&dbk

The Google Adwords post on IPKat - http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-adwords-wait-is-over.html

Even today there are no unified definitions for intellectual capital and intangible assets.  So people still miss each other when discussing how to manage them. 

Maybe we shouldn't bother.  Maybe we should just get on and manage 'I-Stuff', see what happens and iterate.

What do you think?

[Photo credit: macwagen]

1 - There seems to be consensus in the IP Community (but not always elsewhere) that IP is good and drives innovation;

2 - There is no consensus on the role and value of non practicing entities;

3 - There is little consensus (and perhaps not enough understanding) about how to effectively communicate the value of IP in real world practical business terms.

What do you think?

[Photo credit: Litandmore]

This time the cover story at Business Week is their annual survey with Interbrand of the global top 100 brands.  We've blogged about this before.

So, with all of the noise lately about the difficulties of getting intellectual property into the boardroom and properly communicating value when you get there, you'd be forgiven for thinking that there's been a glitch in the system.

Coca Cola sells carbonated water and flavouring, their brand is worth nearly 69 billion dollars.  Coca Cola is not a soft drink company, it is a brand management company.  Does anyone seriously think that the board room is not closely watching the management of the IP protecting the brand.

Maybe these guys in the global top 100 are outliers - maybe they are special.  One of the reasons why they are in the top 100 is because they invest heavily in their brands.  Maybe that means we're talking in circles here. 

Isn't it supposed to be the world's best practices (in any field) that other companies should be trying to emulate?  If that's right, shouldn't the success of these companies be a guiding light to others about how to invest in and manage their intellectual property?  Shouldn't that be enough (or at least a very good start)?

Perhaps what we're really talking about here is a general lack of discussion about intellectual property in the broader business community, rather than a complete absence of IP in the boardroom.

Interestingly, a global search for 'intellectual property' in all Harvard Business Review articles revealed 16 articles in the past 12 months.  (Some of these only refer to intellectual property in passing and only once in the article.)

Maybe the focus should be on getting intellectual property more widely discussed, as a discipline from which to create opportunity, like sales, marketing, finance and so on, not a legal problem.

http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_submit

Don't nominate us, just tell us how we can become more useful for you.  Though we're always delighted about being on these lists, we'd appreciate your feedback much more.

We hope you enjoy this week's show, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback.

Links:

Joff Wild - www.iam-magazine.com

CIPFORUM - www.cipforum.org

Perhaps none of the speakers in the IP and IA management track in last week's brilliant CIP Forum in Goteborg, Sweden were qualified to speak about what appears to be the most pressing issue for the future of IP management.  You see, none of the speakers in this track were from small to medium enterprises (SMEs).

Let's back track a minute and then I'll explain.

Each of the speakers on the IP Management panel on the second afternoon were asked to spend a few minutes speaking about what they see as the major issue defining the future of intellectual property management as we head to a knowledge economy. 

Here's what I had to say, please do come and join the conversation and let us know what you think.

The biggest pool of patents is not at Samsung, or IBM, or LG or IBM or Microsoft, it is in the SME space.

We consistently hear (and at the conference, from the likes of Eli Lilly, Microsoft and Philips) that most innovation is occuring at the SME level. 

Clearly most IP management is occuring there as well.

We have all heard about and constantly deal with IP silos within companies, managing IP as a profit centre (and not a cost centre) and communicating value to the Board.

Well, the vast majority of IP management has no silos, no profit centre, no cost centre, indeed no centre at all.

The vast majority of IP management is done where there is no IP function.

The challenge then, is to develop a set of principles and practices that are transportable across SMEs to large corporations.  Accounting principles apply this way, as do marketing, sales, product development, indeed every other function.

Large entities have a great interest in helping SMEs to acheive this.  They themselves often say that this is where they look for innovation.  If they are to acquire IP from SMEs, then they would much rather that it had been carefully nurtured prior to acquisition.

Those of us charged with working in or with large and well resourced entities have an opportunity to make a substantial impact by leading the development of these tools.

[Photo credit: Clint M Chilcott and inventor of 'Light Emitting Diode Persistence of Vision Helmet']

I'll tweet interesting insights from the sessions I attend at www.twitter.com/ipthinktank

Please do come and join in the conversation.

