Welcome

  • Topic highlights
    Globalisation; Regional Innovation, Innovation Management
  • Experienced professionals from around the globe debating developments in innovation and tech transfer

Search this and other Innovation sites

  • Search this Blog using Rollyo (Yahoo)

  • Search using Google
    Google

    WWW
    maxinno.typepad.com

Editors

  • Ernst Max Nielsen
    Max has worked 20+ years with TT as owner, manager, director and /or board member in both small and large companies, comprising TT consulting, high-tech startups, international groups – in USA, Russia, UK, Belgium, Hungary and his native Denmark. Max operates as a business angel investor.

Resource Guide: SSTI publishes new report

SSTI, the State Science Technology Institute in the US, a kind of "sister organization" of TII (but with more information distribution than networking and less business membership than TII), publishes interesting reports. Lately SSTI published its Resource Guide (download from their site) I have taken an excerpt of the introduction (read below) The report has an interesting Commercialization Roadmap, which is good to give an overview/checklist about the many processes and expressions used involved in "Commercialization" (for those who like Tabular knowledge ;-)

Introduction ... Technology-based economic development is the approach used to help create a climate where that new economic base can thrive. Based on the experience of tech-based economies like Silicon Valley, Research Triangle, and Route 128, it is generally acknowledged now that the following elements are required for a tech-based economy:

•An intellectual infrastructure, i.e. universities and public or private research laboratories that generate new knowledge and discoveries
•Mechanisms for transferring knowledge from one individual to another or from one company to another
•Physical infrastructure that includes high quality telecommunications systems and affordable high speed Internet connections
•Highly skilled technical workforce
•Sources of risk capital
•Quality of life, and
•Entrepreneurial culture

This resource guide focuses on three of the elements – intellectual infrastructure, capital, and entrepreneurial culture – and is intended to assist economic development practitioners in their efforts to accelerate transition to technology based economies. ....

Practitioners can use the guide to implement and update programs addressing these three critical elements required for a tech-based economy. The guide also begins to resolve one of the most challenging issues for the tech-based economic development community: the paucity of written information that captures the insights, wisdom and practical knowledge of people who have decades of experience in the field.

The report caught my attention for another reason: its reference to PriceWaterhouseCoopers and their MoneyTreeReports.

The MoneyTree Report is a quarterly study of venture capital investment activity in the United States. As a collaboration between PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association based upon data from Thomson Financial, it is the only industry-endorsed research of its kind. The MoneyTree Report is the definitive source of information on emerging companies that receive financing and the venture capital firms that provide it. The study is a staple of the financial community, entrepreneurs, government policymakers and the business press worldwide.

The interesting point here is the overall drop in venture capital investment since the "Bubble" burst in around 2000 and the trend to see business angels consolidate their activity to move downstream in the funding pipeline, ie. investing larger sums than usual. But it's also evident that the US now also realizes a widening gap between early stage and VC funding.

CUE: Cambridge University Enterprise

  CUE a Master of Commercialization
Cambridge University is an excellent university. Even more excellent in my view is their way of commercializing inventions coming out of CU. Obviously the "Cambridge Phenomenon", first studied by my old friends from now merged Segal Quince Wicksteed (Bill Wicksteed!), the region's history, presence of benevolent angels and so on are important for that success.

Some years ago CU merged all commercialization activities in CUE. Have a look at their recent Annual report and see how an already impressive record  improves by almost 50% over just 5 years. One would assume that the quality of the (basic) research is not very volatile. Such matters take generations to build up and seldom make quantum leaps. I interpret the growth in commercialization successes as a result of the (re-)organization, really good people (look at the CVs of CUE staff: impressive) and then access to own seed funding (and, of course, lots of VCs crowding around CUE). A minor, but perhaps not less important resource is the creation of "Enterprise Champions", faculty staff who advise CUE on different relevant matters.

PS: compare CUE's score with that of all Denmark, one of the most competitive countries and with the highest knowledge management score in the world: CUE (on the basis of 3,500 research FTE) creates almost half the results in terms of management of invention disclosures, patent filing and licensing and spin off more than 5 times the number of new companies (year 2004) - and with half the TO staff of all of Denmark!

Fascinating Story about Taxol invention and Innovation

Frank Stephenson  tells the fantastic story of how Holton invented the anti-cancer blockbuster drug at Florida State University's Tech Transfer Office site: Click Here

The tortured trail of the best-selling cancer drug in history began 40 years ago this summer. A thunder-clap of uncommon science and luck, it's a grand story still in the telling.

Also a story of how collaboration between industry and university may turn foul when big money enters. This is a "must read" for all tech transfer office staff.

Finland’s road to further innovation

The Finnish government has outlined a new national strategy for keeping its innovation agenda fresh; despite having the world's most competitive economy, many in Finland worry that its highly successful research and innovation agenda is not as competitive as it should be. CORDIS FINNISH ORIGINAL

Ireland’s Competitiveness Strategy

THE CELTIC TIGER MOVES ON

Ireland’s Competitiveness Strategy: "

Growing research capability is a core component of the European Union’s drive to become the most competitive and dynamic, knowledge-driven economy. Ireland has fully embraced that challenge by releasing its Strategy for ‘Science, Technology and Innovation 2006 – 2013’.

According to Micheal Martin T.D., Ireland’s Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the strategy is based on a shared vision of placing Ireland firmly on the global map in terms of the excellence of our research and its application for the benefit of society.

Our strategy encompasses the steps we need to take to develop a world class research system, building on the model of competitive excellence adopted by the PRTLI and SFI initiatives. It addresses key human capital investments across the education system and industry. It provides mechanisms to translate knowledge into jobs and growth and, in this context, it takes forward the recommendations of the Enterprise Strategy Group and the Small Business Forum. The strategy establishes agendas for public sector research in Agriculture, Health, Environment and Natural Resources. It also addresses the vital international and all island dimensions of research and innovation.

Sources

"

(Via URENIO Portal: Innovation, Environments of Innovation, Intelligent Cities and Regions.)

Redesigning Life to Make Ethanol

Another notch in the belt for innovation in "farming".

Redesigning Life to Make Ethanol: "Genetically engineered organisms can more efficiently produce ethanol from cheap and abundant sources of biomass, such as agricultural waste. It could make ethanol cost competitive."

(Via Technology Review Feed - BizTech Top Stories.)

China's Innovation System and the Move Toward Harmonious Growth and Endogenous Innovation

Another input to this blog's BRIC suite

China's Innovation System and the Move Toward Harmonious Growth and Endogenous Innovation: "Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 8(1): 1-26"

(Via Innovation: Management, Policy Practice.)

Innovation Policy and Federalism: the German experience

Now we have got the analysis of why the German innovation POLICY suffers. That isn't to say that German innovation does...

