In my book this does not lead to more high quality patents, just more patents. To be honest, you could make the comment that this might actually lead to less high quality patents because of the distraction. Obviously I do not feel this is a solid strategy, but I digress.

So I was heartened this week to see HP’s PR on the subject which contained this quote. “In the future, we'll focus on selectively pursuing those patents that best serve the business interests of HP….” by their strategy officer, Shane Robison.

Actually this line makes for a great piece of IP PR. It is crisp, clean and clearly outlines the IP strategy for the future without giving away the store. HP has deffinately tried to communicate aspects of its IP program, however the focus still seemed wrong.

It is interesting to review HP’s past releases at this time in the last few years. You will see a marked difference. Last year the emphasis is still on how far up the list they have come with a quote from general council. The 2004 release was much more daunting as they were also announcing the new IP licensing group. IMHO this really should have been two related releases. In 2003 and 2002, it was mostly about the number of disclosures, mainly because the hoard of applications were still on their way to the patent office. I do commend them for outlining their IP harvesting information, however what appears to be missing is a similar discussion on how quality is discerned.

The other good trend is the number of releases on IP at HP. 2004 has no other release on the subject. Interestingly they did a better job in 2003.

IMHO HP could really do much better and many other firms could follow this reasoning and establish a patent PR plan as part of an overall IP strategy. You do not need to be HP to make this work.