Little increments.
Individually maybe not so significant, but cumulatively...
Got a call the other day from a lovely chap, who edits the newsletter for the IPO (Intellectual Property Office).
He was interested as much in my journey with RE:tie as much as the product itself.
Enough to stretch to two long chats.
With luck, it will result in some PR, and to some useful folk. Baby steps.
And in the course of this he mentioned some invention (especially 'green' related) resources I was not aware of, which I happily pass on here:
Low Carbon Innovation Centre. Good guys. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/news/newsletters/ipinsight/ipinsight-200903/ipinsight-200903-3.htm
Plus some info on speed patents (which now apply to clean tech in particular): http://www.ipo.gov.uk/news/newsletters/ipinsight/ipinsight-200905/ipinsight-200905-4.htm
And a recycling case study: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/news/newsletters/ipinsight/ipinsight-200901/ipinsight-200901-4.htm
Showing posts with label INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Packing 'em in
I just got back last night from a two-day trip to an intellectual property conference in Glasgow.
And it was one to which I had been invited to as a speaker. The roller-coaster ride that is RE:tie was and still is deemed to be an interesting study. And this time it was in the awesome, but imposing setting of the University's stunning Bute Hall.
Mostly pretty high-end legal stuff which was waaaay over my head, but some useful material which I'll share here for budding researchers and/or inventors. One of my points was that those who 'create' are often not that well served by the highly necessary complementary business aspects to get to sustainable models, and that is often down to not knowing about a lot that is in fact out there for free.
For instance, a speaker from the IPO shared these latest, and highly useful IP tools on their site:
Lambert Agreements - http://www.innovation.gov.uk/lambertagreements/
Gowers Review - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/licensingbooklet.pdf
Patent Licensing - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/licensingbooklet.pdf
IP Healthcheck - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/iphealthcheck - worth doing!
Meanwhile another speaker, from the British Library, shared this:
Business & IP Centre - http://www.bl.uk/bipc/
Plus the fact that they really do have an awful lot of information available that one might not realise is there to be had. For instance, I have been staring at a price of £1200 for a report on the packaging market for bottle caps, and wishing I could have a look. Seems that, via the Library, I may be able to just that! For nothing.
And then, in the course of some spirited discussion between podium and floor, I ended up with some key offers of direct help which I am hoping will prove highly valuable.
One little bit of Kismet was that the very day I spoke the news media were alive with top stories about packaging, and manufacturers and retailers were not coming out well and/or struggling to find and share solutions, and certainly few that would be deemed positive in a consumer sense.
As I was there I missed them, but have had a quick trawl to try and capture a few. They did not hurt my advocacy for Junkk.com or the cause of RE:tie, a redesign that turns grams of plastic from litter or landfill... to reuse.
Telegraph - 'Excessive' supermarket packaging is leading to higher council tax bills
Examples included Britvic saving 1,670 tons of plastic a year by redesigning Robinsons squash bottles
Telegraph - M&S bottom of packaging recycling list - Time for Plan, er... reuse?
Telegraph - There is a Plan B - with a link to a comment I made a while ago! One of ... two so far, even with the revisit.
Telegraph - Packaging 'sinks Marks & Spencer green bid' - Not a headline I fancy they will appreciate. To be fair, and the MSM seem hardly capable of this when a good headline beckons, the last para does suggest 'M&S disputed the research, which looked at 29 of their 5,500 products, and said 91 per cent of their food packaging could be recycled.' Might have been worth a follow-up to check? Or... moving on.
Telegraph - M&S worst supermarket in green report - Archive stuff, but when you end up bottom I guess that is what gets focused upon. Especially if you make some big claims that seem poorly borne out in fact.
Times - Supermarkets fail to shine in packaging study to find the greenest of them all - Interesting that they single out Waitrose instead. It is worth noting the first comment that councils, or rather the national policies, are by no means helping.
Indy - Pay packaging recycling costs, stores told - Just so's we're clear: when they pay... we pay.
Guardian - Supermarkets' excessive packaging exposed by survey - I'm surprised there was not more comment.
