TOO MUCH IP/NOT ENOUGH IP

As this week winds down, an interesting juxtaposition showed up in my Inbox:  two separate articles on MSNBC appeared to  contradict one another.

The first article excerpted in my email read:

EARNING a return on IP
MSNBC - USA
... a string of acquisitions, Ray Link, chief finance officer of TriQuint
Semiconductor Inc., found himself with way too much intellectual property to manage. ...

While the second article excerpted in my email read:

MICROSOFT aspires to double patent portfolio
MSNBC - USA
... In June 2003, Microsoft hired Marshall Phelps, a former vice president of intellectual property at IBM and a 28-year veteran at of the Armonk, NY-based company ...

Unlike the other 800000 other email news alerts from Google I received this week, this one got my attention.  How could one company have too much IP while another company doesn't have enough IP (or at least is interested in getting twice as many patents within a short period of time).   

Upon further investigation, story number one has more to do with "bounty of riches" scenarios -- i.e. I have too many patents to use myself and I am making too much money from my competitors who I have licensed.  After reading the full article, the story opens up and becomes more about the neceesity of IP and patent portfolios and less to do with "too much IP".  I would even go out on a limb and say that IP is seen by the companies mentioned (IBM, Xerox, Microsoft) as essential to market maintenance as well as an independent source of revenue that can surpass revenue from actual products.

Both stories are worth reading and do a nice job of reinforcing the proposition that in today's competitive global marketplace, the ability to keep competitors at a distance is only one-half of the IP equation:  unused IP assets must also be turned into revenue streams.  What better place to find that revenue or partner than in your competitors.  As the old saying goes:  keep your friends close and your enemies closer.