Source: https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/government-procurement-contests-part-3-a-question-of-ip-ownership/
Timestamp: 2017-01-20 03:51:57
Document Index: 688321560

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art-2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3']

Government procurement contests (Part 3): A question of (IP) ownership | Procurement Insights
Government procurement contests (Part 3): A question of (IP) ownership Posted on September 1, 2011
NOTE: The following is an article that was originally published on August 7th, 2008 under the heading Finding the hidden Intellectual Property (IP) value in procurement contracts.
While it focused on the unique services of the Future Path organization, its resonance relative to the emergence of procurement contests – especially within the public sector, is ironic given the time that has passed since it was first posted here on the Procurement Insights blog.
From a Future Path standpoint, it is almost as if they were somewhat too far ahead of the market. From the market’s standpoint, the insights provided by Future Path’s Greg Waite could not be better timed.
At the conclusion of this post, I have also included the PDF document titled Public Procurement for Research and Innovation (Developing procurement practices favourable to R&D and innovation), which was an Expert Group Report prepared in 2005 for the European Commission. Section 6 (Contracting For Innovation), and in particular Section 6.1 (Treatment of intellectual property rights) is a must read.
Nonetheless, it is indeed an accurate reflection of what has become an overlooked enterprise “asset.” This is due in large part to the fact that as an adjunct of finance, purchasing imperatives have traditionally been centered around lowest or “best value” pricing, thereby reducing the negotiation for IP value to one of indifference in which its unrecognized value is bandied around as a “lost leader.”
While these solutions may satisfy the technical elements of the law, to what degree (if at all) do they take into account the IP value associated with the transaction? While the vast majority of contracts seek to protect the interests of individual stakeholders – some have referred to it as the “belt with suspenders” clauses, in most cases it is unlikely that a value has actually been assigned to the contract’s IP component. Enter Future Path’s Nucleus intellectual asset/intellectual property management system. Why Nucleus?
While Future Path can undoubtedly provide a variety of similar case references, the real question is simply this . . . what is the current IP value that is presently available to your organization, and what is the cost of not knowing this answer? 30
Tagged: European Commission, Expert Group Report, Future Path, government purchasing, Greg Waite, intellectual property, IP rights, procurement contests, Public Procurement for Research and Innovation (Developing procurement practices favourable to R&D and innovation)
← Government procurement contests (Part 2): When innovative ideas collide . . .
Procurement Contests Review 3-Part Series →
4 Responses “Government procurement contests (Part 3): A question of (IP) ownership” → Kelly B. & Cindy A.M (@BuyersMeetPoint)
This post is a follow up to ‘Innovation Through Procurement Contests’ (Part 1), my thoughts on Procurement Insights’ 3 part (so far) series on contests in public procurement. I’ve had a chance to think about the idea a little more and as far as I’m concerned, if it allows the buying organization to put the right solutions in place, then it is a benefit. As I commented in my previous post, the concern becomes for the procurement professional whose role becomes one of administration rather than strategy and negotiation. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, I had started down the road towards what would become a sticking point for some of the collaboration-style projects often resulting from new solution development: intellectual property rights.
Click here to read our full post:
http://buyersmeetingpoint.com/the-point-blog/entry/innovation-through-procurement-contests-requirements-v-specifications-part-2
3 Trackbacks For This Post	Sourcing3 Buyer & Supplier Magazine - Government procurement contests (Part 3): A question of (IP) ownership →
September 1st, 2011 → 4:30 pm […] Procurement Insights […]
August 28th, 2013 → 2:04 pm […] September 1st, 2011 – Part 3 (Government procurement contests (Part 3): A question of (IP) ownership) […]
August 28th, 2013 → 2:15 pm […] September 1st, 2011 – Part 3 (Government procurement contests (Part 3): A question of (IP) ownership) […]