• the impact of the recession on IP Strategy in Japan;
• IP in Japanese service companies;
• Patent quality in Europe, the US and Japan; and
• Nude trade mark developments in Europe.

We hope you enjoy this week's show, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback.

Links:

People

Jeremy Phillips - http://www.jeremyphillips.eu;  http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/

Philip Parker - www.pjparker.com

Dave Donoghue - www.chicagoiplitigation.com

• Korea’s new state-run non practicing IP entity;
• IP business models;
• Nortel’s bankruptcy and evolution to patent licensing entity;
• Licensing large portfolios of patents;
• David Kappos’ appointment to the USPTO; and
• The spread of the pirate party in Europe

We hope you enjoy this week’s show, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback. 

Marc Adler - http://adlerip.com/

(Though, for those that want them, here are the CAFC opinion, Questions, Petition for Certiorari and Amicus Briefs - (thanks to Patently'O).)

Associate Professor Adam Mossoff from George Mason University School of Law wrote in about this great podcast as follows:

Dear Mr. Bucknell,

You run a great blog dedicated to patent law issues, and so I thought  you may want to alert your readers to a podcast debate between Professor  Michael Risch (West Virginia University) and Professor Joshua Sarnoff  (American University) on the Bilski case. They each filed competing amicus briefs before the en banc panel last year, and so they were ideal debate opponents. I moderated the debate, which is why I’m alerting people to it.

Josh and Michael do an impeccable job covering the legal, policy and historical issues in the Bilski case, and they even do a little predictive gaming about the case at the end of the debate. This 30-minute podcast is a great summary of the case and all of the issues that will be raised in argument -- and ultimately in the opinion itself.

The podcast is part of a podcast series, called SCOTUSCast, which is run by the Federalist Society. The purpose of SCOTUSCast is to provide short summaries of Supreme Court cases, and, keeping with the Society’s goals, the debate between Josh and Michael is a balanced presentation of all sides of the debate.

The podcast is available for download at iTunes (via the SCOTUSCast podcast series), or at the Federalist Society’s website, which has a
nice description of the case and links to the court opinions and other Bilski-related documents.

http://www.ww.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1587/pub_detail.asp

Best regards,
Adam

My take on it is that CIPOs are out there trying to change long held views of the world and trying to communicate about concepts that are global and constantly evolving.

What do you think?

"Duncan, Amazing list of thoughts.  Yes, IPBC was quite a stimulating conference.  A powerful set of ideas.  Thank you for writing yours down.  One of the thoughts that rises to the top for me is the idea that the CIPO or the aspiring CIPO needs to be fearless, needs to be willing to stand on the parapet, etc.  Why is this?  Is this because IP in corporations is an entrepreneurial field right now?  Or is it because senior leadership in most companies has little education in the field?  Or is it because the theory is in its infancy?  Or is it because, as you suggest, that the role of the CIPO is first of all as the leader of organizational change--change in strategic thinking, change in organizational roles and responsibilities, change in how the organization defines itself?"

(Photo Credit: BombDog)

Let me know what you think. 

Don't be fooled by the 140 characters - there is quite a lot to digest in all of this.  (Note for those trying to follow in Twitter - @DuncanBucknell has changed to @IPThinkTank.)

CIP Forum in Sweden is coming up in early September - it promises to be an incredible few days. I'll be presenting on IP Management and tweeting in between times.

DuncanBucknell can we leave the baggage of the industrial economy behind and instead focus on the benefits of IP in the knowledge economy? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell what processes are you putting in place to get the ROI you should demand for your IP investment? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell LESI's 1 day licensing course sounds like a great idea - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell the relationship between Strategy and Process - combine the 6 sigma blackbelt with IP Strategy - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Need to further away from allowing IP to managed by legal & as a cost to by business and as a profit centre - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell HP built a separate IP Strategy grp with diverse skillsets (but not legal) - they report into business and work closely with legal #IPBC

DuncanBucknell B4 IP protected the business, now IP is the business - but who will manage these - IP people or Bus people - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell & choosing those to speak @ RT @thinkfireip: #ipbc meta observatin: speaking at conferences can be part of the communication strategy for ip

DuncanBucknell AST (defensive patent aggregator) type of strategy is not about being a long term player - more about short term freedom to operate #IPBC

thinkfireip #ipbc bill Barrett of liquid logic: you must convey value through a story

DuncanBucknell IP Strategy plays a bigger role in smaller businesses - #IPBC - not sure I agree...

