Michael D. Moberly   September 1, 2010

Most companies, through their management teams, boards, and employees create/produce a lot of assets, less so of the ‘brick and mortar’ type and more so of the intangible type.  The latter being largely knowledge-based assets held between our ears, stored on our CD’s, issued to our company as patents (intellectual  property) or merely a conglomeration of experiences and specialized know how that’s coupled with knowing how to use it effectively and efficiently. 

In operating a successful business, as in conducting a successful scientific project, we seek the comfort zone of facts, numbers, and ratios, in other words the qualitative and quantitative.  In these circumstances, our comfort zone is often easily attainable because the factors - variables we use-rely upon for our decisions and/or findings are often concrete, wherein a high number means one thing and a low number means something different.

But sometimes, that comfort zone of hard numbers, may be obscure and more ‘fuzzy’ than we like or are used to.  In those instances today, management teams, boards, and employees alike, are challenged to push our conventional understanding beyond ‘tangible assets’ to ‘intangible assets’ and the relationship and contributory value the latter delivers to our companies and organizations.

So, welcome to the specialized corner of the information age and its outgrowth, the knowledge-based economy, wherein intangible assets now routinely play key roles as contributors - facilitators to most company’s value, sources of revenue, competitive advantages, sustainability, and future wealth creation.

But, despite the rising importance of intangible assets and the contributions they consistently deliver to company’s, in all industry sectors, they unfortunately remain, for some management teams and boards, difficult to define, challenging to recognize and differentiate, and seemingly impossible to measure. 

Perhaps most frustrating. to those of us who consider ourselves intangible asset advocates, is the rather unhelpful languate used to define intangibles, e.g., they

- are the non-physical things of value that a company owns.

- have no set monetary value and no physical measurement.

- lack physical existance/presence, they can’t be seen or touched.

Nonetheless, advocates say, the development and effective use of intangible assets are essential to most company’s near term and long term success, i.e, viability, sustainability.  To those unfamiliar with intangibles however, or those already suspect or dismissive of the assets’ contributory role, definitions like those above, standing alone, contribute little to bringing clarity and contributing to the much needed ’ah ah’ moments of, I get it!

I have encountered countless situations in which management teams, boards, investors, and employees alike, literally struggle, to make sense of these seemingly ‘invisible’ assets that are seldom, if ever, reported on company balance sheets, even though a rapidly rising number of businesses today literally have very few tangible (physical) assets remaining.  Instead, intangible assets have become their overwhelmingly dominant source - driver of value, revenue, and future wealth creation.

There’s little question that intangibles can be a source of frustration and for some companies, and, not just the so-called ‘knowledge intensive’ ones, intangible assets present real challenges to management teams and boards with respect to, for example, allocating resources to further the development of assets, which, according to the definitions, lack physicality and are difficult to measure both their performance and value?

(Adapted by Michael D. Moberly from the work of Thomas A Stewart, ‘Trying To Grasp The Intangible’.)

The ‘Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ is researched and written by Michael D. Moberly, president and founder of Knowledge Protection Strategies - http://kpstrat.com.  The intent of Mr. Moberly’s blog is to provide insights and perspective to aid a cross-section of practitioners in identifying, assessing, valuing, protecting, utilizing, and extracting value from intangible assets.  Your comments regarding my blog posts are welcome at m.moberly@kpstrat.com. 

While visiting my blog, you are encouraged to browse other topics/subjects (left column, below photograph) .  Should you find particular topics relevant to your company or circumstance,  I would welcome your inquiry about consulting, conducting an assessment, training program, or speaking engagement to your company or professional association at 314-440-3593.

Michael D. Moberly   August 23, 2010

For management teams, boards, entreprenuers, and others operating in knowledge intensive (IP, intangible asset, intellectual capital) sectors, it’s not particularly noteworthy to point out there are significant differences between the accounting and intellectual property - intangible asset communities. 

Those differences are largely conceptual.  They evolve around accounting language and systems that tend to focus on production factors and very tangible assets.  The rigidity of accounting systems and language, and the growing universality of accounting standards does not allow - leave much room for reflection on (creative, alternative) business strategies that are lead - influenced by intangible assets and/or intellectual property.

Accounting is largely a mathematical language that allows companies to communicate about their respective business performance in a manner that is essentially free from cultural connotations, i.e., global universality of accounting standards.  Accounting language follows a code of officially sanctioned standards that are recognized by both the state as well as the international (accounting) community.  Without such language, admittedly, business perceptions and understandings could not be maintained.

