Mark Quinlan

Naeem

Given the often astronomical cost of apyiplng for, receiving, and defending patents, Mr. McGill’s point about using less expensive trademarks as essentially a placeholder for a possible future copywrites is well taken. Mr. McGill’s proposal allows companies to protect a far greater quantity of their intellectual property than they would be able to afford to patent. Thus, companies do not have to make judgment calls about which IP to protect, leaving open the possibility of protecting an unsuccessful product while failing to protect one that becomes a commercial success. Instead a company can trademark (and subsequently copywrite if a success) its IP and protect quantity over quality, an essential benefit in the modern era where new technology products are produced so quickly that a company that only relies upon patents is likely to be left in the proverbial dust of its opponents – clinging to its meager patented IP like Linus van Pelt of Peanuts fame clung to his blue blanket, refusing to leave the trenches while its opponents simply out maneuver it with a blitzkrieg of shiny new offerings to the insatiable appetite of the consumer for the Next Best Thing. In modern high-tech industries, maneuverability is far more important than firepower (think the aircraft carrier over the battleship), and cheaper and less time-consuming methods of protecting intellectual property give companies the flexibility they need to keep up with the pace. To that end, Mr. McGill’s sage endorsement of alternative methods of protecting IP is relevant, timely, and wise – and should be considered by any high-tech company (that doesn't have a name like Google, Apple, or Microsoft) looking to compete with IP in today’s market .

Was this review helpful to you?   Rating [ 3.30 ]

0     0       Inappropriate comment