DuncanBucknell Chicken or egg - IP strategy first or business strategy first - #IPBC - has to be iterative - each informing the other

DuncanBucknell how can 'IP bubble' ask for more prominence if can't get this right - RT @thinkfireip: #ipbc 2/3rds of deals have title issues initially

DuncanBucknell Flexibility in deploying different approaches over time and across aspects of your business re IP - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell The term 'strategy' is definitely overused in the context of IP - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell do knowledge based businesses need a portfolio of strategies applicable to each area of business? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell understanding which technologies you need to control to achieve your goals is key skill in knowledge economy #IPBC - applies 2 open innov 2

DuncanBucknell So why buy at all? RT @DuncanBucknell: Defensive patent aggregators will take a license if necess isntead of purchase - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Acacia model - later you leave it in neg & lit the higher price they ask - how doe this relate to damages calculations - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Is it only after being rebuffed that an inventor will go to an NPE such as ACP or Acacia? Don't they also look for IP? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Freedom to operate analysis - some industries v complicated, sure but simply ignoring the issue is fraught #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Freedom to operate - steering clear sounds like a v bad idea - wilfullness spectre alone is not sufficient - need to do at least some #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Freedom to operate / freedom of action - are large companies not clearing sufficiently? - #IPBC is this a factor in rise of NPE?

JackDTodd Acacia: no one wants to enforce "weak" patents; no one signs up with an aggregator unless there is actual liability. #IPBC

JackDTodd Defensive patent aggregators ought to engage offensive NPEs to pursue the companies (potential clients) who have not signed up. #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Why don't defensive patent aggregators withdrawing these patents to stop maintenance fees? Bc they want to try recover some $ - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Is dis-aggregated R&D together w low willingness of larger companies to license driving NPE phenomenon & impact of open innovation? - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell non practiced patents from entities who are making other products - an interesting corollary to NPE issue - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell RPX - past activities of pat owner is impt part of assessing whether to buy - does this incent NPEs to sue 1st so can sell later - #IPBC?

DuncanBucknell defensive patent aggregators - maybe it's ok to focus on US - NPEs aren't as much of a problem elsewhere - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell defensive patent aggregating companies - are they really thinking about global patent portfolios as well or just US? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Subscriptn services like RPX and AST - if you subscribe for 1 year do you get all prev licences, and do they continue after that year? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell If RPX sell patents - will protect members with perpetual licence - #IPBC - this won't be an effective assignment in many countries, guys

DuncanBucknell RPX takes patents off the market for benefit of members (don't assert them) - so also benefiting others - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Esp. if around IP reputatn RT @tuyettran: What about discussn of brands & IP that includes how social networking affect reputatn at #IPBC?

JackDTodd IP Practioners have allowed IP to become "commoditized." If a commodity, then it must not be valuable. That is the problem. #IPBC

DuncanBucknell It's a great point that people still seem to talk only about patents and trademarks when discussing IP - v narrow - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Is the new media currently saturated with the point of view that IP is bad? Certainly in online world that must be right. #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Sure - v different models, regulation, etc - RT @DuncanBucknell: Are the IP issues completely different in green tech vs pharma? - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Brand IP working group - a v useful initiative - get in touch with Caroline Kamerbeek at Philips to join - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell How does the IP industry, with its varied interests etc. get better at coordinating on key issues (eg. software patents) - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Distinctiveness - anti IP movement uses emotive messaging - which works - #IPBC

thinkfireip #ipbc kamerbeek "stop the legal talk" be open about deals link to innovators, opportunities created.

thinkfireip RT @DuncanBucknell: Has Rembrandts in the Attic done more damage than anything else to the IP function - CEOs all want a Rembrandt - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Most messages in mainstream media about IP are about fights and litigation - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Microsoft regularly reporting metrics to Seniro Execs on patent quality, quantity, costs (inc. perception of quality externally) - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Fearlessness as a critical requirement for CIPOs - comment on Sunday was build the parapet then stand on it, not just head above it - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Role of lobbying and communications as part of the IP function? - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Pt about call otions is that there isn't on;y one 'event' in IP - value goes up w each event - file, issue, enforce, licence, etc - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Call option approach to valuing IP - sure but only as analogy to make the pt that value is uncertain now and will crystalise later - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell As in many situations, demonstrating IP value is easiest done in hindsight and v hard to do propsectively - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Is internal or external communication more difficult for the IP function? Doesn't this depend on stage / sophstication of the entity? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Not sure that I agree that you can't over communicate an IP metric you've picked - you have to pick a good one 1st - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Tying IP value to margins - ie what premium do we get bc we have this IP for this product - #IPBC - sounds easy huh? it's not.