Accounting language and systems are governed by U.S. (GAAP) and international (IFRS) standards wherein factors of production and performance are dominant and subsequently under-play, if not utterly ignore, the construction (evolution) and value of internally developed proprietary knowledge, i.e., IP and other intangibles that routinely contribute to the formulation and execution of business strategies.

Respectfully, today’s accounting language and systems do not do much either for communicating-advancing the economic fact that we’re literally in the midst of a knowledge, some say, intangible asset- based economy in which increasing percentages of company value, sources of revenue, sustainability, and foundations for future wealth creation lie in - directly evolve from intangible assets and IP. 

Rather, current accounting language and systems, quite literally, frame the context in which most  businesses function and also set the parameters for how and under what circumstances IP and intangibles can actually be applied.

How IP and intangibles are treated (by accountants) depends primarily on whether the assets were developed internally or acquired externally.  For example, internally generated/developed IP is immediately expensed and appears as a loss, rather than as revenue.  Thus internal R&D initiatives and investments in intellectual property-intangible assets constitute (are characterized as) costs to a company rather than drivers of value, revenue, and future wealth creation, etc.  This practice (accounting standard) makes it all-the-more challenging to trace (unravel) how such assets as IP-based R&D, design, and brand innovation, etc., are generated.

Thus, current accounting language and systems, essentially force businesses to speak about (address their) business performance in a standardized and ritualized manner with virtually no opportunity for inserting creative (alternative) language or expressions.

And, therein lies the basis for many of the current challenges between accountants and advocates of full and creative utilization of intangibles and IP; the inability to respectfully find common ground to converge both language and systems to improve opportunities for consistently putting those assets in play, along with monetization and commercialization.

(This post was adapted by Mr. Moberly from the work of Professor Roya Ghafele and her article titled ‘Accounting for IP?’ recently published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice.)

The ‘Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ is researched and written by Mr. Moberly to provide insights and additional views for company management teams, boards, and employees to aid in identifying, assessing, valuing, protecting, and profiting from their intangible assets.  I welcome and respect your comments and perspectives at m.moberly@kpstrat.com.

Michael D. Moberly   July 26, 2010

Among the regular readers of this blog, there’s probably a commonality many of us share, that is, when we attend/participate in a business meeting, we are inclined to look for the often times invisible, but nevertheless present, ’900 pound gurerrilla’s’ that are being overlooked, and wonder why?

To be sure, there is a 900 pound economic gurerrilla in most every companies c-suite and board room that unfortunately is often ignored, dismissed, and overlooked, but still plays an increasingly integral role in and lays critical foundations relative to a company’s value, its sources of revenue, sustainability, and future wealth creation.  That 900 pound guerrilla I’m referring to of course, are a company’s intangible assets!

Reasons for expressing misgivings about and/or reluctance to really engage a company’s intangible assets are as varied as there are categories and types of intangibles.  Typically though, there remain a significant percentage of management teams and boards who, when they think about (company) assets, their inclination is to see primarily physical, or tangible assets such as property, equipment, real estate, accounts receivable, and perhaps various types of securities.  Presumably, those boards and management teams believe these so-called hard assets, i.e., ones that can be seen, touched, and are entered on company balance sheets, are the ones that really matter, and therefore remain, at least in their eyes, as the dominant (primary) means that drive and deliver company value and revenue.

Of course, the business realities and economic facts flowing from the knowledge (intangible asset) based global economies clearly convey something quite different, that is, 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and future wealth creation today lie in - evolve directly from intangible assets, not tangible assets. 

So, while my conversations with a cross section of management teams and boards, particularly in the small and mid-sized company arenas, reveal a general familiarity with intangibles, there’s little objective evidence, below the surface, that indicates there’s a deeper appreciation how intangibles have literally become embedded and integral to most company’s routine (business) operations, processes, and procedures insofar as they individually and collectively contribute to elevating (company) value, deliver competitive advantages, and serve a key sources/contributors to revenue.

There is another, very timely and relevant, explanation why some management teams and boards are not as receptive as they should (could) be relative to learning more about and seeking opportunities to more effectively utilize, exploit, and convert their companies intangibles into value and sources of revenue.  That explanation is, as the saying goes, ‘when you’re up to your hips in alligators, one may have forgotten the original goal was to drain the pond’. 

