tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post2098496412629832227..comments2024-03-27T12:49:05.975+00:00Comments on IP finance: The Missing IP NarrativeAnne Fairpohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02579190868405783459noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post-12929652086375698532011-12-03T20:42:33.569+00:002011-12-03T20:42:33.569+00:00Lawrence
Thanks for your comments.
In my email ...Lawrence<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. <br /><br />In my email exchange with the VC executive who was described in the blog, I identified myself as an IP lawyer. Maybe he felt compelled to state that IP (read: patents) is important simply as a sop to me in light of my professional identification, even if IP is in fact merely a secondary consideration for him; maybe he underplayed IP in his podcast broadcast because of how he viewed his particular audience (the podcast was recorded from an address that he gave); or maybe it was simply an oversight. I don't know.<br /><br />It might also depend on the industry. A VC investing in Zynga, Spotfiy or LinkedIn might view IP differently than one investing in clean tech. Again, I don't know.Neilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post-73623543524023192552011-12-02T16:25:31.673+00:002011-12-02T16:25:31.673+00:00Of the text --This absence of a narrative for IP w...Of the text --This absence of a narrative for IP was reinforced in listening to a podcast that featured a well-known venture capitalist describing the foundations of the VC world. (...)--, note the text wherein a prominent, still-existent VC spoke of the near-irrelevance of patents to VC investment. See<br /><a href="http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/03/patents-are-not-why-we-are-investing.html" rel="nofollow"><br />"Patents are not why we are investing" </a>. Although many pro-patent people speak of the need for patents to attract VCs, the strength of this particular argument is not clear. There are a lot of VCs who don't focus on patent portfolios. Neil's post is not inconsistent with this observation.Lawrence B. Eberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05616776187293753324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post-35633926605913194982011-12-02T12:20:41.297+00:002011-12-02T12:20:41.297+00:00My research in this area has been with engineering...My research in this area has been with engineering faculties, and their reluctance to include IP in the curriculum of their students.<br /><br />Sources of the reluctance boiled down to--<br /><br />1. The syllabus is too crowded;<br />2. You can't expect me to teach something with which I am unfamiliar; <br />3. Good students will find this out for themselves when they start work.<br /><br />Where IP education has been integrated into non-law faculty curricula, it is because of the presence of enthusiast(s) who are prepared to champion IP through the exhausting process of academic course committees, through the stages of proposal, fighting for 'space' with other contending subjects, and on to course validation.<br /><br />I suspect the same might hold true for Business Schools. Nor should we underestimate the negative perceptions amongst other academics of 'IP law and lawyers'.<br /><br />Ruth SoetendorpRuth Soetendorpnoreply@blogger.com