Comments on: Grand (IP) Strategy http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/264/grand-ip-strategy/ Trusted advisors to the world's most innovative companies Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:10:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ventsi http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/264/grand-ip-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-1192 Ventsi Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:52:10 +0000 http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=264#comment-1192 <p>I agree with your opinion Duncan. IP strategy should be part of the overall strategy of a company, so it will be most effective. <br />Unfortunately, the views of Allan, that many companies have no IP strategy but only IP tactics is true. Many companies do not believe that IP strategy is crucial for them and because of that they having concluded that it is not worthwhile to be developed. <br />But the role of us as specialists in intellectual property is to convince companies of the need for IP strategy that would lead to benefits for them. <br />Maybe we should develop a new direction in the field of intellectual property- IP PR. </p> I agree with your opinion
Duncan. IP strategy should be
part of the overall strategy of a company, so it will be most effective.

Unfortunately, the views
of Allan, that many companies have no IP strategy but only IP tactics is
true. Many companies do not
believe that IP strategy is crucial for them and because of that they having concluded
that it is not worthwhile to be developed.

But the role of us as
specialists in intellectual property is to convince companies of the
need for IP strategy that would lead to benefits for them.

Maybe we should develop a
new direction in the field of intellectual property- IP PR.

]]> By: Duncan http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/264/grand-ip-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-1191 Duncan Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:40:57 +0000 http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=264#comment-1191 <p>Hey, thanks Andrew - great points and great to have your comments.<br />I should say that I don't quite agree with Allan's point about IP Strategy being tactics - tactics are not strategy.<br />Even IP Companies need to be thinking about HR, Marketing, PR, Sales, Legal, Business Development, etc,- so I think the concept of Grand Strategy still applies to them</p> Hey, thanks Andrew – great points and great to have your comments.
I should say that I don’t quite agree with Allan’s point about IP Strategy being tactics – tactics are not strategy.
Even IP Companies need to be thinking about HR, Marketing, PR, Sales, Legal, Business Development, etc,- so I think the concept of Grand Strategy still applies to them

]]> By: Andrew Watson http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/264/grand-ip-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-1190 Andrew Watson Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:38:42 +0000 http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=264#comment-1190 <p>Good debate. </p> <p>I do think the challenge in selling anything other than legal services (contracts, acquiring patents etc) there is an interesting challenge of "what are we". We at ipVa wrestled with this for some while. We started with what we are not--a law firm or a firm of patent attorneys. With what we are we debated a business consultancy with an IP edge is where we ended up. </p> <p>We do strategy. Though I'd agree that with a few exceptions (mainly IP companies-see below) the IP strategy hangs off the overall, what you call Grand Strategy. I'd call it strategy (it involves the purpose, the vision, the implementation) and giving it that title means it is easy for our clients to understand what we do and where we fit. It also (as a help for anyone else setting out down the road we went down) really helps to answer the "what are you guys" question?</p> <p>The exception to the rule are IP companies. By which we mean companies with an IP business model-particularly IP and technology licensing companies which do not manufacture or sell products but enabling technology. There IP is the business. With those IP strategy and business strategy are almost indistinguishable. </p> <p>Good debate. Asever it increseses the depth of understanding of who does what in this nascent area. </p> <p> </p> <p>Andrew</p> Good debate.

I do think the challenge in selling anything other than legal services (contracts, acquiring patents etc) there is an interesting challenge of “what are we”. We at ipVa wrestled with this for some while. We started with what we are not–a law firm or a firm of patent attorneys. With what we are we debated a business consultancy with an IP edge is where we ended up.

We do strategy. Though I’d agree that with a few exceptions (mainly IP companies-see below) the IP strategy hangs off the overall, what you call Grand Strategy. I’d call it strategy (it involves the purpose, the vision, the implementation) and giving it that title means it is easy for our clients to understand what we do and where we fit. It also (as a help for anyone else setting out down the road we went down) really helps to answer the “what are you guys” question?

The exception to the rule are IP companies. By which we mean companies with an IP business model-particularly IP and technology licensing companies which do not manufacture or sell products but enabling technology. There IP is the business. With those IP strategy and business strategy are almost indistinguishable.

Good debate. Asever it increseses the depth of understanding of who does what in this nascent area.

 

Andrew

]]> By: Duncan http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/264/grand-ip-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-1189 Duncan Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:22:56 +0000 http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=264#comment-1189 <p>Thanks Allan - nice points</p> Thanks Allan – nice points

]]>