Wednesday whimsies

The 1709 Blog, which is dedicated to all things copyright, is running a competition to mark the launch of CLT's "Music and Intellectual Property" conference, which will be held in Central London on 8 December. Sounds like fun, with a strong cast of speakers and a chance to hear the previously-untold saga of how the IP aspects of the Glastonbury Festival get tackled.  The competition winner gets in for nothing, with free lunch too. Click here for details.

Thought-provoking graphics
for copyright owners 1
Thought-provoking graphics
for copyright owners 1I
Copying Without Infringing.  The closing date for the "Music and Intellectual Property" competition is, coincidentally, the day of another one-day conference by CLT, "Copying Without Infringing", which too has a competition offering complimentary admission and a free lunch.  The competition must be too difficult for IPKat readers, since very few entries have been received to date. The challenge is to find a decent anagram of the statutory phrase "fair dealing for the purposes of private study". Go on, you can do it! Email your entries to Jeremy with the subject line "Anagrams". Closing date 31 October. Conference programme here.

More on the IP Tsar.  Following recent posts on this blog (click here and work back) and the latest JIPLP editorial, the IPKat is now delighted to tell readers that there will be a free-of-charge public meeting to discuss the possible desirability and mechanics of introducing a US-style "IP Tsar", whether under that label or any other, in the UK and/or even Europe.  The date: Tuesday 23 November.  The venue: the London offices of Covington & Burling.  The time: 5.30pm to 7.30pm.  Mark your diaries and watch this space for programme details.

Inngot: a spelling pun -- "inn-"
from "innovation" and "ingot"
derived from a gold seam?
“Directory of innovation” goes national, is the slogan of Inngot, which claims to help businesses "unlock the value in their intellectual property".  Says the company, Inngot’s online service captures "not just registered IP, but also copyright, trade secrets, proprietary processes and a range of other intellectual assets. Its profiling system, known as “Goldseam”, also examines the development stage, knowledge make-up, benefits and market applications of a particular innovation, to build up a comprehensive picture of what makes it different and special".  Readers are invited to take a look and let the IPKat know what they think.
Wednesday whimsies Wednesday whimsies Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 Rating: 5


  1. Well, I spent fully five minutes on the Inngot website and I established the following:
    (1) I still don't really know what they actually do
    (2) None of them seem to have any technology background whatsoever
    (3) There is an emphasis on "intangibles" which may be (i) irony or (ii) ironic
    (4) Some CEO's tasked to set out a strategic vision may find Inngot's value-added service a vital benchmarking tool going forward. (See (3)(i), above)

  2. The Inngot home page does have a link to which makes extensive references to "intangibles" and contains information which explains the significance of such assets and the way that their values ought to appear on balance sheets under the new accounting regulations.

    Having been peripherally involved in valuing IP [mainly on the technical input side], my impression is that it is as much an art as a science [confirmed by some of the info at]. Possession of a crystal ball would definitely be an asset, but failing this, you need input from people who have knowlege of the business and insight into the way that technology is likely to develop.

    IP which might appear to be highly valuable today can be rendered worthless by developments in technology: Polaroid's patents were very effective in driving Kodak out of the instant picture market, but advances in digital photography would have have made them irrelevant by now had they still been in force. Likewise, ownership of the patents covering the MAC TV system looked set fair to be highly lucrative insofar as the EC had actually passed a directive requiring all new TVs to be fitted with a MAC decoder. Developments in Digital TV technology soon rendered MAC obsolete, and the directive was quietly withdrawn.

  3. I'm very sorry if one of you didn't find the website self-explanatory. We've been through a round of SEO that has helped our Google rankings but may have obscured our purpose! We are working on it at present.
    (1) what we actually do is provide a system whereby innovative organisations can define their IP and intangibles, derive an indicative valuation for them (developed with Grant Thornton), and publicise what they've got. The key purpose is to enable them to be leveraged for fundraising, licensing and collaboration.
    (2) I guess that depends what you mean by technology. We're not (primarily) scientists. But as a team we know a great deal about how to register assets. And one of our non-execs led the IP Wales initiative, so we know a bit about IP too.
    (3) I get the joke, but there is absolutely no irony here. Intangible assets account for three-quarters of the value attributed to many quoted companies. The traversty in the current system is that many firms can't leverage this value without selling the business. That's one of the things we're working to address.
    (4) a Dilbert fan perhaps? Me too.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.