13,053 research outputs found
On IP and secrecy : The relevance of intellectual property rights to design-led start-up businesses
This paper will unveil how design-led start-up businesses can enhance their growth potential through securing exclusive access to intellectual property (IP). Many design-led start-up companies commonly see themselves confronted with a dilemma in that they need funds for the design development of their offerings, prototyping, field tests etc., as well as for overheads on the one hand, and for IP on the other. In their book, 'The Smart Entrepreneur', Clarysse and Kiefer claim that 'Patents are particularly important when your business is not close to market, because the exclusivity afforded by a solid patent can buy you some time by preventing competitors from encroaching on your idea while you develop applications.' (p.127) The UK Design Council on the other hand suggests to 'Approach patenting with caution. Multinational cover is expensive and premature filing can do more harm than good' (www.designcouncil.org.uk). Clarysse and Kiefer admit that '...a patent suit can cost $10-15 million and drag on for several years' (p.93). This beckons the question as to what is the best IP strategy for a design-led start-up. Is a patent an effective means for start-ups to overcome competition? In search for an answer, this paper will show a range of case studies of award winning British designs including the SEA Interface, a patent-pending platform technology for building pressure-sensitive touch interfaces, Cupris, a smartphone-enabled clinical device that transmits data between patients and healthcare practitioners, Yossarian Lives, a novel metaphor-based database search engine, and Arctica, a highly sustainable ventilation system. The inventors of these technologies will be interviewed in relation to their IP strategy, and in relation to their personal views on the international patenting system. The comparative study of interviews will identify the best approach to IP protection for design entrepreneurs whose funds are limited. Through reconciling the seemingly opposed views expressed by the Design Council Design Council on the one hand, and Clarysse and Kiefer on the other, this paper will discuss how designers can optimize the form and timing for IP protection for their start-up businesses. The author has previously received a business development award from NESTA (The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts), and was subsequently involved in the Design London business incubator scheme, which was the birthplace of some of the ventures listed above. He is now studying for PhD at the Department for Service Design at the Royal College of Art in London, UK.Peer reviewedSubmitted Versio
On IP and secrecy Management for Innovation : the relevance of intellectual property rights to design-led start-up businesses
In their book, âThe Smart Entrepreneurâ, Clarysse and Kiefer claim that âPatents are particularly important when your business is not close to market, because the exclusivity afforded by a solid patent can buy you some time by preventing competitors from encroaching on your idea while you develop applications.â (p.127) The UK Design Council on the other hand suggests to âApproach patenting with caution. Multinational cover is expensive and premature filing can do more harm than goodâ (www.designcouncil.org.uk). Clarysse and Kiefer admit that ââŠa patent suit can cost $10-15 million and drag on for several yearsâ (p.93). This beckons the question what is the best IP strategy for a design-led start-up. Clarysse, Kiefer also explain how the lack of complimentary assets can hinder an entrepreneurâs market entry, and how âbottlenecksâ in the value chain can be by-passed through focusing on niche markets (Clarysse, Kiefer, 2011, p.72ff). Here Clarysse, Kiefer expand on Teeceâs understanding of complimentary assets, which are thought of as the âadditional resources and capabilities needed to bring a technology product to marketâ (Clarysse / Kiefer, 2011, p.80). Back in 1986 Teece analysed how these assets can increase a companyâs chance to succeed in the industry. David Teece has further defined appropriability as âthe environmental factors⊠that govern an innovatorâs ability to capture the profits generated by an innovation.â (Teece, 1986, p.287) He refers to IP as one of the most important factors in relation to appropriability. In search for an answer to the question whether or not a patent constitutes an effective means for start-ups to overcome competition, this paper will show a range of case studies of award winning British designs including the SEA Interface, a patent-pending platform technology for building pressure-sensitive touch interfaces, Cupris, a smartphone-enabled clinical device that transmits data between patients and healthcare practitioners, Yossarian Lives, a novel metaphor-based database search engine, and Arctica, a highly sustainable ventilation system. The inventors of these technologies will be interviewed in relation to their IP strategy, and in relation to their personal views on the international patenting system. The comparative study of semistructured qualitiative interviews will help identify the best approach to IP protection for design entrepreneurs whose funds are limited. Through reconciling the seemingly opposed views expressed by the Design Council Design Council on the one hand, and Clarysse and Kiefer on the other, this paper will discuss how designers can optimize the form and timing for IP protection for their start-up businesses. The author has previously received a business development award from NESTA (The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts), and was subsequently involved in the Design London business incubator scheme, which was the birthplace of some of the ventures listed above. He is now studying for PhD at the Department for Service Design at the Royal College of Art in London, UK.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio
Patents, Thickets, and the Financing of Early-Stage Firms: Evidence from the Software Industry
The impact of stronger intellectual property rights in the software industry is controversial. One means by which patents can affect technical change, industry dynamics, and ultimately welfare, is through their role in stimulating or stifling entry by new ventures. Patents can block entry, or raise entrants' costs in variety of ways, while at the same time they may stimulate entry by improving the bargaining position of entrants vis-Ă -vis incumbents, and supporting a "market for technology" which enables new ventures to license their way into the market, or realize value through trade in their intangible assets. One important impact of patents may be their influence on capital markets, and here we find evidence that the extraordinary growth in patenting of software during the 1990s is associated with significant effects on the financing of software companies. Start-up software companies operating in markets characterized by denser patent thickets see their initial acquisition of VC funding delayed relative to firms in markets less affected by patents. The relationship between patents and the probability of IPO or acquisition is more complex, but there is some evidence that firms without patents are less likely to go public if they operate in a market characterized by patent thickets.
Is Japan's Innovative Capacity in Decline?
This paper investigates changes in the output and productivity of research and development activities in Japanese manufacturing firms over the 1980s and 1990s. Evidence from aggregate patent and R&D statistics and a micro-level analysis of R&D productivity at the firm-level suggest that there has been a slowdown in the growth of Japanese research productivity in the 1990s. The paper goes on to suggest possible explanations for this slowdown and reviews some of the steps Japanese firms are taking to increase the effectiveness of their R&D. The paper presents empirical evidence concerning the impact of one of these steps the creation of technology alliances with U.S. firms on Japanese innovative output.
Entrepreneurship in biotechnology: The case of four start-ups in the Upper-Rhine Biovalley.
This paper explores entrepreneurship in biotech through the in depth analysis of four new ventures located in the Upper-Rhine Biovalley. One of the strengths of this paper is the presence of both successful cases of entrepreneurship and of cases of failures. This gives the opportunity to discuss the role of several factors on the performance of a new biotech venture. Three points particularly comes out of this study: The importance of public science, without which new biotech firms could hardly exist; the role of the patent system, the importance of which we link to the business model adopted by the firm; and the importance of collaborations, which we study through the concept of distributed entrepreneurship.Intellectual property rights, patents, science, distributed entrepreneurship, collective invention.
International Mobility of Engineers and the Rise of Entrepreneurship in the Periphery
entrepreneurship, knowledge economy, start-ups, information technology, venture capital, China, India, USA
- âŠ