DuncanBucknell Keep reassessing and iterating your IP valuation model - this is to prove value to internal stakeholders so they get it - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Creatie your own metrics internally if you need to measure value delivered by IP organisation #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Shouldn't companies be sharing their internal IP valuation models - even within industries to start with? #IPBC

AwakenIP Phelps: IP provides legal scaffolding for creating relationships. If open source & msft (oil & water) could get together, anyone can. #ipbc

DuncanBucknell As you set out to navigate your internal organisation - think about how you can help each of the stakeholders - #IPBC

JackDTodd Microsoft: IP/CIPO must be evangelist for IP and must be able to politic with the business units. Must overcome the internal "No." #IPBC

DuncanBucknell biggest mistake in IP - hiding IP function and hiding IP within organisation - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Critical that you work on gaining trust and credibility within your organisation is just as important as externally - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell it's not so much how IP function is structured but how well you do your job - Ruud Peters #IPBC

JackDTodd Philips: IP team in company must be "connected" or closely aligned/in synch with business units. #IPBC

jmattbuchanan RT @JackDTodd: MUST capture IP internally when it is created or it will be lost and dissipated. CAPTURE, OPTIMIZE, PROTECT/PATENT. #IPBC

AwakenIP Phelps: Having patent licenses with customers and competitors in other countries can help with governmental relationships abroad. #ipbc

DuncanBucknell Depends on context? RT @AwakenIP: Should CIPO come from business, law or technical backgrounds? Split voting results at #ipbc audience.

DuncanBucknell Same for those tryign to implement open innovation RT @DuncanBucknell: Do wanna be CIPOs need to bc students of change management? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell add - don't care about job title - RT @thinkfireip: #ipbc Cipo qualities: communicatn, negotiatn, taking arrows in back, educate, fearless

DuncanBucknell global, explosive, viral - some of the best of open innovation #IPBC and just try to apply old world IP principles to that :)

DuncanBucknell Do you need to be able to protect with patents to do open innovation? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Imperative for P&G to tap international networks to spread their open innovation efforts - which networks is an interesting qn #IPBC

DuncanBucknell & industry RT @JackDTodd: Session/CIPO: role of CIPO differs based on company (start-up, large company; M&A activity). #IPBC

DuncanBucknell but how to get them to let you speak? RT @thinkfireip: #ipbc being at right meetings to elevate ip function as critical element.

DuncanBucknell Question = how much of this is true open innovatn & how much just collaboration? RT @DuncanBucknell: open innov in pharma Exelixis #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Also attorney's fees if lose, RT @DuncanBucknell: reducing cost of US pat litigati - discovery, court appointd experts? #IPBC

ipdotcom RT @DuncanBucknell Disconnect between IP industry and CEO's understanding of importance IP - a big theme of this conference #IPBC

DuncanBucknell patent litigation cost in the US is a little out of control - Duane Valz (Yahoo) - yeah but what do we do about that? - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell "If you want to get rid of the NPEs, you're burning down the house to get rid of mice" - Ralph Eckardt #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Getting IP on to the balance sheet - sure - but don't we have to agree on some valuation first? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Ralph Eckardt building a case that enforceability of patents increases R&D spending - (of course), what's next though? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Incredible that USPTO may be become more application friendly just because they have budget shortage as a result of many abandonments #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Like many, GSK are abandoning many patents & TMs - impressive that they are also bundling some with data for proposed outlicense - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Damages apportionment - I don't think it is a good idea to have different patent systems for different industry segments - #IPBC US patents

riemannzeta MFM: based on description by panelists, Chinese IP Office may within 10 years become the most important in the world. More efficient. #IPBC