Innovation Policy and Federalism: the German experience: "The German Innovation Policy is based on two strategic elements: innovation policy tries to build up innovation infrastructures mainly related to the generation of new knowledge with the help of big science associations. Simultaneously, innovation policy follows mission-oriented objectives (focusing on key technologies) and strives to improve knowledge diffusion (increasing the share of commercialised knowledge). Due to the German Federalism, both strategic elements are located on a federal and Lander level. Therefore, on regional and central level policymakers struggle with similar problems. In particular, the mission-oriented approach suffers from serious knowledge deficits and there is a political failure to pick the 'winners'. In addition, the mix of joint decision and finance schemes and autonomous decision structures on federal and regional levels cause inefficiencies, because not all responsibilities are efficiently allocated. A lack of transparency also exists, because the support schemes and instruments are too complex. Therefore, the division of labour between the federal state and the Lander beyond the infrastructure policy can be improved."

(Via Inderscience.)

SCIENCE MARKETING

TII normally stages an annual workshop called  Science Marketing Practitioners' Clinic. This year it's going be on 30-31 August 2006 in Brussels (B). The title is:

"Take Home a Marketing Action Plan for your Organisation that Really Works"
A two-day seminar for people who wish to apply them specifically to the needs and constraints of research and technology-based organisations.

Coach is Judy Marcure (guest editor on this site). CLICK TO READ MORE

TII Summer School

TII SUMMER SCHOOL
This year's summer school, will take place from 11 to 15 September in the south-eastern Hungarian city of Szeged. This is the association's flagship training event which brings together in a one-week programme 5 stand-alone training workshops covering different aspects of managing the innovation and research exploitation process, taught by practitioners for practitioners.

The subjects being covered this year are:

Day 1: An Introduction to Innovation Management
Day 2: Making the Business Case for Technology Opportunities
Day 3: The Commercialization of a Knowledge-Intensive Business Idea
Day 4: Building Success in International Project Management
Day 5: Marketing Scientific Results and Services in a Turbulent Environment - What is Really Working in Technology Marketing and Commercialization Today?


Our trainers, who come from Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia are all seasoned professionals who are well placed to share their in-depth, practical experience of their subject with the participants. The workshops offer a lively mix of theory and practice delivered via presentations, case studies and group work, all in a relaxed, multi-cultural training environment.

This year, we have chosen the beautiful spa city of Szeged in south-eastern Hungary as our venue; often referred to as the City of Sunshine. The city is the cultural and economic centre of the Great Plain region and a thriving university town.

Interested in participating? Read more Click to see the details

New Nano Commercialization web site

MaxInno has created a sister weblog, namely a Nano weblog with a focus on commercialization. (click to have a look).

The primary focus is on how nanotechnology passes from science to market, creating a new "industrial revolution" similar to what IT did in the 1980s or perhaps even more profound.
 

New process makes diesel fuel and industrial chemicals from simple sugar

THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVOURITE TOPICS AT THE MOMENT. IN EUROPE AND THE US WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY CRAZY AGRICULTURAL INTERVENTIONIST POLICIES. This could change the future of the countryside.

New process makes diesel fuel and industrial chemicals from simple sugar: "The soaring prices of oil and natural gas have sparked a race to make transportation fuels from plant matter instead of petroleum. Both biodiesel and gasoline containing ethanol are starting to make an impact on the market."

(Via Brightsurf Science News :: Science News and Current Events.)

Chinese Universities Receive US$1.1 Billion Software Gift

Chinese Universities Receive US$1.1 Billion Software Gift: "

"

(Via ChinaTechNews.com.)

Globalisation and new collaborative working environments...

Globalisation and new collaborative working environments...: "Globalisation and new collaborative working environments"

(Via CORDIS News.)

Measuring Patent Office Quality

Measuring Patent Office Quality: "

Paul Burke and Markus Reitzig have devised a clever way to measure the quality of patent office examination: they measure whether the European Patent Office (EPO) applies patentability standards consistently between patent examination and patent opposition procedures.

Patent Assessment Quality - Analyzing the consistency of the EPO’s ruling on novelty and inventive step in emerging industries

by Paul F. Burke (University of Technology, Sidney) and Markus Reitzig (Copenhagen Business School)
Full Text

Summary by Stefan Wagner

Introduction

Fuelled by an increasing number of spectacular patent litigation cases, a broad discussion about ‘patent quality’ is currently going on in academia as well as among practitioners and policy makers. In particular, it is argued that patents might be prone to ‘low quality’ when patent offices are confronted with emerging technologies like biotechnology, software or business methods. In these situations, marked by increasing numbers of patent applications in previously unknown fields, patent examination is likely to be characterized by a shortage of qualified examiners in the respective field (the recruiting and the training of new examiners usually takes several years), a lack of appropriate databases for prior art searches as well as uncertainty with regard to the interpretation of patentability criteria which potentially harms ‘patent quality’.

It should be noted, however, that the term ‘patent quality’ is theoretically hard to define due to its multiple legal and economic dimensions and it is even more difficult to measure the different aspects of the quality of a patent in large-scale empirical studies.

In this paper, Burke and Reitzig use the advantages of data on patent examinations processed by the European Patent Office (EPO) in order to tackle a part of the problem by examining whether the EPO assesses the patentability criteria consistently over time. They analyze this dimension of ‘examination quality’ in biotechnology patents during the period 1977 – 1986, a historical example of an emerging technological field.

Research Design and Data

The EPO not only examines patents, but also allows for post-grant validity challenges within its opposition system: Once a patent has been granted, third parties can challenge the validity of the patent by filing an opposition within nine months after grant. In the opposition proceeding, either the opposition is rejected or the patent is amended or even completely revoked.

Burke and Reitzig take advantage of this institution and measure one dimension of ‘patent quality’ by relating grant and opposition outcomes as postulated by legal scholars (e.g. Merges, 1996, Thomas, 2002). Since the criteria of patentability applied in the opposition proceedings are ideally the same as those used during patent examination phase, a successful opposition can only occur if: (A) the patent office inconsistently applies the patentability requirements during the examination and opposition phase or (B) new information becomes available to the patent office after the grant of the patent, or both. Burke and Reitzig explore these two explanations to estimate the consistency (quality) of patent office decisions.

Their crucial assumption is that the amount of information available to the patent office can be tracked over time indirectly by relying on established patent indicators. Among others, they assume that the number of citations a patent receives from subsequent patents (a number that can be observed) is correlated with the amount of knowledge available to the patent office at a given point of time (which cannot be observed). Moreover, they argue that the difference between the number of citations received before the patent grant and the total number of citations received until the end of the opposition proceedings is a good proxy for the new information that becomes available to the patent office during the opposition phase. In order to focus their analysis to an emerging technological field, they restrict their sample to patent applications filed within the field of biotechnology in the period 1978 - 1986 (4,726 applications leading to 2,969 grants and 318 oppositions).

Methodology and Results

Relying on advanced econometric models, the authors analyze the first and the last stage of a (slightly simplified) 3-stage decision sequence of the EPO proceedings: 1. Grant {Yes/ No} 2. Oppose {Yes/ No}, and, 3. Revoke of the patent {Yes/ No}. The authors test whether assessment inconsistencies (grant in the first stage, revocation in the third stage) are driven by new information revealed during the opposition procedure or by inconsistent assessment of patentability related information available from the day of grant. In addition to forward citations, Burke and Reitzig also include other patent characteristics including references to previous patents and non-patent literature, family size, number of inventors, and request for accelerated examination. These latter measures do not vary over time, whereas incremental forward citations capture informational changes over time.

