Archive for June, 2014
Michael D. Moberly June 26, 2014 ‘A long form blog where attention span really matters’.
So, why are these intangible assets being targeted by economic – competitive advantage adversaries…?
Respectfully, let me re-draw readers’ attention to the various examples of intangible assets previously described (identified) and the fact that intellectual property are merely one type/category of intangible asset, albeit a prominent one.
So, why are intangible assets being targeted by global economic – competitive advantage adversaries?There are, in my judgment, multiple reasons why, which I’m confident experienced reader practitioners will find agreement, i.e.,
- to appropriate the words of the 1970’s bank robber Willie Sutton, it’s because intangible assets are where 80+% of most company’s value, competitive advantages, and profitability originate and are ‘deposited’.
- most intangible assets, once stolen, compromised, or infringed, can be used – applied in competing products and/or services as well as having the potential for being converted for use in unrelated products or services, in other words, they are often readily monetizable or comercializable, in the right hands.
- there is a consistent and often global demand for one or multiple intangible assets like those described above, a demand which is relatively barrier free insofar as having numerous market entry points globally where intangible assets can be sold, bartered, exchanged, or melded into competing or other products or services, etc.
Role of corporate security…
A professional acquaintance, Mr. Greg Acton, served as Director of Global Security for a major telecom – consumer electronics’ company in California. The company had invested heavily in R&D over a period of 12 to 18 months on new and perhaps ‘game changing’ technologies to be incorporated into its long time staple, globally branded, and primary consumer product.
Upon embarking on this initiative, the company’s stock price was experiencing a consistent downward spiral, which, in many respects was due largely to numerous new and well financed competitors entering the market space coupled with the sense that this company’s product had not kept pace with newer, multi-functional technologies which consumers were readily embracing in other brands.
Without over dramatizing the circumstance, there was indeed a demoralizing sense of product – technology stagnation regarding the company’s staple product and the overall brand.
As is prudent with many electronics – telecom firms, this company had timed its R&D and product launch to coincide with the annual consumer electronics show in Las Vegas. This company, as many before it, believed a key to the success of a product’s launch, financially as well as regaining consumer confidence in its product, and by extension its brand, lie in part, in retaining a consumer teasing level of secrecy shrouded around its new product, which as readers recognize is quite common in this sector and perhaps perfected by Steve Jobs and Apple.
The tactical and strategic intent of this shroud of secrecy would be to secure domination, albeit perhaps fleeting, of the electronics show’s dynamics, coupled with the immediate commencement of a strong marketing blitz designed to breathe new and sustainable life into the company, its brand, and its products.
In this, as in many other similar circumstances, this company’s, Mr. Acton played a very significant role insofar as assuming substantial responsibilities for ensuring the company’s new product, it’s planning, technology supply chain, and prototypes literally remained devoid of any leakage throughout the almost two years of R&D and testing phases up to the precisely scheduled time and date of its well hyped public offering at the consumer electronics show.
In this instance, Mr. Acton, clearly a seasoned and well respected ‘silicon valley’ veteran understood the significance of his responsibilities to this product launch along with the extraordinary value of the numerous and contributing intangible assets, all of which would be in play, particularly, the company’s reputation, image, and consumer goodwill.
As I’m confident readers understand, the intangibles which Mr. Acton recognized and effectively oversaw and safeguarded throughout this 20+ month product development and testing period were conservatively worth multiple millions of dollars in potential sales to the company in addition to rejuvenating its reputation, market share, as well as favorably affecting the value of the company as a whole.
Had there been inadvertent or purposeful public leakage by an economic and/or competitive advantage adversary (internally, externally) about this product and its launch in advance of the consumer electronics show, it would have, among other things, allowed ample time for the ever present array of global technology critics and competing firms to mount consumer directed offensives against the product intended to minimize and/or undermine its improvements and consumer ‘likeability’, etc.
Much to the credit of Mr. Acton, there were absolutely no known advance (adverse) leakages. What’s more, the stock price of this publicly traded company shot up 312% by the close of business on the day of its highly public launch at the consumer electronics show. Another metric worth noting is that in addition to the aforementioned stock price gain, the company’s vice president of marketing informed Mr. Acton that the company had spent $1M on marketing the lead up and public announcement. In return for sustaining the product proprietary status, the company received an estimated fifty times that amount in product advertising, at no cost to the company, through the various and globally connected media portals in place at the consumer electronics show.
So what was the contributory value of this CSO’s commitment to ‘no leakage’…?
Perhaps first, and foremost, it laid the essential foundations for the company to fully capitalize and otherwise exploit its presence at the consumer electronics show which very rapidly converted to stock analysts and stock market share price favorables.
So, is this sufficient rationale for not only inviting, but ensuring CSO’s and other relevant security personnel are comfortably seated, with a voice, at the proverbial R&D table from the outset of an initiative, I believe it is!
CSO’s, in a new role as intangible asset strategist and risk specialist, working collaboratively and in unison with a company’s internal and/or external R&D unit and relevant and various supply chains, are uniquely positioned to recognize and differentiate the more valuable and competitive advantage driving elements of promising research. One way is by virtue of their proximity to and operational familiarity with the global expansion of economic and competitive advantage adversaries which are consistently motivated by nation state mandates or monetary remuneration to acquire other entities’ valuable intangible assets.
But what makes a CSO’s voice heard and duly considered…?
Again, first and probably foremost, are CSO’s receptivity to recognizing the relevance and importance of elevating their existing skill sets to acquiring an operational familiarity with their company’s intangible assets. In other words, acquire a level of operational proficiency with intangibles that provides CSO’s with the professional comfort associated with becoming an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist!
Straightforwardly, that would entail recognizing the strategic importance and necessity to develop and respectfully execute ‘under the radar’ practices and processes, all of which are designed to sustain control, use, ownership and monitor the value, materiality, and risk to select intangible assets, distinguished as having the most promising contributory value to a specific or multiple (on-going) proprietary (R&D) initiatives and/or projects along with the array of business transactions a company may regularly engage in which intangible are routinely in play.
This would include conducting (intangible asset) due diligence for such transactions as a merger, acquisition, strategic alliance, or other business activities in which intangible assets are routinely in play and integral to the favorable outcome of a deal.
Reader comments and inquires are always welcome at 314-440-3593 (St. Louis) or firstname.lastname@example.org
Michael D. Moberly June 25, 2014 ‘A long form blog where attention span really matters’!
