One of the points that's come up in discussion of the scramble for the Intel
dollars could, perhaps, warrant a brief thread of its own. We've drifted from
the original topic to a discussion of where the value lies in intellectual
property within the IT industry; and I agree with much of what's been said.
However, the issue of protection of IP remains thorny - because any company in
Australia will be faced with a dilemma, should it achieve a worldwide patent: if
they pursue infringements, they'll be diverting money from their core
activities; if they ignore infringements, then what point is there in having a
patent? This dilemma isn't unique to Australia: regardless of the morals of the
OpenMarket patents, I personally think it was a bum idea, for the reasons
outlined above.
Back to Australia: because of the lack of a business infrastructure analogous to
the US, we miss out on the expertise needed to protect IP in the following ways:
1) The inventors are unaccustomed to dealing with international IP protection;
2) Specialists in patent law seem to lack competition and therefore charge lots;
3) There are few businesspeople expert in cutting technology licensing deals, so
common in Silicon Valley. These don't only serve as revenue-raisers, remember:
they also help rope in a rich uncle who has an interest in protecting the IP
associated with an innoviation.
Lastly, this observation: Australia spends so much time debating threats to our
IP that I suspect it becomes a psychological barrier to investment. Perhaps the
best protection for a company's IP is to have the next great idea ready to roll
before the competitors have time to catch up...
Any thoughts?
Richard Chirgwin Auscom Publishing
Managing Editor Level 4, 541 Kent Street
Systems Magazine Sydney NSW 2000
Australian Communications 02 9275 0274
"COINCIDENCE: You weren't paying attention to the other half of what was going
on." - John Brunner, Stand on Zanzibar