So, I hear some management teams and boards say ‘please don’t bother us with theoretical discussions about why we should pay more attention to intangible assets when our company ‘is up to its hips in alligators’ and fighting everyday for its financial survival, ala, the recession.

To that I say, intangible assets are not some theoretical concept.  They’re real, integral, and irreversible foundations to the knowledge (intangible asset) based global economies.  And, albeit I am a strong advocate of intangibles, now may be the perfect, perhaps even the best time for management teams and boards to seriously dig into the intangible assets their company is producing or has acquired and figure out how those assets can better serve their company versus remaining stagnant, un-exploited, and otherwide not delivering - producing their potential.

The ‘Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ is researched, written, and produced by Mr. Moberly to provide insights and additional and sometimes alternative views for company management teams, boards, and employees to aid in identifying, assessing, valuing, protecting, and profiting from their intangible assets.  I welcome and respect your comments and perspectives at m.moberly@kpstrat.com.

Michael D. Moberly    July 21, 2010

There are numerous reasons why a business transaction may under-produce or fail outright, e.g., not deliver the desired results or projected outcomes.  Some responsibility for a transaction’s failure or under-production lies, in my view, at the feet of management teams and boards who may not have given the consideration due, to what I believe, is the central, and perhaps greater question that has bearing on the outcome, e.g., ’what’s really in play’?

While that question may appear esoteric, theoretical, or even irrelevant to some in the over-played sense of urgency attendant to many transactions, the answer to the question ‘what’s really in play’ in my view is much more relevant than some traditionalists and conventionalists are frequently inclined to believe or accept. 

Traditionalists and conventionalists are respectful euphemisms (descriptors) I frequently use to describe the array of stakeholders that influence a business community and the deals and transactions that occur, but, whose perspectives and approaches to executing transactions remain largely embedded in tangible-physical asset domains. 

I find, as I’m confident many readers of this blog do as well, traditionalists and conventionalists are frequently respected, experienced, and often successful business persons in their own right.  They remain skeptical however, for a variety of reasons, about the notion that 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue and future wealth creation today actually lie in intangible, not tangible assets, regardless of it being a well settled economic fact.  In that sense, they become ‘business development gatekeepers’ of sorts.

When considering or engaging a new transaction, be it a merger and acquisition, venture capital deal, strategic alliance, or a fairly straight forward buy-sell or licensing arrangement it behooves the party to frame the transaction by considering the question at some point during the engagement discussions and subsequent due diligence, ‘what’s really in play’?  

This means drilling deeper (intellectually and practically) into the question.  The response of course, must be much more than merely a spontaneous regurgitation of the (traditional, conventional) time honored rationale ’we care about increasing revenues and making greater profits, otherwise, why else would the transaction even be considered’?

What’s really in play in a steadily growing percentage, if not most business transactions today, are intangible assets!  Thus, a significant factor in the ’business transaction and due diligence equation’ is literally, the ability to effectively achieve (address) these key objectives:

1.  Identify and effectively exploit the key intangible assets embedded in the deal along with the attendant synergies and efficiencies. 

2. Sustain control, use, ownership of those key assets and monitor (pre-post transaction) their value and materiality.

As growing percentages of company value and revenue are directly linked to - evolve from intangibles, there’s a growing body of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that points to management teams and boards that are dismissive or neglectful of either of the above, transactions will surely be put on a road to experiencing significant, but unnecessary, and often irreversible challenges insofar as being able to capitalize on the intangibles that are already in place.

For traditionalists and conventionalists though, crossing that chasm between the tangible/physical asset (business) world to the world now overwhelmingly dominated-driven by intangible assets, truly and respectfully presents some understandable challenges to past practice, particularly with respect to accounting, reporting, managing intangibles.  But, regardless, that chasm must crossed intellectually and attitudinally, and, the quicker the better. 

And, once conventionalists and traditionalists have crossed that chasm and arrived ’on the other side’ it’s essential that intangibles become fully and routinely integrated into the various equations in which transactions and deals are conceived, framed, and benefits/outcomes calculated.

 The ‘Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ is researched, written, and produced by Mr. Moberly to provide insights and additional and sometimes alternative views for company management teams, boards, and employees to aid in identifying, assessing, valuing, protecting, and profiting from their intangible assets.  I welcome and respect your comments and perspectives at m.moberly@kpstrat.com.