Mis-portraying what’s really being targeted…
Having been actively engaged in the intangible asset arena since the early 1990’s as an academic investigative researcher and now as an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist, I am hard pressed to understand why the administration, cabinet secretaries, corporate c-suites, and various ‘talking head’ pundits consistently portray the target(s) of global economic and cyber espionage as bein intellectual property, i.e., patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc.
My suspicions are that continuing to purposefully mis-portray these events as being exclusively related to intellectual property events, they are intended to elevate business and public awareness about by using a singularly simplistic phrase because officials presume the public is unable to understand the intricacies and distinctions of stolen – misappropriated information-based intangible assets delivered in other formats. So government officials and copy cat punditry continue to portray economic and cyber espionage and data/information mining with presumably the more understandable and common term of intellectual property.
A distinction without a difference…?
I urge readers not to characterize the above perspective as merely constituting a distinction without a difference. It is indeed much more. That is to say, a company’s intangible assets, e.g., intellectual, structural, and relationship capital which comprise the dominant sources of value, attractivity, and revenue that serve as the foundations to conventional intellectual properties are the real targets of economic – cyber espionage and data mining conducted by global economic and competitive advantage adversaries.
In other words, these know how-based assets are precisely what the economic – competitive advantage adversaries’ globally need, want, and therefore will aggressively and stealthily seek because, among other things, being successful in acquiring those categories of assets is the quickest route to global competitiveness and profitability.
Issued patents provide legal standing…
Yes, it is quite true that an issued patent provides holders with (legal) standing to bring criminal and/or civil action against alleged infringers and/or misappropriators. And yes, one requisite for a countries’ seeking World Trade Organization (WTO) membership is enacting a comprehensive (legal, enforcement) intellectual property regime.
I do hold great respect for those who are the recipient of an issued patent from their government, particularly for what the patent holder has deservedly achieved. A patent issuance certificate certainly warrants framing and hung on a wall of prominence for all to see and dutifully admire. But please, avoid assuming that an issued patent today constitutes an absolute and stand alone deterrent to would be infringers, i.e., economic and competitive advantage adversaries with the u know how underlying the patent is somehow magically safeguarded for the patents’ duration or its life-value-functionality cycle, whichever comes first.
The latter of course, is sometimes a business decision pure and simple, particularly in today’s globally aggressive, predatorial, winner-take-all, and go fast, go hard, go global business environment. So respectfully, any assumption that the issuance of a patent serves, in any way, as a specific deterrent to economic – competitive advantage adversaries or insiders inclined to misappropriate the assets along with the underlying know how represents not just wishful thinking, rather naïve, misguided, and certainly out-of-date thinking.
Please consider this…
Why would an economic – competitive advantage adversary or data mining operation, information broker, or competitor intelligence engage in the risk of acquiring (stealing) a patent, i.e., usually its structural capital content, when issued patents (essentially the same information) will be published and are available online and posted in the public domain, the U.S. case, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website?
The answer to that question lies, in my view, in pure economic competitiveness which translates as getting and doing what’s necessary to stay ahead of any and all competitors and rivals, be they a sector competitor, a regional competitor, or a national defense competitor country.
I purposefully belaboring this point to make these distinctions, i.e., after many years of investigative (business) research along the entire spectrum of economic and competitive advantage espionage, this issue goes directly to the heart of perhaps the most important question for security practitioners, which is…
how and which knowledge-based intangible assets originating with a company warrant higher level and more sophisticated safeguards and resilience planning?
The answer is quite clear. It is the intellectual, structural, and relationship capital categories of (intangible) assets that deliver the greatest contributory value to a company’s value, sources of revenue, and otherwise serve as essential ‘building blocks’ for company profitability, competitiveness, and sustainability.
But, perhaps most critical and troublesome to the holder – originator of valuable and competitive advantage driving intangible assets are three, generally irreversible, realities…
- once gone, exclusive – proprietary knowledge and knowhow, will likely be gone forever!
- seldom can an asset holders or companies fully recoup such losses.
- knowledge-based (intangible) assets are often quickly and readily convertible for adaptation and exploitation however and whenever the ultimate recipient or adversary wishes.
Let’s assume, for discussion sake, the targets of preference for a particular economic and competitive advantage adversary, data mining operation and/or information broker is some form, type, or category of intangible asset which can fill an immediate or strategic need or demand and therefore serve as a key component to a previously unsolved puzzle of the adversary.
I encourage readers not to dismiss this perspective as being fanciful or irrelevant. Instead, try ‘drilling down’ a bit, and examine each broad (intangible) asset category through a business competitive, value, and revenue lens, be it held by a company, university, or independent R&D environment. One outcome of this exercise is to recognize what type(s) of safeguards are necessary to fully preserve each assets’ value and potential monetization – commercialization properties for the duration of the assets’ respective life, contributory value, and functionality cycle. The reason, that’s precisely what matters most today and that’s what global adversaries are seeking to disrupt to their benefit.
Entangling Intangibles’ Tamara Plakalo February, 2006. Managing Information Strategies. Australia.xamples of intangible assets…
The following are examples of intangible assets which I have adapted from two well respected and current sources, (a.) ‘The Intangible Asset Handbook: Maximizing Value From Intangible Assets’. Weston Anson. 2007. American Bar Association, and (b.) ‘Untangling Intangibles’ Tamara Plakalo February, 2006. Managing Information Strategies. Australia.
- Internally developed (proprietary) software and software copyrights, automated databases, source code, enterprise solutions and custom applications…
- Marketing lyrics, jingles (music), promotional characters and devices, photographs and video, newsletters, advertising/marketing concepts, results of focus groups…
- Engineering and industrial (new plant, equipment) designs, engineering drawings (blueprints) and technical knowhow…
- Customer – client communication platforms, including mailing lists, relationships, customer data bases and retrieval systems, special distribution channels, 1-800 numbers.
- Actionable competitor research and business intelligence, i.e., plans, intentions, capabilities…
- Real estate, zoning, construction permits, i.e., air, water, and mineral drilling-exploitation rights, right-of-way, easements, and building (expansion) plans/rights…location visual scenery – proximity to.
- Personnel training, i.e., proprietary manuals, operations, and processes.
