Being well advised: A difference that is relevant

Consulting is an area that has been little researched so far. It is all the more astonishing, therefore, who feels called upon to give advice. But actually, what is the difference that is relevant?

That is quite simple:

1. 1. We don’t produce papers and powerpoints that are not implemented, but we moderate the partnerships in such a way that a new consensus can emerge that provides answers to the challenges and thus makes changes possible.
   2. Experience from over 150 consultations since 1997
   3. Knowledge of national and international market developments, but also of small and medium-sized law firms and legal departments
   4. The inside view: our own experience as a lawyer and head of the legal department enables us to understand not only the theory but also the practice and to take the respective client perspective
   5. The scientific safeguarding of our knowledge (no English, no management fashions, but solid craftsmanship, coupled with empirical knowledge of what works and what does not)
   6. A sophisticated methodology (we are extensively trained, for example in systemic consulting competence, coaching, large group methods, …)
   7. solid ethics (like lawyers: absolute confidentiality, no brokerage; only clear agreements and correct handling)
   8. Responsibility: we know our limits and keep to them!
   9. Success: law firms and legal departments we advise typically develop sustainably successful (increase of turnover and profit, solution of even difficult interests, improved positioning, increase of the value added contribution…)

Good advice:
Assignment of IP and software in the company organization

Intellectual property (IP) is increasingly important for technology and software companies. In some cases, software is purchased and distributed like a normal commercial good; however, in the case of software, its status as a work protected by copyright and patent law is becoming increasingly important. More and more often software has to be purchased under agreement of the right to modify and distribute it as source code. OEM customers are also increasingly demanding this.

In order to ensure that the promised IP rights to the software exist, that open source licenses are fulfilled and that the software does not infringe any third party patents, this must be taken into account when negotiating the purchase agreement. Only then can these risks be properly considered and negotiated in the sale.

Research by the Management Consultants “Otto Henning” shows that about 50% of all Fortune 150 companies in Germany organize IP as part of the legal department, while the other 50% see IP as part of their technology organization or other organizational units, such as a separate IP department (see also: www.ip-benchmark.com). This benchmark needs to be reviewed in a company-specific context.

The initial consideration is the question of what value-added contribution IP and software make to the company. This depends on several factors.

As a rule, the technical and legal requirements for the purchase and sale of intellectual property objects increase with the size of the company. As a rule of thumb, the higher IP’s value-added contribution to the company’s success, the more professionally equipped the IP department is and the more it is responsibly involved in the company’s main processes. If IP is crucial for creating value and securing investment in research and development, then the IP department’s leadership role is usually clear. Accordingly, it makes sense for the IP department to operate as an independent organizational unit under uniform management. The structural implementation thus follows the IP strategy.

If IP does not play a decisive role and thus contract management and administrative processing are in the foreground, the more likely it is that process sovereignty is right.

In the case of software, IP-specific specialist training and experience in the legal field are required in addition to technical assessment competence. This competence is more likely to be found in a specialized IP department, since IP has the necessary importance here.

The more clearly the structures support the importance of IP, the more IP is considered in the sales and contract design process – also with regard to software.

Corporations such as PHILIPS and BEIERSDORF have made correspondingly clear decisions and have structurally manifested the importance of IP for companies with a correspondingly independent and strong IP organization. A similar situation can be observed with almost all OEMs.