Comments on: Friction & 'Warfighting' http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/2644/friction-and-warfighting/ 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: Duncan http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/2644/friction-and-warfighting/comment-page-1/#comment-1146 Duncan Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:02:57 +0000 http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=186#comment-1146 <p>.</p><p>Jeremy</p><p>Thanks very much - these are great (and entertaining) points.</p><p>The cartel point is nice - no friction, just the threat of a brick wall if you get it wrong.  (The bricks weighing about a ton and falling on the participants).</p> .

Jeremy

Thanks very much – these are great (and entertaining) points.

The cartel point is nice – no friction, just the threat of a brick wall if you get it wrong.  (The bricks weighing about a ton and falling on the participants).

]]> By: Jeremy Phillips http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/2644/friction-and-warfighting/comment-page-1/#comment-1145 Jeremy Phillips Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:53:51 +0000 http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=186#comment-1145 <p>One way of reducing friction is to seek to confine it only to those issues on which there is no consensus between the parties. Agreed statements concerning prior art are one way of helping to achieve this.</p> <p>A second is the unspeakable suggestion that the disputing parties in patent trials be forced to share a common expert, chosen by their own nominated experts. That way, expert-on-expert violence can be eliminated and we can concentrate on the real issues of infringement/invalidity instead.</p> <p>A third is to remind all litigants that every penny/cent/whatever they spend on litigating is a business declsion and that they could have spent the same sum on marketing, product development, paying a licence fee, exiting the market gracefully instead. </p> <p>A fourth is to remind litigants that, while IP litigation may be fruitful, persuading the competition authorities that the cartel you and your competitors can construct is beneficial can be even more so  --  and usually generates much less friction.</p> One way of reducing friction is to seek to confine it only to those issues on which there is no consensus between the parties. Agreed statements concerning prior art are one way of helping to achieve this.

A second is the unspeakable suggestion that the disputing parties in patent trials be forced to share a common expert, chosen by their own nominated experts. That way, expert-on-expert violence can be eliminated and we can concentrate on the real issues of infringement/invalidity instead.

A third is to remind all litigants that every penny/cent/whatever they spend on litigating is a business declsion and that they could have spent the same sum on marketing, product development, paying a licence fee, exiting the market gracefully instead.

A fourth is to remind litigants that, while IP litigation may be fruitful, persuading the competition authorities that the cartel you and your competitors can construct is beneficial can be even more so  –  and usually generates much less friction.

]]>