Do you cringe when it comes to easy and misleading definitions? Well, I often do. So, a while ago I asked a quite short question on Linkedin. It fostered more discussion than I expected. It was great to see that many peers put their minds on a quite "basic" issue of definitions and interpretations around "IP", "innovation", "invention" and more. See the discussion here and a big thanks to your contribution.
5 major takeaways
1️⃣ Inventions, IP Rights and Patents can be highly useless, if they are not commercialised (as product, service, license etc.)
2️⃣ An innovation without IP is questionable, usually IP is part of the process of creating an invention, which then produces a form of IP.
3️⃣ IP can be seen as "a" indicator of innovation. Its neither more than that, nor is it less.
4️⃣ Vested interests / misunderstandings are the reasons that patents are reported as THE indicator of innovation: "Most innovative countries/companies hold the biggest quantity of patents or patent applications." Oh my god, don't trigger me ;-)
5️⃣ Last but not least: Drake and the MIT (watch the video) know it:
Innovation = Invention x Commercialisation.