Burke and Reitzig find that EPO patent assessment differs between the grant of a patent application and the outcome of the opposition procedure. Interestingly, they also find that inconsistent decisions are not driven by new information made available after the examination phase. In conjunction, the authors take these findings as a clear indication that the EPO applies the patentability requirements differently during the patent grant and the opposition proceeding.

As the authors clearly state, the interpretation of their second result is subject to a major caveat: although successful oppositions may be caused by inconsistent application of patentability criteria, forward citations may simply be an imprecise measure of the knowledge available to the patent office at a given point of time. If so, the role of new information is unclear.

References

Merges, R. (1996). ‘As many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform’, Berkeley Tech. L. J. 14: 577-615.

Thomas, J. (2002). ‘The Responsibility of the Rulemaker: Comparative Approaches to Patent Administration Reform,’ Berkeley Tech. L.J. 17: 728-761.

"

(Via Technological Innovation and Intellectual Property.)

Eli Lilly Ordered to Hand Over Patent Application to Collaborator

Eli Lilly Ordered to Hand Over Patent Application to Collaborator: "

In Eli Lilly & Co. v. Emisphere Technologies, Inc., a district court judge has decided that Eli Lilly doesn't have any rights to a patent it applied for based on its partner's technology after ruling that Lilly breached its contract with Emisphere by setting up a secret research team to study its partner's technology.

Under a Research Collaboration and Option Agreement, Lilly and Emisphere agreed to collaborate on a research and development program to study the use of Emisphere Technology for oral delivery of PTH and related compounds, as well as some non-oral methods of delivery. The parties agreed that Emisphere would grant Lilly an option for an exclusive worldwide license to make and use the Emisphere carrier technology to develop oral PTH products.  Lilly could exercise that option by giving notice to Emisphere and by paying Emisphere a sum of money.  They also agreed on the terms of the separate license agreement that would take effect if and when Lilly exercised the option.

The parties defined Emisphere Technology broadly as: proprietary synthetic chemical compounds that enable the delivery of therapeutic macromolecules and other compounds that are not currently deliverable by oral means or by certain non-oral means (including all related patents, patent applications and Know-How presently owned by Emisphere and all patents, patent applications, and Know-How relating to inventions developed by Emisphere pursuant to the Program . . . ).

The PTH License Agreement also included detailed provisions for confidentiality, including limits on Lilly’s internal distribution and use of information relating to the PTH and carrier research. Emisphere contends that Lilly violated confidentiality clauses by having the employees who worked on the PTH program provide confidential Emisphere information to the Lilly team working on the secret projects researching Emisphere’s carriers with proteins other than PTH.

A second research collaboration on oral delivery of PTH and hGH provided that Emisphere would own all patents, patent applications and Know-How relating to the Emisphere Technology to the extent that Lilly and/or Emisphere invents and/or develops same during the course of and as part of the Programs, including, but not limited to, any Lilly Improvements.

It didn't help any that Lilly apparently set up a secret Oral Protein Delivery Team to study the mechanism of action of the Emisphere carriers, but with protein molecules other than PTH. The Secret Team had access to detailed information about results of unpublished research, experience with methods for synthesizing the carrier molecules, and methods for testing the carriers. 

After getting promising results from its secret research on Emisphere carriers, Lilly began negotiating with Emisphere for a license to commercialize products containing Emisphere’s carriers and GLP. While those negotiations were going on, Lilly filed a PCT application for combinations of GLP with 56 different delivery agents, including Emisphere’s proprietary carriers that had been used in the collaborative research on PTH.

The court held that Lilly’s refusal to assign the GLP patent application to Emisphere violated Section 1.5(c) of the research agreement, which stated:

It will not be Lilly’s responsibility or intent to develop new synthetic chemical compounds that enable the delivery of therapeutic macromolecules and other compounds that are not currently deliverable by oral means or by certain non-oral means (the Carriers) as part of the Programs. Any new Carriers or inventions which are closely related to the Emisphere Technology (as it exists as of the Effective Date) that arise, in whole or in part, out of suggestions, recommendations or discussions held between Emisphere and Lilly scientists shall be Emisphere Technology.

Despite Lilly's contention that the OPD/GLP team relied only on published data and that none of the information from the Emisphere collaboration was useful in selecting carriers for GLP, two of the carriers in the Lilly GLP patent application were carriers in Emisphere’s database of unpublished carriers. The court felt that any work Kahn did on carriers must have arisen at least in part from discussions, recommendations, and suggestions between Lilly and Emisphere scientists in the PTH project. 

The court held that:

... Emisphere has shown that the Oral GLP team did not rely solely on published information, but had already received a running start on carrier research because of the help they received from [Lilly researchers], who got their start with the Emisphere-Lilly collaboration on PTH.  In other words, Lilly’s Oral GLP team already knew a lot about what had worked with the PTH research. The effort to develop a sanitized paper trail relying on only published information did not accurately reflect the reality of what had occurred, yet it reflects an awareness of the benefits of making the project appear to be based on only public information.

...

The research efforts for any one therapy could easily require Emisphere to disclose to its research partner a vast amount of valuable information about the Emisphere carriers, as in the PTH project with Lilly.  Much of that information was not public, such as the best procedures for synthesizing and manufacturing particular carriers, how to deal with impurities in the carriers, which excipients were likely to work well or not so well with carriers, toxicology data, dose response data from animal experiments, and whether solid or liquid doses produced better absorption, among many others. If a partner with vast scientific, intellectual, and commercial resources like Lilly could take the information gleaned in one project and use it in an independent project with other therapeutic proteins, Emisphere would have effectively sold its entire business for the relatively cheap price of a license for only one application of its technology. In addition, Emisphere’s existing licenses to its other research partners working on other proteins would weaken and lose value, and Emisphere’s ability to enter into new exclusive licensing agreements would also be diminished.

While Lilly contends that under Emisphere’s case, Lilly would be prohibited from carrying out research that any other company in the world may carry out, the court put weight to the fact that no other company in the world had the kind of access to Emisphere’s technology that Lilly had.  In the court’s view, Lilly deliberately chose a course that was too aggressive, which resulted in the termination of the contracts and the loss of much of Lilly’s investment in the oral PTH program. 

The court held that Lilly should hand over the international patent application to Emisphere Technologies by May 5.

"

(Via Patent Baristas.)

Understanding Knowledge-Driven Cities

Understanding Knowledge-Driven Cities: "

‘Ideopolis – Knowledge City-regions’ is the culmination of a year-long research project involving in depth studies of ten UK and four international cities. Key to the success of an Ideopolis is ‘knowledge intensity’ – the number of knowledge industries and knowledge workers within a city and its surrounding region.

The Work Foundation’s research has found that the UK is on the way to developing a collection of vibrant, sustainable knowledge cities that are driving economic development in their regions. London and Edinburgh have been identified as Ideopolises – cities that have adapted most rapidly to the demands of the knowledge economy – with Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow and Newcastle fast catching up.

