mIcrOSOFt
eacart
©iStockphoto.com / cr
putting society before profit
that Microsoft is active in enforcing its rights,”
says Arthur. “We set ourselves a yardstick for how
But revenue is not the sole concern of Microsoft’s
we’re getting our message across to Microsoft
IP strategy. Like any large IP-based company, it is
“SOmeOne WHO IS
customers and to unscrupulous resellers or
also aware of the social value of enforcing its IP.
suppliers that might be tempted to get into this.”
LOAdInG SOFtWAre
“If you take your brand seriously it is, of course,
OntO A cOmpUter
These annual goals are initially based on
very important to protect and enforce it,
Microsoft’s budget and manpower resources. Then,
WItHOUt A LIcence
because that reinforces your brand image with
as the year progresses, it keeps some resources for
OFten cOmeS Up
your customers,” says Arthur. “If a brand owner
ongoing problems and shifts others to focus on
doesn’t take its brand seriously, the customers
WItH SpUrIOUS
enforcing its IP wherever it needs it most.
don’t see why they should. Then they stop
reASOnS WHY tHeY buying and the brand falls away.”
One high-profile area that Microsoft consistently
Are ALLOWed tO
addresses is online auction sites. The company
Reinforcing a brand’s strength is an important
works with eBay and others to take down any
dO tHAt, Or FeIGnS function of enforcement, and one that reaches
auctions that appear to be of counterfeit products.
IGnOrAnce AbOUt
customers, partners and infringers alike.
Microsoft is attuned to the effectiveness of the
“It’s not always the case that you can show a direct
tHe reStrIctIOnS On
message at a strategic level and carefully plans
correlation between the sale of counterfeits
HOW tHeY cAn SUppLY
its enforcement in advance where it can.
through an auction site and lost revenue to
SOFtWAre.”
a business,” says Arthur. “But you can show a
“We set ourselves goals and targets at the start of direct correlation between sales of counterfeits
each year in terms of the number of enforcement through an auction site and the damage to a
actions that we’d like to bring, to make the point brand and disappointment to customers.”
18 World Intellectual property review September/October 2009
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84