Michael D. Moberly   June 28, 2010

As Charles Kettering put it, ‘a problem well stated is a problem half solved’.  That’s surely the case for IT security!  Some things (like IT security) may appear, at least on the surface, easily measurable, because, in large part, management teams assume they know precisely what they mean by IT security, and, therefore, what elements/aspects should be measured.

Frequently I have found though, with respect to measuring the affects/outcomes of IT security, management teams, boards, CTO’s, and IT managers, etc., use terms/phrases like reducing uncertainty and risk interchangeably, as both a rationale for the (IT security) expenditures and as a basis for measuring the desired outcomes (of IT security).

Being a security practitioner for 25+ years, I recognize that security, conceptually speaking, remains somewhat vague and ambiguous, even in 2010, that is, unless or until management teams, boards, and CSO’s, etc., begin to describe precisely what they expect to observe, following deployment of ‘x’ security services and/or products.  Presumably, the expected observations would be measurable reductions in risk and less uncertainty about outcomes.

Security, in the sense of being personally secure, can mean different things to different people, sometimes dependant on time, location, circumstance, or venue, etc.  But, an often agreed upon perspective about security is, once ‘x’ security is in place, there will be some corresponding  and favorable change in risk and uncertainty. 

Ultimately, the key to measuring things, security, or otherwise, and the outcomes, really lies in one’s adeptness at articulating (bringing preciseness and clarity to) what one expects to observe following deployment of ‘x’, in this case, IT security products and services.  In other words, as Hubbard suggests many times in his book, if one is fuzzy about what he or she expects to observe as an outcome, (from an expenditure of IT security resources, etc.) it’s likely any subsequent (quantitative) measurements will be equally fuzzy. 

For starters, it may be beneficial to define the terms ‘risk’ and ‘uncertainty’.  Uncertainty is merely the lack of having complete certainty about, for example, business decisions  In other words, a particular business decision may have multiple possibilities that exist with the actual outcome remaining unknown (uncertain) because ‘extra’ possibilities exist.  

Risk, on the other hand, is a (one) state of uncertainty, in which multiple possibilities exist, but, should they materialize, will involve some type or degree of loss or other undesirable outcome to a companies assets. 

Measuring uncertainty then, (in the case of IT security) is measuring a set of probabilities that a CSO, CTO, and/or CIO perhaps has assigned to a set of possibilities.  For example, following deployment of certain IT security products and services, we expect to observe a 60% reduction in the possibility-probability that personal - proprietary data and information will be extracted illicitly.

Measurement of risk, on the other hand, is a set of possibilities, each with quantified probabilities for loss, e.g., after deployment of IT security services and products, there remains a 15% probability that the company will experience theft of proprietary data and information by insiders.

(This post was inspired by Douglas Hubbard’s fine book titled ‘How To Measure Anything: Finding The Value of Intangibles in Business’.)

The ‘Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ is researched and written by Mr. Moberly to provide insights and additional views for company management teams, boards, and employees to aid in identifying, assessing, valuing, protecting, and profiting from their intangible assets.  I welcome and respect your comments and perspectives at m.moberly@kpstrat.com.

Michael D. Moberly   June 3, 2010

The timeless management adage ’you can’t manage what you don’t measure’ has relevance to the knowledge-based economy where intangible assets have become the overwhelmingly dominant source (65+%) of most company’s value and revenue.  But, as important and valuable as intangible assets are to most companies, regardless of size or industry sector, relatively few management teams and boards take a consistent role in managing or measuring them.

So, why is that?  One reason (rationale) frequently cited, is that intangible assets are ‘lumped together’ and appear on balance sheets only in the context of goodwill, thereby dismissing or relegating all other forms and categories of intangibles that a company produces and uses to subordinate, non-contributory roles. 

Thus, it begs the question, why devote time and resources to managing, measuring, and delineating things (intangible assets) that are not going to individually appear on a balance sheet?  The conventional accounting practice of not delineating/distinguishing intangibles on balance sheets, provides a stronger rationale then for management teams and boards, perhaps already so inclined, to be less receptive to learning how to identify, assess, value, manage, and, most importantly, extract value and exploit competitive advantages from their intangible assets.