Alexandra Jones, Ideopolis Project Director at The Work Foundation said:

A small number of cities are at the cutting edge of the knowledge economy and are hugely attractive as places to do business, live and work. Other cities must learn from their success.

The Work Foundation’s research gives a framework for cities, businesses, universities and other stakeholders in a region to work together to increase knowledge intensity. It can help cities evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and assess how close they are to becoming an Ideopolis.

An Ideopolis is a sustainable knowledge city that drives economic success in the wider city-region. It has:

  • High levels of economic success.
  • High levels of knowledge intensity.
  • A diverse industry base including distinctive specialist niches.
  • A university that has a mutually beneficial relationship with the city. This leads to industries based on research strengths, knowledge transfer to businesses and the retention of graduates.
  • Strong communications infrastructure and good transport links within the city and to other cities.
  • Distinctive long-term ‘knowledge city’ offer to investors and individuals alike.
  • Strategies to ensure that deprived communities also benefit from the economic success associated with knowledge.

The nine drivers of an Ideopolis are:

       
  1. An appropriate physical knowledge city.
  2.    
  3. Path dependency – building on what’s already there.
  4.    
  5. A diverse industry base including distinctive specialist niches.
  6.    
  7. High skill organisations.
  8.    
  9. A vibrant education sector embedded in community and economy.
  10.    
  11. A distinctive ‘knowledge city’ offer.
  12.    
  13. Strong connectivity within and outside the city-region.
  14.    
  15. Strong leadership around the vision of a knowledge city, supported by networks and partnerships.
  16.    
  17. Community investment.

To assess each city’s status as an Ideopolis researchers used data from a variety of government sources to measure:

  • Knowledge intensity – using OECD and The Work Foundation’s own definitions.
  • Economic output – measured as Gross Value Added (GVA).
  • Quality of life – using the 2004 index of multiple deprivation and using The Work Foundation’s quality of life index.

The Work Foundation is an independent, not-for-dividend, evidence-based research organisation and consultancy. It exists to inspire and deliver improvements to performance through improving the quality of working life.

Sources

"

(Via URENIO Portal: Innovation, Environments of Innovation, Intelligent Cities and Regions.)

The Business Leadership Forum: A Variety of Innovation Styles

Irving Wladawsky-Berger of IBM reports from the IBM Rome Business Leadership Forum in April 2006

The Business Leadership Forum: A Variety of Innovation Styles: "

Earlier in April I participated in IBM's 2006 Business Leadership Forum (BLF).  The forum included several hundred leaders of industry, government and academia from over 50 countries who gathered in Rome for two days of discussions about the challenges and opportunities facing business in the 21st century.  This is the fourth such forum we have held and the first global one.  In 2003, our first BLF in San Francisco began a dialogue on the proper business strategies to pursue in the wake of the dot-com implosion.  In 2004 and 2005, we held regional forums in Paris and Shanghai respectively.  Having learned from these earlier forums that business issues in each region are not dramatically different, we decided that for 2006 the BLF would include participants from around the world. 

I found the presentations and panels over the two days of the Rome BLF fascinating.  It was not just the content; it was also the different leadership styles and approaches to innovation represented by the speakers.  Let me talk about a few of them.

Sam Palmisano

IBM Chairman and CEO Sam Palmisano opened the forum by observing that innovation is an imperative for anyone wanting to differentiate their companies and avoid competing solely on costs in a crowded, commoditized marketplace.  He talked about some of the powerful forces driving innovation in business.  First, he told the audience that one unavoidable fact of which all should be aware is that globalization is inevitable and that the world as a result is becoming more integrated.  He then linked globalization to economic expansion and, in particular, to the growing percentage of worldwide GDP coming from emerging markets -- especially China and India where a young, vibrant, talented set of professionals is eagerly entering the global economy. 

Sam then talked about the unpredictable environment we have been living in for the past few years, and the difficulty in planning due to the rate and pace of change inspired by geopolitical and security issues,  economic fluctuations, market bubbles and what have you.  As a result, business models are being furiously challenged by world events beyond their control and occurring anywhere, which in today's integrated environment will have a rippling effect across the globe. 

In such an environment, Sam went on to say, a business has only a couple of choices.  It can hunker down and try to ride out the changes, hoping things will return to the more stable world of the past; or it can create a strategy and a set of business models that allow the business to thrive and be successful in the face of the realities of this emerging world -- in other words, embrace innovation across the business. 

John Browne

BP Group Chief Executive John Browne spoke next.  (By the way, for the last few years I have been a member of BP's Technology Advisory Council.)  Lord Browne said that innovation was all about organizing the business in ways that allow people to explore possibilities and take risks confidently.  Innovation, in his opinion, is part of the process of anticipating and responding to changing needs and, since human needs are constantly evolving, innovation is the key to the long-term competitive success of any business.  He went on to talk about innovation in the energy business, summarizing its key challenges as enhancing energy security by finding reliable supplies of energy, and addressing climate change concerns by reducing the environmental impact of energy production and use.

Lord Browne then talked about some of BP's efforts in these areas.  For example, the amount of oil typically recovered from a field is a bit over 50 percent, up from around 25 - 30 percent when he first joined the industry forty years ago.  He believes oil recovery can be driven beyond sixty percent through advanced simulations that convey a better idea of where the oil is, and advanced technologies like horizontal drilling to get at it.  He talked about some very exciting pilot projects BP has under way in Scotland and California to produce clean, carbon-free electricity through a technology called carbon sequestration which extracts carbon from hydrocarbons and buries it in an existing oil or gas field.  Finally, he briefly mentioned some of the newer, riskier projects in search of greener and renewable energy sources, such as crops that produce plentiful, clean energy.

Lord Browne made several comments about the issues surrounding climate change that I found particularly compelling.  He acknowledged that there are multiple points of view in this area:  ‘The science of climate change is still provisional.  But then, all science is provisional,’ and then added ‘What seems clear is that we can't ignore the mounting evidence.  And no business whose purpose is to supply energy sustainably can turn away from the challenge or pretend it's someone else's problem.’  Later on in his talk he said ‘. . . innovation can help provide answers and help us to escape from the sense of fatalism which starts from a belief that climate change is such a huge global problem that there's nothing that can be done about it.  That is wrong.  There are lots of things that can be done.’

Sunil Mittal

BP and IBM are very good examples of well established, multi-national companies looking to transform themselves through innovation.  A very different innovation story is that of Bharti Enterprises, India's leading telecom conglomerate.  Sunil Mittal, Bharti's Chairman and Group Managing Director talked about the major challenges Bharti has faced over the last few years as India navigates some turbulent waters.  He explained that, with India's annual per capita income only a bit over $600, cellular phone service has to be provided for the Indian market at a very low price, around 2 cents a minute or less.  The only way to provide telecom services so inexpensively and run a profitable business is to take advantage of India’s large population and economic growth, scaling up the business rapidly by adding many new customers every month.   