- Internet domain names, website design, B2B and e-commerce capabilities, web links, customer/client accessibility and use
- Corporate identity, brand, reputation, image, goodwill, names, trademarks, and logos
- Product and service warranties, trade dress, i.e., product shapes, color schemes, and packaging design/graphics and open purchase orders, order and/or product back log,
- Contracts – agreements which have a definable life and some form of exclusivity, e.g., supply, media, performance and pricing agreements, license and/or royalty agreements, advertising, construction, management, and/or service contracts, leases, operating and broadcast rights and licenses, route utilization, franchise agreements, subscription rights, futures contracts, co-branding agreements, endorsements, spokesperson contracts, venue naming rights…
- Intellectual property; patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, trade dress, trade name, service marks, mastheads, application, logo design
- Prior art search, flanker patents; patent applications, foreign patents, reprints, use/performance rights
- R&D, product research studies, formulas, processes and assembly data, and regulatory agency approval process-status
- Communication and cable rights and/or transmission rights, FCC licenses and/or certification, bandwidth
- Human resource issues, i.e., wage rates, union contracts, non-compete and non-disclosure agreements (if transferable)…
- Structural capital, i.e., the structures and processes a company develops or acquires and deploys to increase productivity and performance (business process/method patents)
- Human capital, i.e., the sum total of employees’ specialties, skills, attitudes, abilities, competencies along with their technical ‘know how’ documentation, i.e., lab notebooks, manuals, formulas, processes, and recipes (food, chemical formulas)
As always, reader comments and inquires are always welcome at 314-440-3593 (St. Louis) or email@example.com
Michael D. Moberly June 24, 2014 ‘A long form blog where attention span really matters’.
The knowledge – intangible asset era, paradigm shift…
Growing numbers of companies and organizations are seeing steadily rising percentages of their value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for profitability, sustainability, and growth evolve directly from intangible assets produced either internally or acquired externally. Today, that percentage consistently hovers at 80+%. As readers recognize, there are numerous variables to this global economic paradigm shift, e.g.,
- companies’ are more dependant on the development, application, and exploitation of their knowhow which materializes as intellectual, structural, and relationship capital, i.e., intangible assets.
- intangible assets have surpassed tangible – physical assets, i.e., buildings, equipment, inventory, property, etc., as companies’ overwhelmingly dominant source of value and revenue.
Beginning in the late 1980’s, I was fortunate to become one the early thought leaders actively engaged in the intangible asset arena, initially as an investigative academic researcher, and now as a practitioner.
Still reluctance among company management teams and c-suites…
Unfortunately, there remains considerable reluctance regarding the whole ‘intangible asset thing’! Much of the reluctance is influenced by managerial past practice embedded in pre-knowledge era industry standards and statutes (accounting, legal, etc.) which, in many instances, have morphed into ideological and professional discipline ‘turf protection’. Collectively, each poses unique challenges to rationally refute for those committed to – satisfied with past practice, regardless of the availability of objective studies that demonstrate the irreversibility of business and industry globally being dominated by intangible assets.
Through my lens, there is an analogy here to the persistent global warming debate. That is, despite overwhelming scientific and visual evidence of its existence and consequences, there remain sufficient numbers of doubters and/or deniers who, irrespective of their motivation, achieve a public stage from which to express dispiriting and misguided messages. Such circumstances exist in the intangible asset arena.
I have the opportunity to engage countless business decision makers and their supporting professional service disciplines, i.e., accounting, law, and financial services particularly because their persistent and dismissive questioning of intangibles’ value, utilization, and exploitation is the most apparent. Respectfully, I don’t believe these disciplines are actually denying the existence of intangible assets, but their expressions remain aligned with conventional thought and practice leaving little time or room to objectively consider current realities.
It’s quite clear that each discipline specific objection evolve around challenges associated with intangible asset valuation and how or whether intangibles are to be reported on company financial statements and balance sheets. This makes numerous company management teams, c-suites, and boards retain attitudinally hesitance – resistant) to making the necessary managerial transition which includes fully engaging their intangible (non-physical) assets.
No global precedent…
Admittedly, there is no precedent for what’s occurring today, i.e., international business and country economies’ being overwhelmingly dominated, economically and competitively by intangible assets. And, unlike most tangible (physical) assets, intangibles’ require consistent stewardship, oversight, management, and monitoring of fluctuations in the value and competitive advantage they deliver and the risks which render them vulnerable.
There are various acts, behaviors, and/or events, many of which are asymmetric, that collectively create fertile ground for risks and threats to materialize and cause a company’s (intangible) assets to experience declines in value and sources of revenue, or become competitively undermined which can have adverse bearing on company reputation and goodwill. In numerous instances such adverse circumstances are attributable to the surreptitious and purposeful activities of global economic and competitive advantage adversaries. That’s because increasingly higher percentages of company value and revenue lie in – evolve directly from intangible assets prompting economic – cyber espionage to emerge in ways that are more calculating, stealthy, and designed to target specific, usually ‘knowhow’ assets which, when lost or stolen, cause far more immediate and irreversible damage-harm (economically, competitively) to a company than their tangible (physical) asset predecessors.
It should be to no one’s surprise that economic and competitive advantage adversaries are really targeting intangible assets…
Willie Sutton, a notorious bank robber during the 1970’s, is alleged to have responded to the question ‘why do you rob banks’?, by saying, ‘it’s because that’s where the money is’!
Similarly, I urge companies, particularly those with intensive portfolio’s of valuable proprietary information, trade secrets, and other forms of intangible assets to recognize, as they engage in business transactions, strategic alliances, and technology transfers, etc., it is all but certain those intangibles assets will be in play.
Experience clearly suggests that when certain, particularly lucrative intangible assets are in play, they will be targeted by an economic and competitive advantage adversary. Examples of this, which I have examined for many years, are university research and corporate R&D units, which in most instances are repositories of potentially valuable and competitive advantage intangible assets. As noted previously, this includes specific categories of ‘knowhow’ that exist as intellectual and structural capital primarily which global economic and competitive advantage adversaries, whomever they may be on any given day or future time frame, want and/or need, and are quite willing to assume risk to achieve their acquisition using various methodologies and tradecraft.
So, it should be to no one’s surprise that the most frequently targeted asset today are intangibles’, and the risk predominates from the growing global array of economic – cyber espionage players, be they state or corporate sponsored or individual brokers, data miners, or legacy free players.
Admittedly, evidence to support this contention are largely anecdotal, but it stands to reason, like Willie Sutton’s remark ‘I rob banks because that’s where the money is’, the economic fact that 80+% of most companies value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth, profitability, and sustainability globally lie in intangible assets, the economic and competitive advantage adversaries of the world are targeting intangible assets. The reason, like Mr. Sutton, it’s because specific – select intangibles are the greatest sources of value and competitive advantage others covet the most.
It’s not all about national defense and security…
I can think of few better ways to portray this more succinctly than to refer to a conversation I had several years ago with a senior government official representing a county’s interior ministry who expressed a genuine need for agricultural knowhow to render very low crop yield land into high crop yield producing land. This official said, in very matter of fact terms, referring to U.S. superiority in agricultural science, ‘you have something I need and want to properly feed my people now, and I shall endeavor to obtain it through whatever means are at my disposal’.
