Afro-IP has just welcomed its 800th email subscriber, while IP Tango and Art & Artifice have both signed up their 500th email subscribers respectively. Elsewhere, on IP Draughts, Mark Anderson combines wit, wisdom and not a little literary skill in his post "Research Results: more moonbeams in a Jar?", on how (not) to deal with know-how that emerges somehow as the result of a research project. Finally, if you thought that the United States was the only country that has been chewing over the issue of first-to-file versus first-to-invent when it comes to patent filing, you may be amused or deeply troubled by a version of this debate that is reflected by Indian patent law, as Sai Deepak explains in a guest post for PatLit.
Every year since 2000, the Institute of European Studies of Macao (IEEM) and Katfriend Professor Anselm Kamperman Sanders (Maastricht University, The Netherlands) have organised an event on Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management. This year's programme comprises three activities:
* The Intellectual Property Law School (Monday 12 to Friday 16 May 2014, Macau Cultural Center)More information about these exciting events, in which guest Kat Alberto will be participating, is available here.
* The Intellectual Property Seminar (Monday 19 and Tuesday 20 May 2014, Macau) Trade Secrets,
* The Professional IP Update 2014 (Wednesday 21 May 2014, Hong Kong)
here (it's 104 pages long). Published by the European Commission, it leaves no stone unturned, and even manages to footnote an IP Finance blogpost by Mike Mireles, “A Kodak Moment” or “Rembrandts in the Attic”: The Valuation for the BlackBerry Patent Portfolio, here. Jackie has posted her thoughts on her company's website here, where she says (among other things):
"There is a clear need to increase market actors’ confidence and certainty in IP valuation methods as a way to stimulate IP transactions, to support IP based financing and to give companies the tools to provide information about their IP. This will also allow investors to better understand the business and the value of the company itself and even to provide decision makers with the required information to decide whether to enforce or to license IP.
However, the Expert Group has demonstrated that it is not the lack of valuation methods per se, or even standards for valuing IP that are missing, but rather other barriers that are having a greater influence on business and lenders. As IP is, by its nature, innovative and therefore different, each case for valuation requires investigation, rather than having an automated approach to IP valuation.
As a result, IP valuation of a company’s assets is an opinion, at a particular point in time – similar in many respects to the way that a legal opinion is given [how refreshing, says Merpel, that an IP valuation can be something other than the inevitable and unarguable consequence of the application of unchallengeable criteria ...]. Although an informed layman might proffer a good guess, ... in the same way that one cannot automate the judgement on a law suit, one cannot automate judgement on an independent IP valuation. There are many factors involved and evidence and purpose can have a large impact.
The valuation of IP assets is complicated by the fact that no two IP assets are the same. This is inherently the case when IP is protected by rights such as patents and trademarks, where a requisite for obtaining such rights is that the IP does not already exist. The uniqueness of IP makes comparisons with other IP difficult, thereby limiting the usefulness of comparison based pricing. As a result, valuations are often based on assumptions about the IP asset’s future use, what important milestones will be met and what management decisions will be taken [well said!]. ...".