- Why IP is so important: Only IP allows companies to own the innovations that allow them to differentiate their products and services, exclude competitors, attract customers and persuade them to pay a premium. By contrast, the constant pursuit of operational and financial "best practices" puts companies on an endless treadmill that enables them to keep up with their competitors, but never get ahead.
- Why intellectual assets are unaccounted for and ignored by leaders, including those who care about "best practices": Because intellectual assets are unseen, complex and often technical and difficult to manage, they are typically delegated to scientists, engineers and attorneys; the C-Suite focuses more on operational and financial management, which is, in most cases, less important than IP, though it may not seem so in a business world designed to measure and control industrial processes.
- Why the correlation between operational discipline and long-term profitability is tenuous, at best: Operational efficiency is no longer sufficient to ensure profitability; it is merely table stakes. In fact, it may not be necessary at all. The pharmaceutical industry is famously undisciplined and in good times spends lavishly, but historically it has generated enormous profits -- until recently when many blockbuster drugs began to lose their patent protection.
- The often-conflicting IP imperatives facing strategic decision makers: Putting IP at the center of strategy means making critical choices about when and how to share and collaborate on intellectual assets; when and how to control them and make them proprietary; and how to simplify both products and strategies in order to change the basis of competition. "These are the most strategic choices that companies face," Mr. Blaxill said.
- The sea change in corporate strategy: from "fast company" to "smart company": Just as the "cheap company" of the past (the one that pulled costs out of products) gave way to the "fast company" (which accelerated time to market and improved processes), the "smart company" creates, manages and protects the best suite of intellectual assets to achieve sustained competitive advantage. Strategy now focuses on transforming a business into a "company of ideas."
- The leadership imperative for "smart companies": IP professionals -- including lawyers, engineers and scientists -- should prepare to move themselves into and be fit to succeed in the senior ranks of business leadership. And general managers need to be conversant with IP in order to use it strategically.
- The shape and structure of a successful, IP-focused company: Although there isn't an ideal shape or structure that applies to every business, companies that are disproportionately focused on the creation and management of their innovation assets are typically the most profitable. In fact, some extremely successful companies are IP Pure Plays: They make no products and sell no services at all. They create and leverage IP -- an approach that puts them at the top of the food chain, with no natural predators.
- The questions investors should ask: Did this company invent something important? Do they own it? How does the company manage and value IP (e.g., Who is the chief IP officer and to whom does that person report)? What's the company doing to expand the strength of its IP position?
- The questions political leaders should ask: How do we build and defend the strategic reserves of intellectual assets that have made the American economy the envy of the world? What are U.S. regulators doing to defend the value of American innovation and protect it from piracy both at home and abroad? "America's greatest contribution to the world is innovation," Mr. Eckardt said, "and innovation that is controlled through IP ownership represents the hidden reserves that can drive a sustained economic recovery."
- Gillette, which alone and as a unit of Procter & Gamble, keeps tight control of its innovations through the strategic use of IP. Its shaving business is more profitable than printing money.
- Toyota, which has led the way in collaboration, forging an IP network and turning potential rivals, such as parts suppliers, into partners in its innovation keiretsu.
- IBM, which simplified its product architecture in order to facilitate collaboration on its dominant System 360 mainframes... and almost succeeded with the same strategy on the IBM PC. Sadly for IBM, it failed to keep control of key elements of its system architecture and lost control of the market to Microsoft and Intel.
- Patents. Who owns them, whether they are shared and how important they are to other companies.
- Companies. Which companies are leading and which are following. Who's at the center of the ecosystem and who's on the fringe. What positions companies have staked out for themselves, and where there is potential for collaboration and conflict.
- Inventors. Who is driving the innovation within your company and your competitors. Where collaboration is working and where it is absent.
- Investment. How dollars flow to intellectual assets, from what sources -- and what those investments reveal about potential winners and losers.
- Managers and Boards: The Invisible Edge argues that IP is not just the job of tech and legal executives; C-level and Board-level leaders need to make it a strategic priority, be comfortable with it and manage it as actively and skillfully as operational and financial performance. Many companies should de-emphasize traditional assets and operations and focus almost exclusively on IP.
- IP specialists: Their role is central, and they must prepare to move into and be fit to succeed in the senior ranks of business leadership. In fact, they need to develop better ways of communicating the strategic importance of the assets they manage to senior leadership. As much as senior leaders need to learn to "speak IP," IP specialists must learn to speak the language of business.
- R&D and technology specialists: They also must learn to communicate their value in C-suite language and measures so they can ensure that their organization understands that value-creation really emanates from R&D, not sales.
- Investors and financial analysts: They must learn to see and measure 'invisible' assets and to evaluate companies based on their ability to create, control and manage their IP. "While it is a maxim to some in the financial world that all publicly available information is already 'baked into' the valuation of companies, that's just not true. There's a wealth of publicly available information embedded in patents that few have taken into account. This means real opportunity for those who know how to make use of it," said Mr. Blaxill.
- Failed patent policy can be devastating: Xerox was brought down by an activist Federal Trade Commission that stripped the company of its ability to defend intellectual property.
- Japan got a free ride: U.S. anti-trust policies led to the rise of Japan -- a national economy built on IP "borrowed" from America. The Japanese miracle of the 1970s and 1980s was funded by the "world's greatest technology white sale": a gift from the U.S. government to Japanese industry.
- IP policy equals industrial policy: Policymakers should use the IP "lens" to track how national economies are faring and how globalization is really playing out. The competitive strength of emerging economies like China is reflected in the rapid evolution of policies that foster innovation, protect IP and establish it as the basis for economic competition.
Contact Information: Contact: Adria Greenberg Sommerfield Communications (212) 255-8386 adria@sommerfield.com