On IP and secrecy Management for Innovation : the relevance of intellectual property rights to design-led start-up businesses

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 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 entrepreneur’s market entry, and how “bottlenecks” in the value chain can be by-passed through focusing on niche markets (Clarysse, Kiefer, 2011, p.72ff). Here Clarysse, Kiefer expand on Teece’s understanding of complimentary assets, which are thought of as the “additional resources and capabilities needed to bring a technology product to market” (Clarysse / Kiefer, 2011, p.80). Back in 1986 Teece analysed how these assets can increase a company’s chance to succeed in the industry. David Teece has further defined appropriability as “the environmental factors… that govern an innovator’s ability to capture the profits generated by an innovation.” (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

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

Dynamic IP Strategies for Design-led Start-ups

Design can be defined in many ways, all of which suggest that design solutions involve creative thought that nourishes the generation of ideas. Ideas constitute knowledge assets that are not protected through intellectual property rights (IPR). The latter are legally defined rights related to the solution that uses ideas. Traditionally designers work upon commission, thus relying on consultancy business models. The intellectual property that is generated in response to commissions is commonly licensed or assigned to the client and related to bespoke design solutions. The designer-entrepreneur uses a different approach. The motivation behind ‘an entrepreneurial act’ is ‘the identification of an emerging need or a new way to meet an existing need’ (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978, p.4). Such innovations are often fostered and commercialised independently by small businesses instead of being commissioned. Abernathy and Utterback argue that ‘the small entrepreneurial organization and the larger unit producing standard products in high volumes […] are at the opposite ends of a spectrum’ (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978, p.3). Consequently, this thesis focuses on individuals and small start-ups who seek to develop and market inventive design propositions that have a potentially disruptive market impact. It examines the significance and effectiveness of intellectual property (IP) in conjunction with the inventors’ ambitions to establish dominant designs within existing or emerging market environments. IP is understood here as formal and informal intellectual property rights (IPRs), as well as alternative ways of safeguarding knowledge, such as secrecy and open innovation options which can be used to secure freedom to operate. This study examines IP in relation to other business development factors such as finance and fundraising, access to complementary assets (Teece, 1986), as well as market access strategies. It uses a pragmatic approach, combining qualitative Grounded Theory analysis of data obtained through case studies with the analysis of a mixed-method survey into design right infringement. The thesis, which focuses first and foremost on product innovation, juxtaposes technology-led approaches which build on the use of patents, with design-driven approaches (Verganti, Dell’Era, 2014) which use design rights or no IP, and first-mover, i.e. a sales-driven approaches. The thesis presented here argues that an IP strategy can be seen as an aspect of business development involving a range of factors including formal and informal forms of IP, licensing and collaboration, and that these need to be managed in combination, and as a process which involves the strategy’s periodic revision in light of changing circumstances. This implies that well-managed IP strategies can enhance the dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano, Shuen, 1997) of businesses, i.e. the range and flexibility of possible responses to potentially unexpected changes in the market environment and in their financial position. The thesis produces a business development flowchart which can be used by designer-entrepreneurs to categorise and illustrate relevant business development factors as well as the dependencies between those. IP strategies are embedded in this chart and can therefore be managed in relation to surrounding business development factors such as complementary assets, market relations, and financial circumstances

IP, an interesting phenomenon : The relevance of patents for the design-led start-up business

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.’ (Clarysse, Kiefer, 2011, 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’ (Clarysse, Kiefer, 2011, p.93). This beckons the question what is the best IP strategy for a design-led start-up. Is a patent an effective means for start-ups to overcome competition? Clarysse, Kiefer also explain how the lack of complimentary assets can hinder an entrepreneur’s market entry, and how “bottlenecks” in the value chain can be by-passed through focusing on niche markets (Clarysse, Kiefer, 2011, p.72ff). Here Clarysse, Kiefer expand on Teece’s understanding of complimentary assets, which are thought of as the “additional resources and capabilities needed to bring a technology product to market” (Clarysse / Kiefer, 2011, p.80). Back in 1986 Teece analysed how these assets can increase or limit a company’s chance to succeed in the industry. David Teece has further defined appropriability as “the environmental factors… that govern an innovator’s ability to capture the profits generated by an innovation.” (Teece, 1986, p.287) He refers to IP as one of the most important factors in relation to appropriability. The paper proposed here seeks to discuss both appropriability and complimentary assets in order to establish a clear understanding of the differences between both, and how complimentary assets relate to a venture’s appropriability regime. This study focuses in particular on small-scale design-led start-up businesses, which have limited access to complimentary assets due to the development stage that they are in. The paper discusses the question to what extent access to exclusive IP may strengthen a company’s appropriability regime and thus compensate for the absence of various complimentary assets. In line with Grounded Theory principles as introduced by Strauss / Corbin, the applicant has conducted a range of qualitative case studies of award winning British designs including the so-called Seaboard, a novel music instrument, which uses an innovative pressure-sensitive touch interface, Cupris, a smartphone-enabled clinical device that transmits data between patients and healthcare practitioners, Yossarian Lives, a metaphor-based database search engine, Arctica, a highly sustainable ventilation system, KwickScreen, a portable, retractable, room divider that provides privacy solutions in hospitals, Squeeze, an inflatable hoodie that can be blown up to give wearers a comforting squeeze when they are feeling anxious, and Concrete Canvas, a flexible cement impregnated fabric that hardens on hydration to form a thin, durable water proof and fire proof concrete layer. Interviews with inventors of these technologies have revealed that designer-entrepreneurs commonly perceive patents and other exclusive IP as a necessary prerequisite for succeeding with their design business development. At the same time the design entrepreneurs have frequently expressed concerns about the costs involved in registering IP, and about the fact that their chances of successfully defending their patents in court may be limited due to the lack of available funds. Teece alongside others has also pointed out the ease, with which established businesses can often circumvent patents. This suggests that secrecy may be preferable over patenting as a means of securing exclusivity. However, a start-up business will always find it difficult to establish credentials, whilst sustaining secrecy about the particulars of the invention involved. How to attract equity investors, for example, if the technological details of an invention cannot be revealed? This paper will introduce an assessment chart that has been designed to map out complimentary assets, which ought to be at the focus of attention of design-led start-up businesses. It will further show how the use of the chart can help to measure a businesses strengths and weaknesses with regards to individual complementary assets, and how the results of the assessment can inform the designer-entrepreneur to what degree filing a patent may or may not be advisable. To critically evaluate the results of the interviews mentioned above, an additional series of interviews has been conducted with subject experts such as business coaches, economists, venture capitalists and other researchers in the field.Peer reviewe

Downloaded from

MATTHIAS HILLNER is a London-based freelance designer, a lecturer at London Metropolitan University and a visiting tuto

Typography Teaching and Learning, from Aesthetics to Ethics

Non peer reviewe

Virtual Typography

Non peer reviewe

Virtual Typography—A New Approach to Motion Graphics?

In an image-saturated world, type design can have a hard time standing out. In this Feature, Matthias Hillner looks at the new ways of using transitional typography and motion graphics to transmit information. With various examples of experimental work, advertisement strategies and signage, Matthias Hillner shows how innovative design has impacted us in the past, and where virtual typography might be headed in the futurePeer reviewe

'Virtual Typography': Time Perception in Relation to Digital Communication

Based on the argument that digital kinetic typography ought to be defined as virtual motion within three dimensions, this paper discusses the temporal-spatial relationship between the viewer and transitional text information. It juxtaposes concepts of three-dimensional static text arrangements with the composition of individually moving text elements. After differentiating between real-time-communication and experiential time, I will point out the potential of digital kinetic typography to decelerate the communication process