My interpretation of the official’s provocative statement left me with no doubt that…
he understood the quickest and least expensive path to achieve this ‘utilitarian’ objective was not by his government taking time to gear up and fund the necessary R&D internally, or engage in a covenant filled and potentially risky and intrusive strategic alliance with a private corporation based outside his country, either of which would be a long term, 2-3 years out, undertaking before progress, of a sufficient scale, would likely materialize. Instead, this individual, and countless others globally, share precisely the same view and are intent on acquiring the necessary knowhow by utilizing other means at their disposal.
A real example, but…
I respectfully ask readers not to interpret the above example, as real as it is, as being wholly representative of the global economic – cyber espionage arena, other than recognizing it as one critical reality – consequence of knowledge – intangible asset based global economies, i.e., ‘you have something I want and need and I shall attempt to appropriate it or copy it without incurring the time and expense of independent origination’.
It is my contention then, that seldom are economic – competitive advantage adversaries’ actually seeking-stealing conventional intellectual properties, i.e., patents particularly. Instead, it’s the intellectual, structural, and relationship capital (intangible assets) embedded in and otherwise underlying the valuable proprietary information and trade secrets which have become the real targets. In other words, it is simply a misnomer to state intellectual properties are being targeted, stolen, or otherwise misappropriated.
As always I welcome readers comments and perspectives at firstname.lastname@example.org in St. Louis!
Michael D. Moberly June 17, 2014 ‘A long form blog where attention span really matters’.
Conventional strategic planning irrelevant if intangible assets are not at the center…
The increasingly competitive business terrain in which know how and other intangible assets have become the overwhelmingly dominant drivers and producers of value and revenue is clearly prompting many companies to re-examine the relevance of their often times, conventional and even static business plans and mission statements.
I am not suggesting there is anything inherently wrong with continuing to write business plans and mission statements, because they frequently do serve as a descriptive (Gannt Chart type) of roadmap of what leaders want their business to eventually look like and how to get there!
But, for analogous purposes, some (management teams, boards) are inclined to view business plans and mission statements in a ’constitutional’ like fashion, i.e., either as a ’living’ document that’s malleable and subject to flexible interpretations to reflect an evolving global business environment, or a more static document that can only be interpreted on the basis of its ’original intent’.
A law firms’ strategic plan, particularly one that incorporates client’s intangible assets, is a dynamic and on-going exercise. The reasons are that client’s intangible assets are often nuanced, business/company centric, seldom remain static, and frequently fluctuate relative to the materialization of risks, threats, and the nature and type of transactions engaged in which clients’ intangible assets will inevitably be in play.
Leaders, late adopters, or followers…
Law firms can choose to be leaders, late adopters, or followers. Today however, in an increasingly intangible asset intensive and global business – economic – transaction environments, a law firms’ initiative to devote attention and practice area resources to clients’ intangibles will reap benefits in terms of being more reflective and accommodating to client needs by, among other things, respectfully bringing clarity to the necessity for tactical and strategic stewardship, oversight, management, and assessment if intangibles other than IP, sometimes even before business clients become fully aware of their (the assets’) potentially favorable advantages.
Intangible asset relevancy to each practice area within full service firms is one in which each practice area can contribute through their respective and specialized lens.
Unfortunately, the economic fact that 80+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth, profitability, and sustainability lie in – evolve directly from intangible assets, has yet to become so self-intuitive to management teams, c-suites, and boards that they instinctively recognize the necessity to identify, develop, safeguard, and exploit the intangibles their company produces internally and/or acquires externally.
Effective strategic planning produces client benefits…
Law firms have varying levels of experience and depth in IP matters. This makes it, in my view, all the more legitimate and necessary for firms to include, as part of their strategic planning, the acquisition of the necessary expertise to aid clients to recognize the various ways their company can elevate its value, add sources of revenue, and solidify its sustainability through better utilization, governance, and exploitation of its intangible assets.
Benefits to firm clients can occur not just by recognizing intangibles assets and their relevance to business profitability and market space, but also by taking affirmative steps to guide clients in identifying, unraveling, assessing, auditing, positioning, bundling, and exploiting intangibles and defending intangible asset intensive client companies in the intricacies intangible asset rooted disputes and challenges..
Thus, the more clarity a firm’s client decision makers achieve regarding the intangible assets their company produces or has acquired and the inevitably which they become embedded in the products and/or services a business client produces will lead to better – more informed decisions about the necessity to engage leading edge law firms that provide such services, as competitive leaders, not followers or late adopters.
When prospective clients – buyers of legal (IP) services, or merely consumer products for that matter, initially approach a law firm, if they find it challenging to distinguish/assess a firm’s comparative quality, particularly when such information is neither readily available or distinguishable, a percentage of those prospective clients will be inclined to promptly ask about pricing and fees.
More specifically, such circumstances often translate as an inability to quantify the value of what may appear, to prospective clients, as competing services and/or offerings because, unfortunately, pricing (fees) tends to be the primary form of measurement business decision makers understand insofar as distinguishing competing offerings – services. That’s because pricing (fees) tend to be a more readily recognized and presumably understood form of measurement..
So, a law firms’ ability to attract and secure new as well as retain existing clients, IP, or otherwise, particularly among increasingly frugal, discriminating, and cautious prospective buyers of legal services, can be rotted in a firms’ ability to articulate greater value in understandable and actionable contexts to benefit the client and exceed their respective needs and expectations. (Adapted by Michael D. Moberly from the work of Dale Furtwengler)
My primary rationale for advocating the inclusion of client company’s intangible assets in a law firms strategic planning is that by doing so, it will legitimately produce broader opportunities to re-engage existing clients as well as engage new – prospective clients on yes, a broader range of business legal issues, i.e., their intangible assets.
Too, by virtue of the connections between intangible assets and IP, law firms, particularly those with an IP practice, are pre-positioned and branded, so to speak, for guiding client businesses and companies to legitimately inquire and explore ways to more profitably utilize their intangibles.
Also, law firms, whether they recognize it or not, routinely become a repository of familiarity about ‘all things intangible’ regarding their business clients. It would seem prudent then for firms to develop strategic plans that call for a collaborative convergence, i.e., draw upon their existing practice area expertise, and various other complimentary domains to exploit that expertise and redirect a portion to business clients intangible assets.
