Using IP numbers as metrics is a very tricky business – and one that can be very misleading if used to compare performance across organizations, sectors or economies (it can be useful year-over-year within a measurment zone).rnrnIt is not very challenging to raise numbers of patent (or trade mark or copyright, etc.) applications filed, as there are virtually no substantive requirements to get a filing receipt. Nor is it difficult to get “something” issued to patent. (The challenge is in getting commercially valuble claims issued…if you are willing to narrow your claims to the point of irrelevance, the patent will usually issue.) In addition, there may be great value in filing an application but markets may change and the best business decision later may be to abandon it rather than pay the additional costs to get it issued. Thus, these numbers are not true measures of value. rnrnThe value of IP rights comes from how often they stop people from using what is protected without the owner’s permission. This, however, can be very hard to measure. rnrnIf you are measuring an organization for whom IP is a product, then it this can be measured by looking at the number of licenses issued for product technologies. However, for businesses who produce IP to advance their own market efforts (by preserving a market share or gaining a competitive advantage), no one really knows how many competitiors have decided to abandon certain approaches or to concentrate on different market areas as a result of the IP rights already in place. rnrnThus, while even within my own (public research) organization, we do measure things like patent applications filed, patents issued, etc., I do not place any real value in those numbers. What I like to see is revenue/(issued patent), or revenue/(patent application pending for 30 months or more). That is where the meat is.rnrnIP rights are just tools, and measuring entrepreneurial value by measuring rights applied for or obtained does not make sense – it is like measuring houses built by the number of hammers ordered or sold.

Using IP numbers as metrics is a very tricky business – and one that can be very misleading if used to compare performance across organizations, sectors or economies (it can be useful year-over-year within a measurment zone).It is not very challenging to raise numbers of patent (or trade mark or copyright, etc.) applications filed, as there are virtually no substantive requirements to get a filing receipt. Nor is it difficult to get “something” issued to patent. (The challenge is in getting commercially valuble claims issued…if you are willing to narrow your claims to the point of irrelevance, the patent will usually issue.) In addition, there may be great value in filing an application but markets may change and the best business decision later may be to abandon it rather than pay the additional costs to get it issued. Thus, these numbers are not true measures of value. The value of IP rights comes from how often they stop people from using what is protected without the owner's permission. This, however, can be very hard to measure. If you are measuring an organization for whom IP is a product, then it this can be measured by looking at the number of licenses issued for product technologies. However, for businesses who produce IP to advance their own market efforts (by preserving a market share or gaining a competitive advantage), no one really knows how many competitiors have decided to abandon certain approaches or to concentrate on different market areas as a result of the IP rights already in place. Thus, while even within my own (public research) organization, we do measure things like patent applications filed, patents issued, etc., I do not place any real value in those numbers. What I like to see is revenue/(issued patent), or revenue/(patent application pending for 30 months or more). That is where the meat is.IP rights are just tools, and measuring entrepreneurial value by measuring rights applied for or obtained does not make sense – it is like measuring houses built by the number of hammers ordered or sold.

>measuring entrepreneurial value by measuring rights applied for or obtained does not make senseYes, I think we were looking at the data from different angles. You were looking from a local, microeconomics point-of-view – how individual firms compete. I was looking from an international, macroeconomics point-of-view – how multi-national conglomerates and countries compete. It would be difficult to imply Taiwanese individuals are more entrepreneurial than Canadians for the reasons you listed.This reminds me of a panel discussion on whether medical institutions should openly share their research/IP.http://vimeo.com/channels/fom2009

>measuring entrepreneurial value by measuring rights applied for or obtained does not make senseYes, I agree. I would add that we were looking at the same data at different levels. You were thinking from a local, microeconomics point-of-view – how individual firms compete. I was thinking from an international, macroeconomics point-of-view – how multi-national conglomerates and countries compete. This was how I discovered Taiwan's transformation. Notice how I didn't say, or imply, Taiwanese individuals are more entrepreneurial than Canadians – that would be a difficult argument without consideration to the items you listed. Yet, I did imply if Canadians want a economic “moon shot” of their own, that's the scale of change that would be a role model for other nations.This also reminds me of a panel discussion on whether medical institutions should openly share their research/IP.http://vimeo.com/channels/fom2009I didn't quite get your housing analogy of measuring rights and entrepreneurial value, but I can tell you who are more likely to build faster (productivity) and ask for higher price (value creation).