IP Faber :: www.ipfaber.com

20 January, 2009

Arriva Obama: quale politica per l’innovazione?

arcobaleno-in-una-manoGli esperti U.S. in Proprietà Intellettuale non si aspettano grandi cambiamenti dal governo Obama nel loro settore (fonte IAM Magazine).

Eppure il programma del nuovo Presidente che si insedia oggi alla Casa Bianca segue un’equazione di segno opposto: occorre rendere più competitivi gli Stati Uniti e, per farlo, occorre incoraggiare l’innovazione.

I principali strumenti indicati da Obama nel proprio programma per raggiungere questi obbiettivi sono:

– agevolare gli investimenti in Ricerca e Sviluppo (rendendo anche permanente il cosidetto “R&D tax credit“);

– riformare il sistema dei brevetti al fine di garantire l’accesso alle registrazioni di brevetti di qualità in tempi brevi, limitando altresì inutili e costosi contenziosi;

– contrastare il dilagante fenomeno della contraffazione di matrice cinese e le lacune nell’enforcement dei diritti di marchio e d’autore da parte dello stesso governo cinese;

– potenziare lo studio e la conoscenza delle materie scientifiche, matematiche, ingegneristiche a tutti i livelli;

– garantire che internet rimanga rete aperta, spazio di libera circolazione delle informazioni e che la titolarità dei media sia il più possibile diversificata.

Garantire il rafforzamento dell’innovazione è indubbiamente la miglior ricetta di politica economica per riportare un paese su un piano di forza competitiva che lo ponga al riparo dagli effetti negativi di crisi economiche nazionali e sovranazionali sul medio e lungo periodo.

Non resta che attendere gli sviluppi pratici di questo programma nei prossimi mesi per comprendere se davvero –  per quanto riguarda l’innovazione e la proprietà intellettuale – il nuovo Presidente statunitense saprà arrivare alla “sostanza”, come per altri ambiti molti confidano.

(IP Faber: management, coaching e consulenza mirata alle aziende sulla proprietà intellettuale e l’innovazione. Per maggiori informazioni, clicca qui)

Creative Commons License Photo credit: Laurence & Annie

Advertisements

26 November, 2008

Current TV is really… current

Filed under: events, internet, news — Tags: , , , — Enrico @ 11:40 am

current-tv-vc2-premiereOld TV set is crossing new internet media and social network: please meet Current TV, the tv for the rest of us.

At CineShaw in Turin last week, we had the opportunity to meet Davide Scalenghe, prodution manager for VC2 Current TV Italy, the italian branch of the now famous new tv and internet network Current TV (the TV network supported by Al Gore). 

Davide gave a presentation of the new concepts (and business model) of its company, talking about new exciting things and some problems difficult problems (financing new ideas, product quality, democracy).

Current TV is basically a user generated content tv, well, not entirely. According to Davide, 1/3 of the contents on air are made by users, the rest is either picked up on the net or produced by the TV itself. Part of the success of the new-concept TV is its social network oriented vision: users can vote and comment on the company website single short films (called “pods”) and those more voted are then put on air also on the TV channel (even though every pod remains always available on the website as well): so that users are currently able to decide what to watch…

To me there were a couple of very interesting points: the importance of making good films/pods (and efforts made by CurretTV crew to educate and train freelance film makers to shot good-made-films) and the business model, which is strictly tied to the problem of aquiring proprietary rights on films.

At Current, pods choosen to be on TV channel are paid for (from 500 to 1k dollars/euros each) but someshort films are also sponsored by the TV channel, which assign to its network of videomakers a job for a certain price. This way the right to broadcast the pods are given to Current TV.

Some money comes in from Companies willing to pay users/videomakers for making new and original tv spots that are then put on the web or on the Current TV channel.

Discussion ignited when somebody asked what differentiated CurrentTV from other user generated content networks like youtube or blip….

Davide fired back and explained why they are different: the internet website enables and empowers the channel programming, and the unique relationship between  the web and the normal tv set associated with the ugc  (user generated content) pods and the independent view (and money) are key factors.

23 January, 2008

No confusion between.. Idea and Ikea EU TM

Filed under: events, marchi, marketing, news, trademark — Eva Callegari @ 1:17 pm

The application filed by Ikea before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Case T. 112/06) was rejected on 16 January 2008.
On one side there was the following figurative trademark
Idea (obtained within the Class regarding funiture):
0002839.gif
On the other side there was the following figurative trademark
Ikea:
0001096.gif
The Court of First Instance
observed that the above TMs are visually and conceptually dissimilar, with only a low degree of aural similarity. Therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion beween the marks, despite the identical nature of the goods and the reputation of the Swedish TM: in fact the perception of the marks by the average consumers, who tends to be observant in these cases, is mostly visual and conceptual, not aural.
The aural similarity is irrelevant as, effectively, the consumers pay attention on choosing furniture and rarely purchase it just aurally.
(IP Faber constantly takes care of your TM and brand strategy: contact us)