However, the speed which intangible assets are coming to the forefront of business profitability and sustainability has produced some challenges for law firm business client services management that lead to maximizing intangibles value and creating opportunities for asset monetization and/or commercialization.
- One challenge is meeting the rising fiduciary responsibilities associated with the overall management of intangibles and the ability/competencies to simultaneously sustain control, use, and monitor asset contributory value and materiality, and risk to ensure that value, revenue producing and competitive advantage potential is neither undermined or lost.
- A second challenge, for law firm business clients and their management teams is recognizing that intangible assets are literally embedded in most every company’s processes, procedures, and practices (as intellectual, structural, and relationship capital) regardless of (company/client) size, maturation, or industry sector. The fact that most intangibles are embedded as noted above, can manifest as competitive advantages, brand, and reputation. What would matter most to clients is engaging a law firm that has already acquired the skill sets and experience to guide clients to identify – differentiate those assets and exploit their contributive – collaborative value as effectively and efficiently as possible.
- A third challenge is ensuring the necessary competencies are in place within a law firm to identify, unravel, assess, position, and bundle, if necessary, the assets and profitably apply-utilize (leverage) them in a broad range of business circumstances and transactions in which intangibles are routinely in play and/or part of a deal.
- A fourth challenge many, if not most client management teams experience is surviving, that is, remaining competitive, profitable, and sustainable while engaged in a global business (transaction) environment that is not just increasingly competitive, but aggressively predatorial, and often functions in winner-take-all business contexts.
These challenges of course, lead us to an even more compelling rationale for law firms to develop a strategic plan, of which one component, includes a viable path for converging a firms collective expertise to effectively address each of the following phenomena on behalf of clients because…
- There is no other time in business governance – management history when steadily rising percentages of company value, sources of revenue, and growth potential are so deeply rooted in intangibles.
- There is a necessity to re-frame the management, stewardship, and oversight of a company’s intangibles as fiduciary responsibilities that warrant enterprise wide collaboration and consensus.
- All too frequently, the contributions intangible assets make to company revenue, value, competitiveness, and market position are overlooked, dismissed, neglected, undervalued, left un-safeguarded, and ultimately lost, diluted, or leach out to competitors and the public domain.
- Intangible assets have become much more than mere tools to manage and/or enhance other (tangible, physical) assets. Instead, intangibles are now valuable and often times stand alone commodities that can be developed, positioned, integrated, and utilized to produce revenue, enhance competitive advantages, and otherwise add real value to a company.
- The financial reality that intangibles and intellectual property can advance a company (economically, competitively, etc.) only so long as control, use, ownership, value and materialty can be sustained.
- The time frame when company’s can realize the most value from their intangible assets generally remains variously compressed relative to an assets respective life, contributory value, and functionality cycles. In part, this compressed state is due to (a.) lower barriers to market entry by competitors, and (b.) rapid profits being achieved from, what I call, predatorially sophisticated and global product/service piracy and counterfeiting operations that consistently pollute and de-value legitimate supply chains.
Michael D. Moberly June 16, 2014 ‘A long form blog where attention span really matters’.
So why shouldn’t every law firm’s strategic plan encourage achieving operational familiarity with business clients’ intangible assets…?
Frankly, in 2014, and for the foreseeable future, I would be very hard pressed to devise a rationale why every law firm should not achieve a fully operational familiarity with their business clients’ intangible assets, and incorporate same in their strategic planning as tools to…
- expand and enhance firm brand and become a leader in intangible asset stewardship, oversight, and management, which in turn will produce more engagements, and
- enhance firm competitiveness by providing legitimate grounds to re-engage existing clients, and engage new/prospective clients.
Law firm’s that continue to be dismissive of strategic planning that includes a full array of intangible assets but do not adjust their client services accordingly should expect to experience stagnation on various levels internally and externally, e.g., sustainability of client relationships, client satisfaction, and service deliverables. So, it’s not a case of when, rather how law firms can build the necessary receptivity and ultimately consensus, initiated by managing partners, to actually achieve a level of profession expertise to comfortably and professionally engage clients’ about their intangible assets.
More specifically, while most firms’ tactical speed, i.e., the efficiencies of delivering its services, etc., remain important, continuing to be dismissive of strategic speed for developing new and proactively relevant client services that directly reflect globally universal changes in economics and competitive advantage drivers. So, law firm strategic planning should be designed and executed, as the adage goes, to ‘avoid continuing to skate where the puck is now, rather skate to where the puck will be’. Law firms strategically guided by assuring their practice areas are effectively aligned to address clients’ intangible assets are far better positioned to elevate their long term sustainability and bring greater consistency in revenue.
Too, a firms’ strategic plan can be further developed to incorporate internal and external client sensors which then can unambiguously constitute a ‘heads up’ to the normative. Of course, strategic planning initiatives must not be shy about challenging convention. One way is for the plan to be sufficiently malleable to absorb and effectively act on the full array of clients’ intangible assets and the various and nuanced forms they take.
Intangible assets are characterized in two primary forms…
- Legal intangibles, i.e., those which once issued by a government agency confer certain legal property rights which provide standing to defend in a court of law, e.g., issued patents, copyrights, and trademarks, etc., and
- Competitive(advantage) intangibles which are often characterized as being non-ownable, but they directly impact – contribute to a company’s financial well being, create efficiencies, increase productivity, and market value, etc. Often competitive advantage intangibles evolve collectively from various combinations of intellectual, structural, and relationship capital. (Adapted by Michael D. Moberly the work of Mary Adams_
A perspective on whether intangible assets are non-ownable…
Intangible assets are assumed to be non-ownable, but for the creator – developer of intangibles particularly those which measurably produce contributory value and competitive advantages, it is certainly in their interest to sustain control and use of the intellectual, structural, and relationship capital embedded in – underlie those assets and consistently monitor their value, materiality, and risk. If not, risks are all but sure to materialized, the effects of which rapidly erode, diminish asset value, sources of revenue, and competitive advantages. So, in companies and/or circumstances where such actions are taken to safeguard and preserve the content and value of intangibles would wisely convey a sense of ownership, as well it should!
Examples of intangible assets…
The following are examples of intangible assets. They have been adapted by Mr. Moberly from two respected comprehensive and current sources, i.e., (a.) ‘The Intangible Asset Handbook: Maximizing Value From Intangible Assets’. Weston Anson. 2007. American Bar Association, and (b.) ‘Untangling Intangibles’ Tamara Plakalo February, 2006. Managing Information Strategies. Australia.