To do this, Sunil Mittal had to develop a radically innovative business model:  focus only on the customers and outsource just about everything else.  In other words, put all the energy of the business into attracting, supporting and retaining customers and accept the fact that pretty much everything else has been commoditized and should be outsourced, including managing all the IT equipment and the network.  He said there was a lot of resistance to this strategy.  People were calling him from around the world saying that IT and the network were the heart of a telecom company.  ‘You cannot give your heart away and then run a business’, they said to him. 

Mittal begged to differ, saying the customer, not the technology, was at the heart of his business and then proceeded to implement the strategy.  He further confounded everyone by not picking Indian companies as his outsourcing partners, choosing instead IBM to run IT and Nokia and Ericsson to run the network, because he wanted highly experienced, international companies that could keep up with the torrid pace of Bharti’s growth. Today, Bharti is one of the top five companies in India, and Mittal’s vision for it is to be India’s most admired brand by 2010.   

Linus Torvalds

Linus Torvalds represents a totally different innovation leadership style.  At the BLF I introduced him by reminding the audience that a community of the best and brightest programmers around the world is developing Linux, and that in my opinion the Linux community works so well and has been so productive because of Linus' creativity certainly, but also his leadership qualities. 

Linus told the audience that he was primarily an engineer, not at all a visionary leader, and that he spent all his energies focusing on the problems right in front of him.  He talked about how Linux is organized and explained that it has no central authority at all - a phenomenon he attributed to his inability to be a great leader.  Instead, Linux has a distributed decision-making process in which different people decide which ideas they will accept from contributors all around the world.  He answered a question as to how the different people who make decisions in the Linux community are picked, and replied that it was all based on trust and connections.  There is a built-in mechanism that allows good people automatically to strengthen their own connections to everyone else through a combination of good technical and communication skills. 

Linus also explained why people would spend so much of their time on a volunteer project like Linux with no immediate financial gain.  As an engineer, he said, there is no better feeling than solving a problem that has bedeviled you for days.  Suddenly a light goes on, and you get the rush of having finally solved it.  In the end, he said, a lot of technical people find solving such technical problems very satisfying, and that is why they do it.

I stand by the words I used to introduce Linus Torvalds – he is indeed a very good and innovative leader, with his own unique style that has proved tremendously effective in leading one of the most powerful forces in IT today. 

Tom Friedman

Let me close with an observation made by Tom Friedman, best-selling author of ‘The World is Flat’.  He addressed the Rome Business Leadership Forum on tape and succinctly captured the necessity of everyone’s paying close attention to innovation.

'When the world is flat, whatever can be done will be done.  Pay attention to that.  Whatever the technology empowers and enables, whatever can be done will be done.

There's only one question left: will it be done by you or to you?  And that is really the challenge for every company.  You've got to understand and identify what the tools out there will enable you or your competitors to do, and you've got to do it before your competitors.

And that takes an innovative flare.'

So, what did I learn from the various talks and panels at the Business Leadership Forum.  One lesson is that no one approach to innovation and innovation leadership is best; rather, different approaches will work best in different situations and for different individuals. 

Another is that the era of competing to be the best is no longer enough; we are entering an era where we are competing to be unique.  And while in principle being the best is a zero sum game, different people and companies can each be unique in their own innovation style.   

"

(Via Irving Wladawsky-Berger.)

The World's Most Innovative Companies according to BUSINESS WEEK

READ this interesting article. There is a summary in Podcast format as well.

The World’s Most Innovative Companies: "To discover which companies innovate best — and why — BusinessWeek joined with The Boston Consulting Group to produce their second annual ranking of the 25 most innovative companies. More than 1,000 senior managers responded to the global survey, making it their deepest management survey to date on this critical issue. Today, innovation is about much more than new products. It is about reinventing business processes and building entirely new markets that meet untapped customer needs. Most important, as the Internet and globalization widen the pool of new ideas, it’s about selecting and executing the right ideas and bringing them to market in record time. The new ranking has companies evoking all types of innovation. There are technology innovators, such as BlackBerry maker and newcomer Research In Motion Ltd., which makes its debut on the list at No. 24. There are business model innovators, such as No. 11 Virgin Group Ltd., which applies its hip lifestyle brand to ho-hum operations such as airlines, financial services, and even health insurance. Process innovators are there, too: Rounding out the ranking is Southwest Airlines Co. at No. 25, a whiz at wielding operational improvements to outfly its competitors. At the top of the list are the masters of many genres of innovation. Take Apple Computer Inc., once again the creative king. To launch the iPod, says innovation consultant Larry Keeley of Doblin Inc., Apple used no fewer than seven types of innovation. They included networking (a novel agreement among music companies to sell their songs online), business model (songs sold for a buck each online), and branding (how cool are those white ear buds and wires?). Consumers love the ease and feel of the iPod, but it is the simplicity of the iTunes software platform that turned a great MP3 player into a revenue-gushing phenomenon. Charts: Laurel Daunis-Allen/BW The BusinessWeek-BCG survey is more than just a Who’s Who list of innovators. It also focuses on the major obstacles to innovation that executives face today. While 72% of the senior executives in the survey named innovation as one of their top three priorities, almost half said they were dissatisfied with the returns on their investments in that area."

(Via URENIO Portal: Innovation, Environments of Innovation, Intelligent Cities and Regions.)

Innovation is the "yin" to globalization's "yang"

YET ANOTHER INPUT FOR THE TII ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2006, NEXT WEEK

Innovation is the "yin" to globalization's "yang": "

Yin Yang building.gif

Frank Gens of IDC has written a great summary of the debate over innovation that recently took place at IBM's Business Leadership Forum in Rome. In his blog post, Frank addresses two 'nagging' questions about innovation, including one that was on the mind of nearly every business executive at the IBM event:  'Is innovation really as big a deal as IBM (and many other IT vendors) are making of it, or is it just the latest empty buzzword, destined to fade away in 18-24 months?'

The answer, not surprisingly, is that innovation really is a big deal, thanks primarily to the forces of globalization. Frank explains why:

'Why is the subject of innovation so important to business leaders?   The most obvious and powerful reason is globalization.  There is a direct linkage between the pressures of globalization and the urgent need for innovation, and this was right on display throughout the IBM event: from author Tom Friedman’s comments about the 'flattening world', right through to former EC Commissioner Mario Monti’s comments about the urgent need for structural reform in the Eurozone’s three largest countries...

Our research and others’ (including IBM’s recent CEO survey) show that innovation is seen by CEOs as a critical countermeasure to the growing pressures of globalization.  At IDC, we think of innovation as the 'yin' to the 'yang' of globalization: they have a strong positive-feedback relationship, with globalization fueling the need to innovate, and innovative companies being able to create value by leveraging globalization.  As I said at IDC Directions: 'Innovation is moving up the CEO’s agenda, and it will stay there as long as globalization is an issue - which will be for quite a while to come.'

Tags:    

[Image: The Yin Yang Building]

"

(Via Business Innovation 2005.)

