tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post3519565763057183684..comments2024-03-27T12:49:05.975+00:00Comments on IP finance: Open innovation in the business worldAnne Fairpohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02579190868405783459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post-36011382180269396792009-02-26T11:15:00.000+00:002009-02-26T11:15:00.000+00:00Thanks for the comment. I very much agree that ave...Thanks for the comment. I very much agree that aversion to risk is the major argument against open innovation -- change is always hard. But hopefully after reading a bit more about what open innovation actually is (not that different from a legal point of view) that some of this in-built FUD around open innovation will dissipate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post-37032033458329437322009-01-27T18:29:00.000+00:002009-01-27T18:29:00.000+00:00Very interesting read - the always interesting ope...Very interesting read - the always interesting openness debate. Anyhow, you asked for thoughts so I 'll give it a shot.<BR/><BR/>Firstly, the mere word open is as intriguing and promising as it is hard to define. Unfortunately it means that we run the risk of it loosings its power, should companies start claimin open innovation strategies left and right just because they start ecquiring IP or setting up some licensing schemes. There is a great report on the subject written by Daniel Sarefjord (available at LinkedIn), which I unfortunately must ask you to contact him for. He discusses different levels of openness through a visual model which, at least I believe, cathes the complexity in a good way.<BR/><BR/>Secondly I believe that the internet with the open source initiative spured this whole concept in a great way - however the best is yet to come, and will hopefully come in the "real" world. Interestingly consumer goods is where it has happened the most, with P&G's Connect and develop program (well described in an HBR article) and their new rivals Reckitt Benckisers' IdeaLink. Both benefit from in/out licensing but also from moving to a positive attitute towards "not invented here". The question is when other industries will catch on, more than just through patent pools, standards and consortia. Some new platforms have started to pop-up in the perhaps most research heavy industry of them all, biotech. A friend of mine, Tobias Thornblad, covers this in a blog we both contribute to (http://intangitopia.blogspot.com)<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, I think a big issue is how background, foreground and also sideground IP are handled in collaborations. A while back I looked for good references on how these issues are taken care of by large corporations or TTO's - however the results were not that promising. This seems to be either unchartered waters or an area where it is all about keeping your strategies secret. In order for collaborations/platforms/open innovation to really catch on - I believe that this issue must be more transparent so that engaged parties can feel sure about what their doing. Instead of not wanting to ever take the risk of someone "getting their hands on something proprietary". I personally think that people not wanting to take risks are the major argument against open innovation platforms - especially in non virtual settings.Marcus Malekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17303295413920715747noreply@blogger.com