- Technology – software: Internally developed (proprietary) software and software copyrights, automated databases, source code, enterprise solutions and custom applications…
- Marketing: Lyrics, jingles (music), promotional characters and devices, photographs andvideo, newsletters, advertising/marketing concepts, results of focus groups…
- Engineering: Industrial (new plant, equipment) designs, engineering drawings (blueprints) and technical knowhow…
- Customers – clients: Communication-mailing lists, relationships, customer data bases and retrievalsystems, special distribution channels, 1-800 numbers, relationships
- Competitor research: Actionable business intelligence, i.e., plans, intentions, capabilities…
- Real estate: Zoning – construction permits, air, water, and mineral drilling-exploitation rights, right-of-way, easements, and building (expansion) plans/rights, location visual scenery – proximity to
- Personnel training: Proprietary manuals, operations processes and/or procedure
- Domain names, website design, B2B and e-commerce capabilities, web links, customer/client accessibility and use
- Corporate identity: Names, trademarks, logos
- Products and services:Warranties, trade dress, i.e., product shapes, color schemes, and packaging design/graphics, open purchase orders, order and/or product back log,
- Contracts – agreements: Any contract that has a definable life and some form of exclusivity, e.g., supply, media, performance and pricing agreements, license and/or royalty agreements, advertising, construction, management, and/or service contracts, leases, operating and broadcast rights and licenses, route utilization, franchise agreements, subscription rights, futures contracts, co-branding agreements, endorsements, spokesperson contracts, venue naming rights…
- Intellectual property: Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, trade dress, trade name, service marks, mastheads, application, logo design, prior art search, flanker patents; patent applications, foreign patents, reprints, use/performance rights
- R&D: Product research studies, formulas, process and assembly data, regulatory agency approval process-status
- Communication: Cable rights and/or transmission rights, FCC licenses and/or certification, bandwidth
- HR: Wage rates, union contracts, non-compete and non-disclosure agreements (if transferable)…
- Structural capital: The structures and processes employees develop and deploy to increase productivity and performance (business process/method patents)
- Human capital: Sum total of employees’ specialties, skills, attitudes, abilities, competencies, and technical ‘know how’ documentation, i.e., lab notebooks, manuals, formulas, processes, and recipes (food, chemical formulas)
Incorporating client intangibles assets in law firms’ strategic planning…
It’s fair to suggest that many law firm managing partners have various, but seldom specified responsibilities, aside from sustaining or expand the firms’ profile and brand, extinguishing the inevitable fires and ‘mending fences’. For some firms, managing partners’ responsibilities can also include garnering and fostering firm wide consensus to develop and execute a strategic plan, as advocated here, inclusive of intangible assets which is best commenced by advocating attorney operational familiarity with intangible assets, i.e., their stewardship, oversight, and management and the assets’ relevance to a firm’s specific practice areas. A law firms’ strategic plan, particularly one that incorporates client’s intangible assets, is a dynamic and on-going exercise. The reasons are that client’s intangible assets are often nuanced, business/company centric, seldom remain static, and frequently fluctuate relative to the materialization of risks, threats, and the nature and type of transactions engaged in which clients’ intangible assets will inevitably be in play. Int
Michael D. Moberly June 12, 2014 ‘A long form blog where attention span really matters’.
Thinking strategically leads to transformational changes in law firm planning… Frequently I hear thinking and planning strategically characterized as managerial luxuries which can only occur in isolation when law firm managing partners are not consumed with a daily barrage and demands of putting out fires and mending various fences. Further complicating a law firm’s best efforts to engage in genuine strategic thinking and planning is a reality that a significant percentage of firms manage – operate their practice through quite conventional, hierarchical, and vertically siloed rule sets with substantial, if not total practice area autonomy. . Should the above be a reasonably accurate reflection of law firm management, which I’m quite comfortable in saying it is, it’s understandable why most law firms remain removed from, or worse, oblivious to the irreversibly intertwined and intangible asset dominated (global) business transaction environments in which clients’ intangible assets are routinely in play, at risk, and absent effective management. I do not believe it is a tremendous leap from the key implications found in the Stone v Ritter (911 A.2d 362 (Del. 2006), that law firm managing partners would have an obligation if not a fiduciary responsibility, not unlike their business clients, to ensure their firm achieves operational familiarity with intangible assets and incorporates same as a collaborative practice area geared toward the assets’ management, stewardship, and oversight on behalf of clients’.
Irreversible and global economic facts and business realities… So, what’s being advocated here is quite straight forward, that is, law firms that want to remain profitable and sustainable are obliged to engage in strategic planning that will pave the way for offering and delivering relevant services related to the management, stewardship, and oversight of clients’ intangible asset related services. This commences by firms’ managing partners and practice area attorneys recognizing…
- it is a global economic fact that 80+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth, profitability, and sustainability lie in – evolve directly from intangible assets which includes variations of intellectual, structural, and relationship capital, reputation, brand, and competitive advantages, etc.
- a company’s intangible assets are almost always in play and at risk in new initiatives, product/service launches, and other types of business transactions, etc.
- business client’s intangible assets are not a lesser or subordinate form of intellectual property, instead, IP is actually a subset or one category of intangible assets.
New strategic thinking and planning for law firms… Collectively, these irreversible global economic business realities warrant immediate strategic thinking and planning that allow law firms to reflect on and accommodate the range of expanded range of legal services that emanate from the permanency and dominance which intangible assets have become in today’s increasingly complex, yet intertwined business (transaction) environment. Importantly, intangible asset relevance is not limited to the legal profession, but also to the professional disciplines of accounting, valuation, security, risk management, and financial services, among others.