Smart City 2020

From URENIO about intelligent Cities and Regions to fuel the debate at TII's Annual Conference (Region-Technology-Foresight)

Smart City 2020: "

William J. Mitchell, Director of the Design Laboratory at MIT, writes about the emerging technologies that are poised to reshape our urban environments. Cities are fast transforming into artificial ecosystems of interconnected, interdependent intelligent digital organisms. This is the fundamentally new technological condition confronting architects and product designers in the twenty-first century.

The author argues that embedding intelligence in objects creates new functionality (that’s the usual motivation for doing it), but less immediately evident is that it also alters the shapes and sizes of parts and the spatial relationships among them. Eventually this enables surprising new forms to develop. As an example he mentions digital cameras. He describes the process of evolution of early models to a digital-imaging device that fits in our pocket, and finally its combination with a wireless telephone.

Mitchell notes that a particularly powerful design strategy under these conditions is to look for the ways that embedded intelligence loosens traditional relationships and constraints, and seize these as opportunities for fundamentally reimagining a product or system’s organization, shape, and scale. Following this, he presents five research projects:

       
  • Concept car for General Motors from Mitchell’s Smart Cities research group in MIT.
  •    
  • PlaceLab intelligent apartment from Kent Larson’s House_n research group in Cambridge.
  •    
  • Smart parking from Carlo Ratti’s SENSEable City Laboratory.
  •    
  • Free pixels in urban space from Mitchell’s Smart Cities research group in MIT.
  •    
  • Robotic water droplets from Mitchell’s Smart Cities research group in MIT.

These projects, Mitchell says, intimate the emergence of a new stage in the evolution of cities. Preindustrial cities were mostly skeleton and skin — inert material arranged to provide shelter, security, and intensification of land use. In the industrial era, buildings and neighborhoods acquired more and more elaborate flow systems for water and energy supplies, sewage, ventilation, transportation, and trash removal. With their inputs, outputs, and artificial physiologies, they began to resemble living organisms. Today these organisms are developing artificial nervous systems that enable them to behave in intelligently coordinated ways. As the cities and their components become smarter, they begin to take new shapes and patterns. They become programmable. And the design of their software becomes as crucial — socially, economically, and culturally — as that of their hardware.

Sources

"

(Via URENIO Portal: Innovation, Environments of Innovation, Intelligent Cities and Regions.)

MIT: commercializing inventions

Ken Morse of MIT's Entrepreneurship center spoke at the iNano Centre  at Uni of Aarhus (DK) on 4 April 2006. MIT's impressive history of spinning off and starting up business from research goes more than 100 years (Arthur D. Little, Gillette, Campbell Soups) and have more recent names, such as Intel, Genentech, Bose, 3M . The Entrepreneurship Centre is a recent establishment and has made an impressive growth over the last 10 years. (visit their web to learn more Click here )

Morse was there to present the MIT experience. Could MIT's experience be transferred to Aarhus, Denmark, Europe? I don't think Morse cares as much about this as do the Danes. Many European countries are looking for models to emulate - and why not learn from the best?

Morse is a witty, sharp speaker delivering the points from MIT anecdotically - you can get most of the points from the web site. It was an enjoyable evening.

In general, I believe we cannot transfer much from MIT, because the history, the funding situation, the culture and so on and so on are so different. But Morse made some really interesting points, which are universal to my mind.

I was there and had brought my small video camera and have made a few clips of the most interesting points. The clips are socalled podcasts and my podcast site has the address PodPrivate if you search iTunes and you wish to subscribe. If you have a video iPod you can watch the 5 clips on your way to work on the train or in the airport).

Technical insert: Go to Apple's free iTunes page, download the free software and then search the Music Store for a Podcast called PodPrivate. Click here to get the clips using your RSS Reader.   If you wish to just download  Click here  to visit the server via your browser and download the clips as mp4-files.

I noted down 5 points worth remembering:

Point 1: Successful MIT spinoff teams have at least one business person onboard. 80% of "science solo" teams failed. (Back in the 90s I made some case studies of successful Danish innovators: same story.)

Point 2: Don't go far to get the business leads for an invention. As a rule the inventors know them (but you may have to drag it out of them, because they often don't know that they know, I could add as my experience. In the PodPrivate site, I have made an interview with a Spanish scientist concerning a new nanophotonic invention they made, which demonstrates that point).

Points 3: The skills of the tech transfer officer: A Networking Animal; Not an academic; a workaholic; doziastic, smart, thoughtful. (I wonder, which European universities can honour such skills in terms of remuneration? In my view European universities should "gang up" by region, nation or sector, outsource their TOs to give elbow room to these skillful staff members)

Point 4: The best inventions seldom become applied in fields, which the inventor thought of from the outset. How to deal with this dilemma? Make parties! Present inventions at pizza-beer etc parties; invite business people for informal "meetings".  (Goodbye old Technology push-Technology pull discussion! Welcome to Technology Catering ;- I have made a course about why this is so and what we can do: called Communicating TOPs Click here to read more )

Point 5: Universities could learn that Equity is better than Royalty - for the survival of the start-up company. 

Author: Max

TII Annual Conference 2006: Technology Theme

We now have more information on the workshops at the TII 2006 ANNUAL CONFERENCE, visit TII 2006 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Technology Theme Workshop 1:  Managing Technology and Intellectual Property Speaker: Andrea di Anselmo, META Consulting Title: To be decided Facilitator: Thomas Gering , Intellectual Asset Management Corporation Reporter: To be decided  This workshop will exchange best practice about technology exploitation including the specialist skills are needed for technical, financial and market due diligence. How is it best to protect IPR and advise those taking part in spin-outs and joint ventures? The speaker is director of a high-tech consultancy in Umbria whilst the facilitator formerly ran a company for commercialising research outputs from the Fraunhofer network in Germany.    1. Current situation: Not enough high tech SMEs 2. What we want: Increased IPR production/conversion 3. How we achieve it: Specialist skills, clusters, supply chains  
Workshop Topic 2 :   Impact of R&D on the Regional Economy Speaker: Leda Bologni, Aster Title: Implementing the Knowledge Economy Facilitator:Hans Rijckenberg, Sapience Reporter: To be decided  This workshop will discuss the critical connection between R&D and regional competitiveness.  How can Regional Economic and Innovation strategies help to implement the knowledge economy. What interventions work and how will this help EU enlargement process. The speaker works for a major economic development agency in Bologna and is leading a large EU funded project, called ERAIN, on the subject. 1. Current situation Low investment in R&D in EU regions 2. What we want A knowledge based regional economy 3. How we achieve it Market orientation of R&D, benchmarking funding for university-industry projects and supporting new jobs in R

The Free Liberal: RIM Was Wronged

EVEN WHEN SETTLED this case will not die

The Free Liberal: RIM Was Wronged: " March 09, 2006 RIM Was Wronged By Sheldon Richman For the last few years we've been reading that Research in Motion's popular mobile-email service, BlackBerry, may be shut down because the company 'infringed the patents' of a company called NTP. That's all the newspapers said. Curious readers would want to know more. Did black-clad RIM operatives break into NTP's office safe and steal the idea for mobile email? Did RIM spies tap the phones at NTP? Did RIM gumshoes tail NTP's engineers and eavesdrop on confidential conversations? No, nothing like that. 'There was never any dispute that Research in Motion Ltd., the Canadian firm that introduced the world to the BlackBerry in 1999, came up with its own technology to power the wireless e-mail device,' the Washington Post writes. But the BlackBerry resembled something already patented by NTP. It doesn't matter that RIM formulated its similar idea independently. Under the law, that's enough to get RIM into trouble. And trouble it indeed"

(Via .)

