There is advantage as well as disadvantage in patenting. But since intellectual property is an asset then patenting is the right move. But there must be similar rules for every country. Perhaps when that move comes into effect, people will see more clearly the rights of the inventor or scientist. It's not so clear now. Perhaps one day soon, people will see that infringing on this right is similar to 'plagiarism'.

Sent from mobile.

There is advantage as well as disadvantage in patenting. But since intellectual property is an asset then patenting is the right move. But there must be similar rules for every country. Perhaps when that move comes into effect, people will see more clearly the rights of the inventor or scientist. It's not so clear now. Perhaps one day soon, people will see that infringing on this right is similar to 'plagiarism'.

Sent from mobile.

I think the best way to analyze this is to look into its demand and amendment in the course of evolution.

Intangible refers to the ideas or concept or soul purpose of work if something is in demand then you must introduce some changes based on the feedback from the analyzers.

I think that patenting is useful to save research products from cheating, even if the patent is not used or required by industry. A patent is like a trad mark of the prototype built by a researcher. When research is published, the corresponding product must be patented and saved from corruption. i think that it is the right method to save researchers' rights and to save science from corruption; Generally a publication do not contains the product's scheme and functioning. Researchers attend conferences in the goal to present and discuss their products/software and theories. So saving research results from cheating is required for science safety, and the unique method is patenting

Not many people know that the patents system is currently under strong discussion. The technological changes gradually becoming more complex, make even more complex to establish an adequate set of quality / quantitative criteria for the evaluation of technologies, research discoveries, methods and assets that inventors would like to submit as a patent.

—g

This may be a good question for licensing officers who sit at the tables for M&A or licensing negotiation. As the name suggests, intangible asset is intangible. To put a $$ figure next to any patent is pure guess work. The average value of a patent is $0 because over 99% of patents will not be licensed, sold or put into a tangible product.

Maybe narrow down the industry a little bit so that the solution to the question has some value. For example, the value of a software patent and that of a drug patent are not comparable or even relevant. This is not a one-size-fits-all kind of situation. Each industry has its own rule to govern the valuation of patents.

If the goal is to come up with ways to evaluation a patent in the backdrop of an infringement lawsuit, then it has to be a factual analysis to nail down a reasonable number for damages/remedies (FRAND analysis). Assuming your patent is valid and infringed, this could be done in several ways:

1) A hypothetical license fee for your patent

* It has to be an arm's length negotiation

* The terms of the hypothetical negotiation has to be comparable with the real product

* The timing of the hypothetical negotiation is critical: it is a time in the past

2) Licensing fee for other similar patents

* comparable technology/product

* comparable terms, be specific

3) Comparable alternative, replacement cost or design-around would be a ceiling

* Reasonable design-around would be fine. No need to be the best alternative.

* Need to do a reasonable search of the market place for the alternative

* Hire an expert who knows how to find the right product with the right price

4) change in market price with vs. without the technology

* Similar to the job of a real estate appraiser

* The key is to find how much more a customer is willing to pay when switching to your product, the differential between yours and other product (yours is more expensive)

5) Entire market value rule

* The entire market would NOT be there without the patented technology

* The patented technology is the basis of the dominant product on the market, not some frivolous part.

* Either ask for a lump sum or a percentage per sale.

@Feng Tian sir, Thanks for such an informative answer.

In the imaginary room of mathematics applied to finance, the sentence "it is pure guess work" is tautological. In the algorithmic trading, conditions that determine the valuation of an asset are related to dynamics of complex environmental unsteady circumstances of that asset itself, which in turn must be quantified momentarily.

Even in the event that the conditions were completely random and undeterminable or even unknown, mathematical models applied to financial transactions / trading should derive a core of circumstances for each asset, at least substantiating a momentary outcome, in currency.

For an investor, the assessment of the predictive value for an asset is held in the same way, but the core is to be stretched in time, and it would makes no sense if it was momentary.

The analogy of the two mechanisms could be the basis for evaluate on a time lapse of real circumstances.

—g

The answer is no such method.

For each list of Intangible Assets:

• Intellectual property rights of patents, trademarks,

copyrights, and registered designs

• Trade secrets

• Contracts and licenses

• Databases

• Information in the public domain

• Personal and organizational networks

• The “know-how” of employees, professional advisers,

suppliers, and distributors

• The reputations of products and the company

• The culture of the organization; e.g., the ability of

the organization to react to challenge, to cope with

change, etc...

there exists its own method.

I've just uploaded two different methodologies in the Project area "What_is_the_best_method_system_for_the_evaluation_of_intangible_assets".