Misreading the global economic tea leaves… An unfortunate misreading of these economic and business tea leaves would be for any entity, law firm, or other, to assume this paradigm shift (from tangible – physical asset dominance to intangible – non-physical asset dominance) has yet to arrive. The fact is, it’s already here and for those who care to look, there has been an abundance of advance notice. For example, The Brookings Institution and Dr. Baruch Lev’s work on intangibles commencing in the mid to late 1980’s, along with comparable initiatives by the Athena Alliance headed by Dr. Kenan Jarboe, the Intangible Asset Finance Society headed by Dr. Nir Kossovsky and a host of other thought leaders like Jonathan Low and Mary Adams recognized early on the impact of intangible assets on businesses and global economies in general. Importantly, intangibles have come to be the ‘building blocks’ for most all companies’ value, sources of revenue, growth, profitability, and sustainability! For me, it is the epitome of misreading the global economic, business transaction, and competitive advantage tea leaves for any multi-service (practice area) law firm to argue that intangible assets should not play an integral role in their strategic thinking and planning!. Respectfully, I recognize that many law firms remain steeped in generations of convention and past practice that inhibits an organization on many levels, from genuinely considering such an initiative because, among other reasons, at first blush, it may appear so operationally disruptive that it could be characterized as being akin to blasphemy to conventional and time honored practices of client service offerings, delivery, and management. . One thing is assured however, emanating from these economic facts is the reality that business clients, regardless of sector, will, with increasing frequency, seek legal services variously related to the stewardship, oversight, management, and commercialization and/or monetization of the array of nuanced intangible assets they produce internally or acquire externally. But, let there be no ambiguity, law firms’ whose strategic thinking and planning do not fully explore and preferably incorporate a new array of intangible asset related services to accommodate client needs and expectations, will likely experience falling revenues and client pushback. Admittedly, not all business clients have achieved sufficient operational familiarity regarding their management, stewardship, and monitoring of their intangible assets to articulate with clarity and specificity what legal services they need today and in the future. Thus, prudent law firms will endeavor to get our front of their go fast, go hard, go global clients and prepare relevant services so the firm can create its own competitive advantages by being ‘first on the block’ to have intangible asset services readily available to accommodate the inevitable client need.
A good first start is for law firms to assess some conventions… A good first start for firms to achieve the level of (intangible asset) understanding, strategic thinking, and planning advocated here, is by dismissing any notion that intangible assets are either singularly synonymous, interchangeable with, or short term subsidiaries to intellectual property (IP) or business goodwill. Law firms that elect not to strategically delve into the obvious relevance of intangible assets to each practice area can expect to experience not only revenue stagnation, but may likely, in a growing number of instances, find themselves having to significantly downsize or possibly face firm dissolution. True, firm dissolution may not occur today or tomorrow, but as additional global universality of intangible asset regulation and oversight comes to fruition, those law firms that continue to be dismissive of intangibles will be essentially conducting business strictly in the confines of convention, and not in the context of externalities. So my counsel to law firms and their managing partners is to engage in strategic planning that includes a strong and collaborative vision that encompasses a firms’ (a.) organizational structure in terms of how its various practice areas and expertise can be aligned to better address clients’ intangible asset (service) needs, and (b.) become more accommodating to the inevitable global universalities related to intangibles. In other words, attorney’s and their respective practice areas must be fully integrated to a lucrative solution by (a.) helping structure the firms’ future to meet its future, and (b.) start annunciating and exploiting a firm’s new competitive advantages created by offering intangible asset legal services.
Paths to elevating client relationships, satisfaction, and service delivery favorables… Frankly, in 2014, and for the foreseeable future, I would be hard pressed to devise a rationale why every law firm should not achieve an intimate operational familiarity with each of their clients’ intangible assets, and incorporate same in their strategic plan as tools to…
- brand a law firm as being a leader in intangible asset stewardship, oversight, and management, which in turn will
- enhance competitiveness by providing legitimate grounds to (a.) re-engage existing clients, and (b.) engage new/prospective clients
Again, law firms that choose to be dismissive of strategic planning and do not adjust and create intangible asset relevant services should expect to experience stagnation in client relationship satisfaction and service favorables. So, it’s not a matter of when, rather it’s a matter of where and how law firms respectfully intervene on behalf of clients’ intangible assets. More specifically, while a firms’ tactical speed, i.e., the efficiencies of it service delivery, etc., remain important, being dismissive of strategic speed for developing services specific to intangibles, can confound a firms attorney’s, its practice areas, and certainly its clients. So, a law firms’ strategic plan should be designed and executed, as the adage goes, to ‘avoid continuing to skate where the puck is now, rather skate to where the puck will be’. Law firms strategically guided by aligning each service – practice area to clients’ intangible assets will most assuredly elevate their long term sustainability and revenue streams. So, it is prudent to recognize how we think, and what we think!
June 2nd, 2014. Published under Fiduciary Responsibility, Intangible asset protection, Intellectual Property Rights, Organizational resilience and business continuity/conti. No Comments.
Michael D. Moberly June 2, 2014 ‘A long form blog where attention span really matters’.
Pat Choate, in his 2005 book titled ‘Hot Property: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globalization’ (p. 218)points out that an ‘idea, by definition, exists solely in one’s mind, where it remains happily and comfortably secure, but not terribly useful’. So, in order for an idea to potentially produce commercial and/or contributory value to its holder at some point, it must be expressed. Even though Choate (2005) says ‘protecting one’s ideas represents a basic social contract between society, its government, and the individual(s) who created the idea’, the act of openly expressing ideas, with increasing frequency, serves as a starting point for asset vulnerabilities and potential challenges and disputes to emerge for the originators (holders – owners) of the ideas.
Fundamentally, products of the mind are a type of intangible asset and manifest as intellectual, structural, and relationship capital including intellectual property (IP) and some other forms of proprietary information. Risks, to these intangibles materialize with some regularity and certainty, often in the form of purposeful or inadvertent events, acts, or behaviors that can adversely affect or jeopardize (asset) ownership, control, use, and value. A significant percentage of materialized intangible asset risks are of a nature to adversely affect a company’s reputation and its competitive advantages with equal rapidity, for example…
- stifle competitive – economic momentum of a company project, new venture, or product launch.
- undermine a business transaction or strategic business plan.
- erode an assets’ value as a source of potential value and projected profitability.
Business continuity – contingency planning pre-Internet era…
In the pre-Internet era, when intangible asset were barely a twinkle in economists’ eyes, misappropriation, infringement, and/or counterfeiting was characterized as being relevant almost exclusively to IP, i.e., patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Too, at the time, a relatively common risk mitigation strategy (to a company’s assets) was business continuity – contingency planning, not organizational resilience, and was generally designed – intended to be a mechanism to contain the risk(s) and mitigate their impact, i.e., the damages or extent of the losses as well as additional adverse impacts to company reputation, image, and goodwill, etc.
Today however, in the current knowledge based (intangible asset) era of going fast, going hard, and going global, even the most well-intentioned and wishful thinking efforts to contain the multitude of risks that can materialize is more fitting, in my view, to tangible (physical) assets than intangible (non-physical) assets.
For example, in the world of physical (tangible) assets, so-called firewalls erected between apartment buildings are designed – intended to contain or reduce, for a certain period of time, the probability that a fire in one building will spread to adjacent buildings and/or structures.