China makes first move in patent wars and sues a US company

China makes first move in patent wars and sues a US company: "found 2006-03-11 20:10:22"

(Via IP Newsflash.)

NSTI Nanotech Ventures 2006 Is Now Accepting Submissions

NSTI Nanotech Ventures 2006 Is Now Accepting Submissions: "Deadline for ‘seed’ to ‘early stage’ company submissions is Friday, March 10.

The NSTI Nanotech Ventures will take place May 8-9, 2006, at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston, Massachusetts.  Nanotech Ventures is considered an ideal forum for 'seed' to 'early-stage' companies to showcase their technologies, market advantages, and to search for funding.  Selected companies give 15-minute presentations to the audience, and benefit from on-site networking with the NSTI Nanotech Ventures Vetting Team, corporate capital, venture capital and multi-sector investment attendees.  The Nanotech Ventures Vetting Team includes IBM, Harris & Harris, UBS, and Garage Ventures.  To submit a venture, visit http://www.nsti.org/Nanotech2006/Development/ventures.html

"

(Via NSTI Nano World News™.)

TechConnect Plans To Welcome Thousands At Its Inaugural Summit in Boston

TechConnect Plans To Welcome Thousands At Its Inaugural Summit in Boston: "Deadline for IP and Venture Submissions For Summit Consideration is March 10.

TechConnect, a global technology outreach organization located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is committed to locating the world’s most promising IP and start-up companies. TechConnect has created a one of a kind community for innovators to demonstrate their early stage developments in various technology categories and connect them with investors and enterprises looking to bring these ideas to market.

The TechConnect Summit will be held on May 8-9, 2006 at the Boston Hynes Convention center. IP and Venture submissions will be peer reviewed by TechConnect’s Advisory Board, which includes more than 30 individuals representing top universities and companies from around the world. All accepted IP and Venture submissions will have the opportunity to present during match-making presentations at the Summit.

For more details about the TechConnect Summit, including special early registration discounts and exclusive sponsor opportunities, visit http://www.techconnect.org/Summit2006/index.html.
To submit an IP for Advisory Board consideration: http://www.techconnect.org/Summit2006/participate/IP/index.html
To submit a Venture for Advisory Board consideration: http://www.techconnect.org/Summit2006/participate/users/index.html"

(Via NSTI Nano World News™.)

THE WAR IS OVER: NTP and RIM Settle.

So there we are

THE WAR IS OVER: NTP and RIM Settle. : "

PatentlyOImage009After years of high-profile legal battles, NTP and Research-in-Motion (RIM) have reportedly settled their patent dispute over RIM’s BlackBerry system. According to the press release:

RIM has paid NTP $612.5 million in full and final settlement of all claims against RIM, as well as for a perpetual, fully-paid up license going forward. This amount includes money already escrowed by RIM to date.

The settlement, widely expected for the past year, will likely bring to a close the wild ride at NASDAQ. (RIMM).

An appropriate reader comment:

Actually, I’m rather sorry to see this settlement. All the media hype and nonsense, plus the fears of politicians of losing their service, seemed to be greatly contributing to patent reform momentum and to the Supreme Court taking more patent cases.

But at least the belated but initially effective RIM reexaminations of the patents in suit served to publicly demonstrate reexamination effectiveness in lowering settlement expectations. And without all the lawsuit publicity the reportedly cited obscure prior art Norwegian university publications would probably never have surfaced.

On the Reexaminations: A settlement could include a provision that NTP must return RIM's money if the patents were eventually invalidated. However, considering NTP's stance thus far, such a provision would be exceedingly unlikely. Consequently, I expect that the continuing reexamination of NTP's patents at the PTO will become more of a curiosity than a business concern. The only way that NTP can stop the reexamination process would be to capitulate to the PTO and thus abandon the patents.

 

"

(Via Patently-O: Patent Law Blog.)

China: Protection Of Intellectual Property In China - Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

China: Protection Of Intellectual Property In China - Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP: "John Orange and Sean Zhang visited China recently to assess the IP landscape. In this article, they provide a brief update of what is happening in China and how our clients may take advantage of the recent changes in China in formulating their global IP strategies."

(Via Mondaq.Com - Intellectual Property.)

UK pressure group calls for more science...

UK pressure group calls for more science...: "UK pressure group calls for more science and engineering funding"

(Via CORDIS News.)

Research spin-offs as an engine for innovative...

Research spin-offs as an engine for innovative...: "Research spin-offs as an engine for innovative companies"

(Via CORDIS Express.)

Global themes in biotechnology innovation

Global themes in biotechnology innovation: "Biotechnology hotspots are emerging around the world. This analysis profiles some of the trends emerging from a 38-region analysis of biotechnology capacities and activities around the world. Of note are the ways that some countries with limited resources are able..."

(Via About Biotech/Biomedical.)

Submarine Patent That Surfaced After 24 Years Costs Monsanto $100 million

Submarine Patent That Surfaced After 24 Years Costs Monsanto $100 million: "

The University of California won a $100 million plus settlement from Monsanto for patent claims that had been pending for over 24 years - a patent covering the growth hormone used to make cows produce more milk.  Monsanto reached a deal with the university just as the case was set to begin a jury trial.

As part of its settlement, Monsanto was granted an exclusive license to the university's patents for making recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a genetically-engineered bovine somatotropin (BST) that Monsanto sells under the brand name Posilac. About one-third of the dairy cows in the United States receive Posilac.

The University of California will get an upfront royalty payment of $100 million from Monsanto, and an ongoing royalty of 15 cents per dose of Posilac sold, with a minimum annual royalty of $5 million. Monsanto will pay the royalties through 2023, when the University of California's patents expire.

Three researchers at the University of California in San Francisco were the first to isolate and identify the genetic code for bovine growth hormone.  The university sued Monsanto in February 2004, after it received one of its patents. 

U.S. Patent No. 6,692,941, was filed February 15, 1990, which was a continuation of applications dating back to August 26, 1980!  The patent claims a DNA comprising a deoxynucleotide sequence coding for bovine growth hormone.  A transfer vector and an expression vector containing this DNA and microorganisms transformed by these vectors are also described.

The present invention discloses the cloning of a DNA coding for bovine growth hormone and the expression of the cloned DNA in microorganisms. In the process, mRNA coding for bovine growth hormone is isolated from bovine pituitaries, a reverse transcript (a cDNA copy) of the mRNA is prepared and inserted into a transfer vector.  The transfer vector is used to transform bacteria which express the cloned cDNA.

The FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH product, Posilac, for commercial use on November 5, 1993. A 90-day moratorium on the sale of rBGH ended on February 3, 1994.  Posilac went on sale the following day - 10 years before the UC patent issued but still 14 years after the UC patent was filed.

