* "Quality patents" is not a term of art but a slogan. Almost everyone wants "quality patents", but do we all want or mean the same thing? For a manufacturer, a QP effectively wards off competition; to a licensor, it must generate stable, predictable income; for anyone advancing finance on the security of IP, a QP is an asset that will not vaporise if its validity is challenged and which will retain its commercial value. To an information scientist it's one that accurately and succinctly describes the advance on the art, and so on. Do we need greater consensus as to the meaning of the term?The Aistemos LinkedIn Group is a serious and responsibly moderated LinkedIn Group which welcomes discussion and debate. Do join and feel welcome to share your thoughts and opinions with us.
* Following a recent Aistemos blogpost on Unwired Planet in the wake of its latest quarterly report, a reader's comment speculates as to whether stock analysts need bother looking carefully at a company's IP assets and prospects, if all they need do is assess whether its current stock price is a deviation from the mean. While this may seem a little cynical, recommendations to buy or sell -- unlike share movements immediately following key court decisions on eg patent validity -- don't seem to be linked to IP value. Thoughts, anyone?
* A tweet from @InnovateUK picked up a speech by Confederation of British Industry Director General John Cridland, reported in The Times, pointing out that the UK had the smallest R&D spend of any G8 country. Investment in R&D may come through the public sector or private funding. In the first case this is a matter of policy; in the latter, it's a matter of preference -- and investors have a preference for putting money where it is more likely to get a safe and worthwhile return. Why, then, is R&D investment lower in the UK than in, eg France, Italy, Canada or Russia? Any suggestions?