This is twitter.com/IPStrategist's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following twitter.com/IPStrategist's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
twitter.com/IPStrategist
Recent Activity
Joe Thanks for the heads up. I was wondering where your great blog had gone. Got an RSS feed now. Really appreciate your work! Jackie
1 reply
Jay: I had the exact same response you did to this TED talk as you did when I listened to it several weeks ago. My why: Provide clients with a practice model that creates value for them by identifying, capturing, protecting and maximizing their intangible assets. From this, I hope to--and increasingly do--prosper. This differs from the standard practice model because few other IP practitioners can and do ask "why" and certainly few--if any (besides me)--have figured out how to get paid if they say "no." Put simply, I provide innovative solutions to people who realize that there is a problem with the legal practice model status quo. I don't need to find clients--they find me. A great place to be after years of hunting down clients and competing with others providing the same old, same old.
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2010 on Finding your why at The Client Revolution
1 reply
Forgot to post the 2008 New Yorker piece re IV. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2010 on Myhrvold on Invention Capital at Broken Symmetry
1 reply
I haven't read the HBR article yet, but I did read the NY Times article about IV today,as well as other press about them. I think what Myhrvold is getting at is the heart of the difference between inventing and innovating. IMHO, many companies innovate, but what gets to market only reflects the end of the innovation process--that is, the actual invention that gets to market. Most companies only cover the invention, when careful patent drafting would have allowed them to cover the innovation to exclude others from addressing the same or similar consumer product. As detailed in this New Yorker article from 2008, IV is taking a disciplined approach, where they are describing innovations (that is, solving consumer problems) broadly. They don't and shouldn't care what the details of the final product embodiment is, which is what makes their processes seem more profound than what takes place daily at corporations. What IV is doing is not rocket science--corporations just aren't good at this because their patent attorneys take an embodiment-based approach to patent drafting than they do. And, as for your discovery issues: been there, done that and don't want to go back. My heart goes out to you.
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2010 on Myhrvold on Invention Capital at Broken Symmetry
1 reply
Joe, thanks so much for continuing to dig up this information. It greatly helps those of us who seek to pull the curtain back to reveal that patent litigation is not a viable business model for most startup companies.
1 reply