BST has been controversial since it was introduced, because its opponents claim it forces cows to produce more milk than they normally would produce and makes them susceptible to udder infections. Some groups consider the use of BST unhealthy for humans.

"

(Via Patent Baristas.)

Twenty Steps for Pricing a Patent

Twenty Steps for Pricing a Patent: "According to J. Timothy Cromley, 'in order to value a patent, you have to understand it.' Here are the bullet points from his paper entitled 'Twenty Steps for Pricing a Patent,' from the"

(Via Blawg Republic - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW NEWS.)

China bumps up research and development spending

China bumps up research and development spending: "China spent 236.7 billion yuan (about 29.19 billion US dollars) on research and development (R&D) in 2005, a report released by the National Bureau of Statistics shows."

(Via People's Daily Online.)

EXPLORING THE VALUE OF PATENTS! FROM SPRU

New publication - Meyer: "

Exploring the 'Value' of Academic Patents: IP Management Practices in UK Universities and their Implications for Third-Stream Indicators
Martin S. Meyer (SPRU, Helsinki University of Technology and Steunpunt O&O Statistieken) and Puay Tang (SPRU) February 2006

SEWP 143 Abstract / Download

"

(Via SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research.)

China issues incentive policies for innovation

The CHINES ARE COMING. WATCH OUT.

China issues incentive policies for innovation: "China's State Council issued Sunday incentive policies encouraging scientific and technological innovation."

(Via People's Daily Online.)

RIM INJUNCTION UNLIKELY? THINK AGAIN. So far, the...

Follow this incredible story - again- again: From Peter Zura

RIM INJUNCTION UNLIKELY? THINK AGAIN. So far, the...: " RIM INJUNCTION UNLIKELY? THINK AGAIN. So far, the RIM litigation has been existing in two parallel worlds between the courts and the USPTO, where 'what the USPTO giveth, the courts taketh away.' Yesterday's news on the USPTO issuing a final rejection on the '451 patent (which finally published late yesterday) appears to be the slow but inevitable downslide of NTP's patents.

However, until the patents are revoked (i.e., NTP exhausts its appeals), the courts must treat the pending NTP patents as enforceable documents. In other words, the USPTO rejections will have little, if any, impact on the judge's decision after the parties appear in court tomorrow.

While the news from the USPTO appears good for RIM, the existing caselaw tells a different story. In last year's Federal Circuit decision in MercExchange v. EBay, the court held that district courts must grant a preliminary injunction 'absent exceptional circumstances.' While the case is presently before the Supreme Court, it's still good law, and you can be sure that NTP will be citing copiously from the case. The relevant portions of the ruling are reproduced below:

MercExchange challenges the district court’s refusal to enter a permanent injunction. Because the 'right to exclude recognized in a patent is but the essence of the concept of property,' the general rule is that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged . . . To be sure, 'courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to deny injunctive relief in order to protect the public interest' . . . Thus, we have stated that a court may decline to enter an injunction when 'a patentee’s failure to practice the patented invention frustrates an important public need for the invention,' such as the need to use an invention to protect public health.

[I]n this case, the district court did not provide any persuasive reason to believe this case is sufficiently exceptional to justify the denial of a permanent injunction. In its post-trial order, the district court stated that the public interest favors denial of a permanent injunction in view of 'a growing concern over the issuance of business-method patents, which forced the PTO to implement a second level review policy and cause legislation to be introduced in Congress to eliminate the presumption of validity for such patents.' A general concern regarding business-method patents, however, is not the type of important public need that justifies the unusual step of denying injunctive relief.

Another reason the court gave for denying a permanent injunction was that the litigation in this case had been contentious and that if a permanent injunction were granted, the defendants would attempt to design around it . . . The court’s concern about the likelihood of continuing disputes over whether the defendants’ subsequent actions would violate MercExchange’s rights is not a sufficient basis for denying a permanent injunction. A continuing dispute of that sort is not unusual in a patent case, and even absent an injunction, such a dispute would be likely to continue in the form of successive infringement actions if the patentee believed the defendants’ conduct continued to violate its rights.

The trial court also noted that MercExchange had made public statements regarding its willingness to license its patents, and the court justified its denial of a permanent injunction based in part on those statements. The fact that MercExchange may have expressed willingness to license its patents should not, however, deprive it of the right to an injunction to which it would otherwise be entitled. Injunctions are not reserved for patentees who intend to practice their patents, as opposed to those who choose to license. The statutory right to exclude is equally available to both groups, and the right to an adequate remedy to enforce that right should be equally available to both as well. If the injunction gives the patentee additional leverage in licensing, that is a natural consequence of the right to exclude and not an inappropriate reward to a party that does not intend to compete in the marketplace with potential infringers.

"

(Via Peter Zura's Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog.)

Innovation smackdown: MIT vs. Harvard; From Innovationinsider

Innovation smackdown: MIT vs. Harvard: "

Smackdown wrestlers.jpg

For any MBA graduate or long-time business practitioner, the Harvard Business Review is often considered the touchstone of business excellence. By comparison, the MIT Sloan Management Review languishes in relative obscurity, eclipsed by its better-known sister publication, the MIT Technology Review. While doing a routine 'business innovation' search on Yahoo!, I noticed that both the Harvard Business Review and the MIT Sloan Management Review were purchasing sponsored search links, so I thought it might be interesting to see how the two publications stack up in terms of business innovation articles, especially since MIT and Harvard are blood rivals capable of some mean-spirited pranks located just across the river from each other in Cambridge. If this were a Friday night WWE Smackdown and these two schools were professional wrestlers, can you imagine the mayhem that would result by putting the Harvard Business Review and the MIT Sloan Management Review in the same ring together?

Somewhat surprisingly, the quality and depth of the business innovation thinking in the MIT publication surpassed that of the Harvard publication...

Business innovation articles in the current issue of the MIT Sloan Management Review: (1) Improving capabilities through industry peer neworks (2) Capturing the real value of innovation tools (3) Creating new markets through service innovation and (4) Reducing the risks of new product development.

Business innovation articles in the current issue of the Harvard Business Review: (1) The Why, What and How of Management Innovation by Gary Hamel and (2) Breakthrough Ideas for 2006.

The winner of this innovation smackdown by an easy margin: The MIT Sloan Management Review.

Tags:      

[image: World Wrestling Entertainment: SmackDown]

"

(Via Business Innovation 2005.)

Regional Innovation on the Internet

Regional Innovation on the Internet: "

Regional innovation on the Internet is a district of websites dealing with this theme. The representation is based on the MapStan Search (http://search.mapstan.net/).

Regional innovation websites are organized around an axis linking: (1) the IRE network, (2) the VERITE network, (3) URENIO Research Unit, (4) the ERIK network, (5) the RINNO database, (6) Cordis on regional innovation policy, the US Council of Competitiveness, UNIDO and OECD activities. 

MapStan is a search engine and cartography discovery tool. It uses the ‘Web Positioning System’ technology to give a map of Internet search.

MapStan Search first