Today however, as intangible asset rich/intensive companies become the norm globally, it’s seems prudent for management teams and boards to consider revisiting those aforementioned ’why should we bother’ rationales by posing this single question, ’what does my company possess or produce that is valuable and provides competitive advantages, but is not included on its balance sheet’? 

The answer to the question of course, is intangible assets.  (For a comprehensive list of intangible assets please go to http://kpstrat.com and click on brochure and scroll to ‘what are intangible assets’.)

Intangible asset specialists readily concur that when management teams and boards avoid managing and measuring intangible assets, it’s akin, particularly in this knowledge-based economy, to ’sticking a company’s entire head in the sand’.  It puts companies at risk by not focusing on those factors (intangible assets) that have proven to be so essential and integral to profitability, growth, and sustainability. 

Strict adherance to the ‘you can’t manage what you don’t measure’ adage, often gets translated as managing and measuring things that present the fewest challenges, thus the right things, or perhaps the more complicated things, or things which management teams and boards are less familiar and comfortable, are less likely to be managed or measured.  And, in a knowledge-based economy, that usually means intangible assets! 

So, what are the right things management teams and boards should be measuring?  The answer again, are the intangible assets (performance indicators) that consistently produce benefits, i.e., add value to a company, facilitate revenue streams, create competitive advantages and foundations (building blocks) for growth, future wealth creation, and sustainability, etc.

When management teams and boards frame the question as noted above, a frequent result is that  intangibles are much less likely to be dismissed, overlooked, or neglected.  Instead, the assets’ contributory value will be recognized and exploited.

 (This post was inspired by U.K.’s Department of Trade and Industry report titled ‘Creating Value From Your Intangible Assets: Unlocking Your True Potential’.)

The ‘Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ is researched and written to provide insights for companies, their management teams, boards, and employees to aid in identifying, assessing, valuing, protecting, and profiting from their intangible assets.  It is in this context that I welcome and respect your comments and perspectives on these increasinly important matters at m.moberly@kpstrat.com.

Michael D. Moberly   April 20, 2010

If you build a better mouse trap (tangible asset) the world will beat a path to your doorstep.  In the knowledge-based economy, that time hnored cliche’ has given way to ‘if you build better knowledge paths (intangible assets) you will achieve sustainable value and long term competitive advantages’.

Below are some key knowledge paths for company management/leadership teams and boards to consider insofar as utilizing their intangible assets to sustain and build value and competitive advantages:

1. Avoid under-estimating, being dismissive, or neglectful about the contributory value of intangible assets. Learn how to identify and assess the intangibles your company produces and/or acquires and be alert to subtle, below-the-radar contributions intangibles make to particular processes and procedures that enhance such things as (company) brand, reputation, customer/client relationships, and overall efficiency. etc.

2. Take steps to protect and monitor the status, sustainability, defensibility, value, and risks to your company’s intangible assets. This is particularly important for those intangibles embedded with proprietary elements and which replication and/or imitation by a competitor would be quick and pose irreversible economic and competitive advantage affects.

3. Ensure agendas for the management/leadership team and board consistently include mandates to identify and assess any unrecognized or under-utilized intangibles.  This should include exploring opportunities to license, buy, sell, trade, or apply the assets to strategic alliances.  Ultimately, the objective is to ensure the assets are shared company-wide with the mandate to explore ways to utilize/combine them with existing assets to develop, enhance, exploit other products and services or otherwise achieve efficiciencies.

Michael D. Moberly April 19, 2010

Intangible assets evolving from small and mid-sized companies (SME’s) tend to be knowledge-based and serve as market/competitive differentiators, that is, if management/leadership teams and boards recognize and utilize them as such.

Intangible assets seldom contribute as ’stand alones’ in companies.  Instead they more likely serve to support, facilitate, and enable other assets’ contributory value embedded in a companies products, services, and/or capabilities.  In other words, they frequently exist in clusters and/or collections (of assets) which together, favorably influence a firms’ overall reputation.

But, the development, accumulation, and effective utilization of intangibles in SME’s are reflective of the entrepreneurial and forward looking/thinking orientation of a management team and/or board.  To say then, that it’s essential, if not critical today, that SME management teams and boards recognize and effectively utilize the intangible assets being produced in their company is certainly not an over-statement!

Personally, I advocate a three step process or practice to producing and utilizing intangible assets:

1. Intangibles should be thoughtfully produced and objectively monitored, rather than merely permitted - hoped to evolve over a period of time.