L’appello presentato da Ikea dinanzi al Tribunale di Primo Grado delle Comunità Europee (Case T. 112/06) è stato rigettato, con decisione del 16 Gennaio 2008.
Si trattava del marchio figurativo Idea (concesso per la Classe merceologica dell’arredamento) rispetto al marchio figurativo Ikea (entrambi sopra riportati).
Il Tribunale di Primo Grado ha osservato che detti marchis sono visivamente e concettualmente diversi, con solamente un limitato grado di somiglianza di suono. Pertanto non vi è confondibilità tra i marchi, nonostante l’identica natura dei prodotti cui si riferiscono e la notorietà del marchio svedese: infatti la percezione dei marchi da parte del consumatore medio, che tende ad essere attento in questi casi, è prevalentemente visiva e concettuale, non uditiva.
La somiglianza dal punto di vista uditivo dei due marchi è irrilevante visto che, in realtà, i consumatori dedicano attenzione nel scegliere questi prodotti e raramente si limitano ad ordinarli solamente a voce.
(IP Faber si prende cura costantemente dei tuoi marchi e della tua strategia di brand: contattaci)

3 December, 2007

Joseph Straus and the Intellectual Property Global Warming

Filed under: brevetti, dibattito, events, news, patent, thoughts — Enrico @ 6:48 pm

Proof of Global Warming

In his refreshing, entertaining and interesting view about the IP situation given at the speech for the 4 International IP awards in Venice, Professor Joseph Strauss (Director of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property in Munich) made a clear statement: the IP situation is becoming increasingly difficult and in the foreseeable future emerging countries like China, India, Russia, East Europe and Latin America will be adding more and more pressure on IP pubblic offices. Today the backlog for patent application has reached an incredible number: 3 millions (worldwide, whereas the US alone have a ¼ of the entire number, more than 800.000 applications on filing).

What is the current situation? Backlog + increasing number of patent applications = 2 powerful factors that are jeopardising the future of the patenting system.
What is the consequence? Big pressure on patent offices worldwide, on businesses, on courts of justice. This could turn out to be a global warming for the IP world!

Well, this is not exactly what this clever Professor thinks: he describes a couple of reasons why this shouldn’t be the case:
1. Armonisation: it is necessary to coordinate powers and efforts of the IP offices worldwide (Mr. Straus recommends that EPO and Europe in particularly should be at the forefront of this consolidation)
2. Apply the existing rules, but strictly. (You can read this as: the innovative jump of an invention should  really be innovative.)

Prof. Joseph Straus was also able to point out the only way we can “manage” the future. In the innovation era, he said, you have to reward only the real innovation!

And we think he’s right.؀

25 November, 2007

IP innovation for Venice and its lagoon

Filed under: brevetti, events, news, patent, Technology, thoughts — Tags: , , , — Enrico @ 11:36 am

Composite wood poles

Fabrizio Bettiol is the General Director of a small company nearby Venice. This charismatic dynamic businessman was invited to present his patented invention to the floor of the IP International Conference held in Venice: composite wood 12m long poles ready to be planted in the Lagoon of Venice. With a population of 110.000 poles in the lagoon, Mr Bettiol enters in a niche but very valuable market.

He doesn’t want to stop here: external wooden floors, floor bridges and pontoons, deckings and many other applications come from his innovative company, Greenwood, a subsidiary of BiZeta Group.

The most important part of his speech was dedicated to the consequences of his new patented invention: not only he managed to increase the turnover (and the profit, we presume) for his company, but he also indicated major R&D gains, strategic repositioning, competitive advantages, opening of new markets

(Greenwood poles in Venice, photo courtesy of Greenwood)

23 November, 2007

IP protection as competitive advantage

Filed under: dibattito, events, patent, thoughts — Tags: , , , , , — Enrico @ 10:42 am

Chain design

Massimo De Benedetti was a speaker at the Venice IP International Conference held on the San Servolo island, at the Venice International University.

We like this Fiat man, a portfolio manager for the CRF (the subsidiary overlooking the IP portfolio for the Fiat Group of Companies).
He said simple to understand things, mainly related to his own working experience, explaining how the value chain is changing for this intensive industrial and mechanics enabled Group .
This value chain was: R&D -> Manufacturing -> Sales ->Profit
And now is becoming more like: R&D -> IPR -> Licenses ->Profit

The key here is licensing.
Mr. De Benedetti focused on this issue: if IPRs are becoming a large part of your assets, you have to deploy a clear strategy: keep important and core technologies (=do not license), license important no-core technologies (for cashing in), and dispose of unused and not important IPRs.

He then made a good point: what is not core to you, could be important to others, so try to define your goals as a company and don’t loose money and resources to manage IPRs that don’t count for your company: sell them or license them to others. It could be a win-win situation.

(Chain design, photo courtesy of Matasano)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.