Packaging News - Supermarket 'excess packaging' report dismissed as "nonsense"
Packaging News - Retailers fight back as media storm erupts over 'excess packaging'
Packaging News - Soap Box: packaging's public image
Packaging News - The LGA's 'War on Waste': a response
An industry response that is, as might be expected.. 'robust'. But before we go all Mandy Rice Davis WeTWoST (Well, They Would Say That), read some of the responses. Not sure any MSM types did, especially on broadcast. Lots of emotive, and illogical, vox pops supported by often rather conveniently forgetful 'experts' with axes to grind and targets to meet. It IS all vastly more complex and serving the public ill to pretend otherwise.
'..a constructive debate about packaging in the media.'
Bless. When there are agendas to push, ratings to drive and targets to meet, I have long since given up on anything well researched and/or objective from the MSM, complicit at the hands of those who are happy to use their less than challenging reporting abilities to push press releases out as stories.
And I am a green campaigner!
My frustration lies in that all too often the cause of actual overall reductions (waste, emissions, etc... that I categorise under enviROI) is poorly served. Also there can be a highly negative, and damaging backlash if these 'messengers' have their messages shown to be poorly thought through or, worse, often more in the cause of their own self-interest.
Fool the public once, shame on you...
The ever worthwhile Almost Mrs. Average has a balanced, consumer-centric take... Recycling Blame
The public... is not daft.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Paranoia, and KNOWING there's sod all you can do
It's a bit of a rant, but with a glimmer of a sensible point inside.
I just had a gander at a major social enterprise award I entered yonks ago.
It is heading for the finals, so the publicity machine is well and truly out.
So I was checking the semi-finalists in the several categories to try and see what's 'in' and what's 'no-win' when it comes to judges and/or funders.
Now there were the usual highly local magazines and groups, which are fine, but often seem a stretch when it comes to the expandability and sustainability criteria that mostly, and sensibly (if more in theory than practice) get imposed.
But what brought me up short were two entries, which were pretty much exactly what I had put in as developments of Junkk.com in need, and worthy of support. Not brand new by any means, but with unique twists that really made them seem different. One in the area of reuse matchmaking and the other in car sharing.
Now it's all pretty academic, and of course any good idea can be matched and/or pipped by the same one.
But it did get me to wondering about the actual levels of protection and degrees of confidentiality one might need vs. get in such cases. You only go in for such things because you need help, but how often does one apply the same level of non-disclosure as one would to, say, an investor?
Tricky, as in most cases one is not talking a 'thing' that you can patent or trademark or copyright, and a good idea is only as good as you getting it to market first.
I just had a gander at a major social enterprise award I entered yonks ago.
It is heading for the finals, so the publicity machine is well and truly out.
So I was checking the semi-finalists in the several categories to try and see what's 'in' and what's 'no-win' when it comes to judges and/or funders.
Now there were the usual highly local magazines and groups, which are fine, but often seem a stretch when it comes to the expandability and sustainability criteria that mostly, and sensibly (if more in theory than practice) get imposed.
But what brought me up short were two entries, which were pretty much exactly what I had put in as developments of Junkk.com in need, and worthy of support. Not brand new by any means, but with unique twists that really made them seem different. One in the area of reuse matchmaking and the other in car sharing.
Now it's all pretty academic, and of course any good idea can be matched and/or pipped by the same one.
But it did get me to wondering about the actual levels of protection and degrees of confidentiality one might need vs. get in such cases. You only go in for such things because you need help, but how often does one apply the same level of non-disclosure as one would to, say, an investor?
Tricky, as in most cases one is not talking a 'thing' that you can patent or trademark or copyright, and a good idea is only as good as you getting it to market first.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Patently venal
Fresh back from a talk on IP for RE:tie, and I open a letter regrading my TradeMark for RE:Box.
Seems an outfit called the EIEC (European Institute for Economy and Commerce) reckon I owe 'em £479.75 for something I already paid the IPO £200 to get approved a while ago.
It's a scam. Be warned. And these can also happen with URL registrations.
IPO advice page
What gets me is that many may not know, and there seems little the authorities can or will do about such a blatant rip-off in plain sight. I reported it but was just told to ignore it. How many might not?
Seems an outfit called the EIEC (European Institute for Economy and Commerce) reckon I owe 'em £479.75 for something I already paid the IPO £200 to get approved a while ago.
It's a scam. Be warned. And these can also happen with URL registrations.
IPO advice page
What gets me is that many may not know, and there seems little the authorities can or will do about such a blatant rip-off in plain sight. I reported it but was just told to ignore it. How many might not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)