I found some rather surprising results of a survey in a recent
email circular from
Intangible Business:
"The significance of valuations
In disputes, 98% of lawyers found intellectual property valuations significant or very significant to their disputes. For non-contentious issues, 97% of lawyers found the valuation of intellectual property significant or very significant in supporting their project objectives. Clearly, when it is used, valuing intellectual property helps. In our experience, the value of the intellectual property is an important contribution to the cases in which it is required. If you think about it, this makes sense. As intellectual property – especially trademarks and goodwill - forms such a large portion of business value, how can its value not be damaged by negative business activity? Or how can knowing its value be anything but central to commercial activity?
Valuations’ future significance
The lawyers we researched thought the role and significance of valuing intellectual property was going to increase. 65% of litigators thought the significance of IP issues to disputes would increase and 75% of non-contentious lawyers thought it would also increase in the future. No-one thought its significance would reduce"(emphases added).
Any thoughts as to whether the sample of IP lawyers interviewed was typical?
I found some rather surprising results of a survey in a recent email circular from Intangible Business: 
I suppose one must expect the valuers to advertise if they are not as busy as they would have been now that the world has lost its trust in securitised products. Frankly I would advise any solo practitioner against becoming involved in financial IP products - it may lie heavily on your insurance provider.
ReplyDeleteI am amazed there is still an appetite for such schemes or perhaps there isn't and thats why those who used to implement them are now talking so much.