Michael D. Moberly, Principal, Founder kpstrat and ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog – A Business Intangible Asset Strategist & Risk Mitigator

Unfortunately, assigning level-headed value to the application and/or acquisition of particular-business things intangible gets (inevitably) mired in various conventions related to asset accounting, reporting, taxing, longevity, and sustainability.

Those conventions largely – respectfully originated + remain variously rooted in business eras that were far more reliant – dependent on holding ever-increasing-expanding quantities of physical-tangible assets (e.g., inventories, employees, capabilities, storage, and property, etc.) throughout a business’s strategic plan, mission, assets respective acquisition, manufacture/assembly, distribution, and sell chain.

Today – foreseeable-future, 70-80+% of business valuation, wealth creation, competitiveness, revenue generation, and (business) sustainability rely – depend on…

• the repeated development + application of unique product – service specific intangible (non-physical) assets and less so on conventional physical – tangible assets.

In business economic – operation contexts, the above translate to business leaders, management teams, boards, and investors (fiduciarily) obliged to ensure introduction – application of…

• the right forms – contexts – applications of intellectual, structural, and relationship capital (intangible assets) at the right time, in the right place, in the right way, at the right cost.

The Business Intangible Asset Blog characterizes the above as a business operational – economic norm occurring across business sectors, irrespective of size, sales, stage, brand, product – service, or location.

Example…Google, as numerous-other ‘tech firms’, announced some time ago its intent to acquire-purchase particular (intangible) assets, i.e., intellectual + structural capital held by HTC, for application to their mobile (smartphone) division and business.

In other words, Google is seeking to acquire – apply specificvery-specific intangible assets developed + held by a known – targeted group of HTC employees. The epitome of an intangible asset transaction, perhaps!

Worth mentioning…previously Google made a proposal – offer ($12.5 bn) to buy Mobility (Motorola’s smartphone manufacturer). That offer went south, and subsequently came to be referred to, in not-so-favorable favorable contexts, as ‘the Motorola experiment’. 

A suggested reason for this non-deal (perhaps) was the proposal encompassed more than specific intangible assets associated with Motorola’s smartphone manufacturing side. 

• If that was the case I suspect, the outcome may have materialized more favorably had an experienced intangible asset strategist been present.

With respect to Googles’ proposed HTC transaction, one presumes there are measurable beliefs this transaction will create attractive user experiences to advance the Android ecosystem.

Through my lens (as a business intangible asset strategist – risk mitigator) this transaction represents another example of (a.) motivated buyer (Google) assigning a sustainable dollar value to (intangible) assets developed + held by (b.) a motivated seller, (employees of HTC’s mobile division).

The Google proposal, as characterized in various business media, the buyer (Google)…

• anticipates and presumably-has methodically measured this transaction will deliver quick, attractive, and competitive returns in the Android marketspace.
• otherwise, why would Google seek to purchase intangible assets developed – held externally?

The ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ is experientially–researched, written, and produced by Michael D. Moberly, to provide readers with perspectives and nuanced insights to distinguish, value, and safeguard business things intangible   designated as mission essential. 

Readers are-encouraged to review and comment on this, and other posts, @ Business Intangible Asset Blog.