2. Proper and effective integration of intangible assets in the appropriate (company) processes, products, and services, so they can not only enhance (company) value, but also contribute to potentially new sources of revenue, is a key.

3. Perhaps equally important, intangible assets should be developed in ways so they can, if feasible, serve as hindrances, inconveniences, and/or barriers to (market) entry by competitors.

The latter can be achieved by purposefully designing those intangibles’ that can deliver value, revenue, and competitive advantages to include certain degrees of (proprietary) complexity and obscurity that create certain challenges and/or hurdles that will require competitors’ significant time, expense, and resources to try to replicate or imitate.

In addition, its essential for SME management/leadership teams and boards to recognize that, as their company matures, its likely there will be a commensurate increase in experience, expertise, and knowledge  that will enable/facilitate the development and integration of additional sets of intangibles that mirror an SME’s stage and/or life cycle, for example, (1.) a start-up with little or no customer capital/relationships as yet, (2.) established SME’s which have already developed customer bases and reputations, but have few, if any other intangible assets, and (3.) established SME’s built exclusively around one or two specific intangibles, or (4.) SME’s that have established multiple (clusters of) intangibles.

(This post was inspired by a 2006 research report titled ‘SME Intangible Assets’ produced by the (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants with Chris Martin and Julie Hartley serving as principle investigators.)

Michael D. Moberly   April 6, 2010

Unfortunately, there remain a significant percentage of management/leadership teams and boards whose perspective of intangible assets is, in my judgment, far too narrow. 

My experience suggests, after having engaged literally hundreds of executives and management/leadership teams of all stripes, its clear many retain the outdated, if not obsolete, perspective that intangible assets exist primarily, if not soley, in the context of goodwill. 

Yet ironically, when engaged about their company’s intangible assets, its routinely expressed in asset valuation and monetization contexts, without it seems, a comprehensive recognition and appreciation for the range of intangible assets that most companies, including theirs, have probably (already) developed, acquired, and are effectively using, but remain unnoticed and largely under their ‘mba oriented radar’.  

Straight forwardly, I believe such a perspective represents a clear example of ’the cart being ahead of the horse’.  The more prudent and strategic approach I believe, and one which I find especially useful is to first engage management/leadership teams and boards in quick and above all, relevant exercises to broaden their perspective and understanding about intangible assets, well beyond the narrow goodwill only context. 

In my judgment, a management team and board can articulate, design, and explore viable and company specific strategies to monetize and further profit from their intangible assets if they first genuinely understand (a.) what intangible assets, (b.) how to identify and assess intangible assets that exist within their company, and (c.) the assets contributions to company value, revenue, sustainability, and future wealth creation.

Once this occurs, attention should rightfully turn to exploring options and strategies to more effective leveraging, exploiting, and monetizing a company’s intangible assets!

Michael D.  Moberly   March 25, 2010

Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (In Re Bilski, 2008) affirmed the rejection of a business method patent claim and reiterated the machine-or-transformation test for patent eligibility, much has been written about (a.) how the the U.S. Supreme Court will rule, (b.) how that ruling will be interpreted, and (c.) how it will affect knowledge intensive industries.

Thus far, the pre-decision speculation has largely emanated from those who ‘have, or want to have a dog in this hunt’, e.g., professional entities who seek to position themselves to exploit the outcome, which ever way the Court decides.  In most circumstances, and this is no exception, that’s simply good business practice.

Like others, I look forward to learning how the Court will ultimately rule in Bilski.  However, my personal and professional anticipation of the Court’s decision is not foused solely on the patent eligibility of business process methods, rather on whether or how the collective affect of (1.) the pre-decision speculation, (2.) the Courts’ actual decision, and (3.) post-decision analysis and interpretation may serve to impede, stifle, dampen, undermine, or otherwise adversely change the course of the progress that’s been made to date with respect to management teams and boards recognizing the value propositions of and integrating intellectual capital and intangible assets in their strategic planning and decision making processes.

More specifically, will the Bilski decision adversely influence (a.) entrepreneur, investor, and R&D communities, and (b.) management teams and boards to push back from their heretofore growing interest and fiduciary responsibility focused interest in utilizing, maximizing, and exploiting intellectual capital and other forms of intangible assets?  

I don’t believe this perspective represents a stretch or is beyond the realm of possibilities.