Such conventional firewalls however are less relevant or practical insofar as safeguarding or mitigating risks to knowledge-based intangible (non-physical) assets which again include intellectual, structural, and relationship capital, IP and proprietary information. In most instances, in today’s increasingly sophisticated risk laden R&D and business transaction environments, anyone of these types of intangible assets, absent effective asset monitoring and safeguards, will be at risk. Unfortunately, the sophisticated methodologies applied by the expanding number of global economic and/or competitive advantage adversaries, allow value laden intangible assets to be quickly discerned and instantaneously disseminated to a growing and often organized and sophisticated labyrinth of information brokers, business intelligence operations.
Don’t Overlook Intangible Asset Safeguards
Significantly, once an intangible asset has been compromised or succumbed to the growing array of sophisticated and asymmetric risks and threats, a company mitigation practice based primarily on the principles of containment, in my view, is neither a realistic or viable (standalone) strategy, certainly not something which a company’s management team, c-suite, board should feel comfortable insofar as their fiduciary responsibilities are concerned, i.e., see Stone v. Ritter.
Thus, while conventional intellectual property enforcement mechanisms (i.e., patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets) remain a global (WTO) requisites for conveying ownership and standing to address the inevitable disputes, challenges, risks, and threats, the deterrence features associated with each have been minimized and are routinely disregarded and circumvented by adversaries. Thus conventional IP enforcements assume a more reactive vs. proactive posture, one that requires formidable and consistent self-policing and monitoring
In today’s increasingly aggressive, predatorial, and ‘winner take all’ global R&D and business transaction environment, this leaves, in my view, conventional forms of intellectual property (enforcement) certainly less relevant, perhaps even approaching some manner of obsolescence insofar as effectively combating the ultra-sophisticated risks and threats which are now routine.
Conventional IP enforcements carry little, if any, deterrent features today…
While I am not suggesting conventional IP enforcements should not be used, the harsh reality is, the once respected rights and protections afforded to innovators and entrepreneurs for their products on the mind, through patents, trademarks, and copyrights, etc., are now being routinely outpaced, circumvented, and utterly disregarded by adversaries globally. Any entrepreneur or company who assumes the mere issuance of a patent, standing alone, will be sufficient to sustain full control, use, and ownership rights for the duration of their patent, for example, is simply no longer credible.
The notion that conventional IP enforcements will ensure indeterminate control, use, and receipt of economic/competitive advantage benefits from an individual’s or company’s hard earned and often very expensive know how, i.e., the intellectual, structural, and relationship capital is unfortunately a business risk that should not be assumed is the exclusive bastion of legal (IP) counsel.
It would not be too challenging to argue conventional intellectual property enforcements carry less benefit to a single holder or a company, aside from providing legal standing in the increasing likelihood of having to engage in litigation over disputes and challenges. It’s most prudent then for business decision makers to ensure best practice intangible asset safeguards are in place from the outset of idea materialization. This includes consistent asset monitoring and defense, not merely directed to the conventional intellectual property rights, but also to sustaining control, use, ownership, and monitoring value and risks to those assets!
Sustaining a successful launch – commercialization of a new idea…
There are many different views about what is actually required to sustain a successful launch – commercialization of a new idea or project.
Obviously, having a very commercializable product and a sufficiently capitalized business plan and marketing strategy represent three time honored ingredients necessary for most successful launches. But, an often overlooked, underestimated, and misunderstood ingredient to a successful business – idea launch is recognizing that…
80+% of the value, sources of revenue, and future wealth creation of the launch will likely evolve from intertwined combinations of (a.) intangible assets and IP,i.e., intellectual capital, and (b.) specialized proprietary know how, i.e., structural capital, and (c.) attractive and distinctive competitive advantages, and brand integrity, i.e., relationship capital. (Moberly, 2011)
So, unlike conventional forms of IP enforcements, i.e., patents, trademarks, and copyrights, no government will issue a comparable certificate that says, these are your contributory value intangible assets, proprietary know how, trade secrets, competitive advantages, and brand integrity which an individual or company should safeguard and monitor their value and risk for the duration of their respective value and functionality cycle.
The responsibility for (a.) recognizing how the intangible assets evolved, (b.) the context which they now exist and are being applied, and (c.) unraveling them (individually – collectively) to assess their contributory value and potential conversion to sources of revenue and competitive advantage lie solely with the launching companies’ decision makers, i.e., originators, holders, and/or owners of those assets.
Admittedly, today’s hyper-competitive global business (transaction) environment, is influencing more companies to recognize the necessity for more than cursory intangible asset identification, assessment, safeguards, and monitoring of value and risk is much more than a time or resource permitting responsibility. These responsibilities are now instrumental in the initial success of product launches. Business decision makers who carelessly or unwittingly hedge their intangible assets’ essential maintenance, e.g., protection and preservation, will with greater frequency, if not certainty, cause risk-threat probabilities to become inevitabilities in which complete or partial (asset) value erosion and/or dilution are likely to occur which can also inadvertently create parameters and/or boundaries to a company’s economic – competitive position capabilities and potential.
What can companies do if – when their intangible asset ‘genies get out of their bottle prematurely…
The genie for profitable and sustainable launches of a new company, product, or idea is embedded in the business decision makers’ recognition that…
Getting out of the bottle is a metaphor of course, for situations in which business decision makers overlook or underestimate the role, contribution, and/or value intangible assets make to the overall sustainability of successful business launches and equally important, the risks-threats to those assets.
The initial requisite to commencing asset recovery action is recognizing delays in (a.) discovering the materialization of asset risk, and (b.) securing experienced guidance about what action to take and when, will most certainly complicate and weaken a company’s (legal) position insofar as the possibility of achieving a favorable (possibly full) economic – competitive advantage outcome.
A responsive and thorough ‘intangible asset – competitive advantage assessment’ is a prudent first step. A specialized (asset) assessment of this nature will aid a company and its decision makers to be better positioned to deliberate on two important points:
- prioritize options relative to trying to (re-) establish ownership control and use of the no doubt already hemorrhaging intangibles.
- strategies to try to stop and/or mitigate additional economic – competitive advantage hemorrhaging (of the assets), i.e., devaluation, undermining, infringement, misappropriation, reputation risk, etc.
Bottom line; risks-threats to a company’s intangible assets, intellectual property, proprietary know how and competitive advantages and brand integrity should not be dismissed and/or characterized as merely just another risk of doing business!
Unfortunately, far too many companies lose, inadvertently relinquish, and/or become entangled in extraordinarily costly and time consuming legal disputes and challenges over the ownership, control, use, and value of their intangible assets, competitive advantages, proprietary know how, reputation, and brand integrity. One of the most frequent reasons is dismissing the real, persistent and stealthy risks-threats to those assets and their contributory value to strategic sustainability.