1st is "IVA" (Intangible Value Assessment) by MSCI ESG Research, a 3-stages approach based on the general methodology called "Rating and Ranking" [file: https://www.researchgate.net/file.ElementFileLoader.html?benchKey=What_is_the_best_method_system_for_the_evaluation_of_intangible_assets&elementId=531b81a0cf57d7773e8b4569]

2nd is "Monte Carlo", a very advanced methodology algorithmically based on the Discounted Cashflow Method (DCF), and Net Present Value (NPV) — and the difference is in the probabilistic approach instead of deterministic [file: https://www.researchgate.net/file.ElementFileLoader.html?benchKey=What_is_the_best_method_system_for_the_evaluation_of_intangible_assets&elementId=531b80f6d2fd6417778b45a8]

—g

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Does_patent_research_is_key_in_projects/bench/What_is_the_best_method_system_for_the_evaluation_of_intangible_assets/?ev=proj_det_bnch_name

This is a very complicated question and problem, also as the problem of patenting!

If we would live in an ideal honest world, I see two ways of (call it) protection of authorship of a result and awards for the author.

1. First --- keep the result in secret, make a patent, then everybody who wants to use the result should buy the patent, and who uses the result without patent (after you sold your patent some times, it's already not a secret) must be punished by law.

*I would remark: since we live in the world becoming more and more dishonest, this way is very dangerous: your result can steal at the moment when it comes through patent office, and nobody will able to support your authority and prove that you was the first here since you even haven't publications with your result. Such stories already had place (especially in physics and in technique, including hardware).

2. Second (my suggestion, but, perhaps, I am not the first with such a suggestion --- never studied this problem) --- to publish openly all results. At the same time, international scientific community together with officials of different countries must prepare a special law that if certain commercial firm will use your result, it must pay you an indicated percent (may be, 0.000...1 of percent) from any use of your result.

That is, the same situation like with songs and composers. If you wrote a song, you should get a percent from any performance. Of course, the main proportion of income will receive a singer. But many singers can use your song (if it's a good thing), so anyway you will receive anything. Another situation is in science. Nobody pays for the algorithms you invented, nobody pays for new materials you created etc., you obtain only your salary, which is very modest in some countries.

*I would remark: since our world isn't honest, will be a problem to describe new invention, the same also for 1. with patent. A wrong description will give a possibility to many people, who will use your method or equipment with small modification not to refer to you as to author. Moreover, one should create certain procedure to establish a real author of a result. Because in our dishonest world, many results are prescribed maliciously not to real authors, but to other people with profit to those who do it --- see Wikipedia in English. In mathematics, and sometimes in other natural sciences, many results of XX Century are prescribed to wrong authors!

As about Ratings, Ranking etc. --- all this is useless (sometimes harmful, because wrong), by my opinion, since just people around science create it. Any commercial firm who will use your invention, will test it. So, if they will implement it in your products --- this is just will mean a good Rating and Rank of your invention.

Tnx Ekaterina,

I'm going to read your contribute in deep this evening.

—g

Just realized that there is a typo in the project name:

Does patent research is key in projects?

A better way of naming the project may be:

Is patent research a key in projects?

Is conducting patent research a key in projects?

Ok @Feng, tnk you

I'm not the author of that project, but maybe it could be fixed by owner and / or participants. I'll look.

—g

As it is well know the propensity and effectiveness of patenting is extremely different across industries. In many industries leading time, secrecy, brand loyalty and Learning are more powerful ways to assure appropriability.

@Feng - I really liked your first answer. Thanks for that! I have just few comments from my experience - Market based method does not work because market is not transparent and it is impossible to find a "similar" patent. Cost based will overestimate 80% of patents and underestimate that 2% that are the superstars.

In industry Monte Carlo is used rather often. Mainly by IP aggregators/pools/special purpose vehicles experts who have to deal with valuation on every day bases (and people who work for IP investment vehicles have often finance background and thus feel comfortable with the method).

Nevertheless I have worked with Monte Carlo on patent valuation and to be honest - you will get it right 1 or 2 times out of 10 (tops). Did it for patents acquired and granted in 2004 - 2008 and looking at the estimates now - you will not get the superstars with MC simulation - its is basically just giving average estimates for each steps (standard normal distributions in most cases) and therefore you will always miss the 1-2% of patents that are breakthrough and can create tickets and have huge market potential.

Intangibles valuation in current state is like the (e)valuation of a Vincent van Gogh painting in 1888.

IP market needs first to become efficient and transparent (+the asset class liquid) to solve the valuation issue.

@Liina Tonisson

Thanks for the valuable and substantive comment. I feel sorry about van Gogh. Not a single piece of his paintings was bought by an appreciative customer when he was alive. On the other hand, if you had figured out how to evaluate a patent application ACCURATELY, I, and many other patent practitioners, would have been shown the door the next day. :)