Home » 15inno

Why Intellectual Property Still Matters for Open Innovation

June 13, 2012 15inno 10 Comments

I have just facilitated a great session on how to use social media for innovation efforts together with participants from P&G, Shell, MeadWestVaco, Mattel, Psion and Whirlpool. At the session, several people stated that they need to change their perspective on this topic; it is much more important than they initially expected it to be.

Although, we had a great day together, we also ran into some difficulties when we started a discussion on the role of intellectual property (IP) on this intersection. To be honest, I have downplayed the importance of IP over the last couple of years, but here it really showed how important – and potentially limiting – it can be for open innovation.

At the session, we in particular discussed crowdsourcing-like initiatives in which mostly individuals contribute with their ideas and insight. Here IP is not that big an issue as most individuals do not really care too much that they submit ideas on a non-confidential basis meaning that the platform owner can do more or less what they want to do with the input unless it is proctected or potentially proctected by a patent.

Another key topic at the session was the development of b-t-b communities in which companies – are more rightfully so – their employees share insights and knowledge and build further on the ideas of others. Here it gets more complicated as these employees are bound by their obligations to their companies with respect to ideas and intellectual property created.

Since these obligations actually hinder such employees from entering open innovation communities, we had a good discussion on what you can do here. Some ideas:

• You can work with a creative common like approach in which the IP created is shared. Unfortunately, this does not work for most companies planning to start such communities as they want to own or at least control the IP created.

• You can organize your community in layers in which the first layer is focused on more general interactions in which you do not really share insights or develop ideas that are impacted by IP issues. You can then have another layer – or move such discussions out of the community and into 1-1 settings – if you have a discussion that develops in this direction.

• In some industries, you can let go of IP issues all together if you believe that the execution of ideas matters the most and that you can operate with trade secrets. This is not really an option, but it does imply that companies need to change their thinking on how they work with IP issues if they want to take open innovation to the next level.

This is a tricky and difficult topic. What do you think of this?

Share |

Currently there are "10 comments" on this Article:

  1. Russ Conser says:

    Stefan,

    Enjoyed the day – thanks for hosting. Although not sure I fully support, I find this paper thought provoking about IP in a social media age….
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i

    What would a social, rather than individual, model look like? Could such a thing work in practice? Maybe the illusion of sole invention is a key behavioral driving force whether real or not? Hmmm…

  2. David Cruickshank says:

    One of the chief reasons why I argue that there is a need for a top down approach to formulating an open innovation strategy versus the more typical ground up attempt that is more common. With a top down approach, management can then ensure that the OI strategy is aligned to its IP strategy. If a firm has no iproperty strategy then this is a different problem altogether. From my observation, software companies taking a platform approach seek to optimize the firm's degree of freedeom relative to the control of its platform. Hence, OI efforts at the app level are more readily embraced than the OI efforts involving some form of integration with the target platform technology.

  3. David Cruickshank says:

    Another observation is that there is still a lot of legacy mindset influencing whether an open innovation effort is possible. Business development managers for instance are goaled similarly to account reps in that their view of co-innovation sometimes only goes as far as what will support cross licensing and oem type of deals useful to driving more revenue across different industries/markets. They will often not see the value of the OI approach if it fails to contribute to goals measured quarter by quarter.

  4. David Cruickshank says:

    Getting back to ensuring that an OI strategy is aligned with the firm's IP strategy, those responsible for IP have specific KPIs in place relevant to risk management. They will obviously be goaled to protect the IP rights of the platform, so unless_there is top down acceptance of an OI strategy that includes applying OI to platform innovation' conflict will arise in an effort to write the contract if the resulting foreground IP created through co-innovation calls for joint ownership or the licensing is too restrictive prohibiting an optimal return on investment for either party. Such situations might be avoided when it is clear that the IP underscoring the platform technology is better served when developed at least in part from innovations made posible through external ideas.

  5. Niels Rasmussen says:

    Stefan

    First of all, – welcome back to planet earth:) I appreciate that You have now realized or acknowledged the challenges in OI and IPR.

    IP might limit the openness in open innovation, but at the same time it is also the worlds largest and best documented playground for technology sharing..and it is totally open for everyone, also the lone inventor. Several companies get their inspiration from competitor patents or patents related to complete other businesses. For some extend we could call this process co-creation. If companies did not share their knowledge in patents but treated their inventions as trade secrets, I believe that the evolution in the past 100 years would have left us at least 10 years behind our technology level of today.

  6. Cr8tv D!srpt0r says:

    This is a challenge I run into both within my own company as an intrapreneur and with clients seeking advice on innovation management.

    I am inclined to believe that in most cases, the third approach is the best – https://openopine.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/openne…. There may even be an ulterior benefit: spurring business units into action, rather than letting an innovative idea languish or an external competitor seize the opportunity first.

    Nonetheless, there are times when a company will want to be very careful about what it shares externally. There is need for a structured framework to help determine what is strategically sensitive and what can be exposed to a more open innovation process. I've often wondered about how the Six Sigma "house of quality" might be adapted for such a purpose.

  7. Mads H. Odgaard says:

    This may attract your interest …

    At the Center for Ideas & Innovation, the Danish Technological Institute we've commissioned a report titled “Open business models and intellectual property”. Big Innovation Centre in London produced the report.

    A summary of the findings in the report says the following:

    “Focusing on open service innovation platforms of all sizes within the United Kingdom, this report researches the strategic use of intellectual property and IPR for value creation, and the obstacles that firms experience in the process. The report also addresses the existing and new elements in the regulatory and business practice domain that aim to promote successful use of open innovation business models.

    To be continued …

  8. Mads H. Odgaard says:

    Continued …

    The key lesson from this research is that a wide variety of formal and informal IPR instruments – including patents and copyright, co-creation, user-driven innovation, joint ventures, creative commons, open source, and the exploitation of technology and creative expressions with no registered IPR protection – can act as enablers of open business models, but that no instrument is free of obstacles when used for value creation. Policy needs to be flexible and neutral to accommodate the variety of firms and value creation instruments they use, and it needs to eliminate the inefficiencies that firms face in navigating the intellectual property system.”

    To be continued …

  9. Mads H. Odgaard says:

    Continued …

    We do believe that the findings confirm your observation about governments doing very little to create an infrastructure to support open business models and open innovation.

    The report can be downloaded from http://biginnovationcentre.com/Assets/Docs/Report….

    If you find the results and the suggestions for policy-implications interesting, please do not hesitate to get into contact (mod@teknologisk.dk, +45 7220 2141).

    During Autumn we will explore the questions above furthermore, this time to produce “the Danish example”.

    All the best,

    Mads H. Odgaard

My Books

Site Sponsor

LinkedIn Community

Join the Leadership+Innovation group on LinkedIn. Click this link: Leadership+Innovation

Other Events

Archives

Follow Me @ Twitter