FOR: Kanopys decision to avoid formal IP protection (patenting code) Code central to Kanopys competitiveness endeavour to keep as private

s private company knowledge, harder for competitors to imitate (= supporting treating code as trade secret, no public disclosure required) Software industry today is quickly evolving, producing new code quickly (daily, weekly, month basis) (Sfekas 2007) Kanopy consistently produces new code, developing and improving old code, making old code redundant and therefore not worth taking the time/cost to patent it Patenting software code takes money away from developing and improving code to make company more competitive and facilitate growth (Reed, Storrud-Barnes and Jessup 2012) Patenting generally takes emphasis away from innovation (Reed, Storrud-Barnes and Jessup 2012) As code is strong determinant of Kanopys competitiveness, and continual innovation is part of their vision and branding, patenting would only take unnecessary time/funds away from expansionary organisational growth Software patents are only breaches if exact code is used = for a small company as Kanopy with limited resources, would prove a difficult endeavour to defend (therefore resources are better pooled to improve the coding, and increase in competitiveness and growth, than protect old redundant codes) Kanopys branding and core part of their competitiveness as defined by Olivia lies in their constant innovation and development By patenting old code, the firm is not focused on organisational objectives, and branding messages would not be consistent (Clift 2001)

AGAINST: Kanopys decision to avoid formal IP protection

Kanopy is expanding to US larger more concentrated market, require more sophisticated IP protection (ie. cannot rely on branding as competitive differentiator as much) US legal system is somewhat different than Australian Provides more leniency/cover for software patents (World Intellectual Property Organisation 2013) Software patents provide security for technological based firms, something potential buyers would look for (Humphrey mentioned in years later she may consider selling the company) Humphrey mentioned that unlike Australia there are many more direct competitors, therefore to enrich branding, a Trademarked company name is recommended. Trademarks are defined as; any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from another (Trott 2008). Effective trademarks differentiate products via associations with business image, reputation and product value complemented with monopolistic right of patents, trademarks are strong foundation for product differentiation, important for Kanopys global expansion (Brownlie 2008) Affirmed by Humphrey, Kanopys lack of IP presents a challenge that they should always be ahead of competitors and not lose the pace innovation has highs and lows (Clift 2001), as such formal IP is recommended to be in place to protect Kanopy from times of low innovation.

Patents expire (20 years), protecting old code for a 20 year period does not seem a good use of funds/payoff, when those funds could be used to consistently develop/improve the code and expand the company.

Olivia/Kanopys Choice of informal IP protection: Trade Secret (keeping codes private knowledge) and use of Branding (to ensure customers view Kanopy as highly innovative, and always one step of the competitors such that customers remain loyal to Kanopy even after formal IP, as patents, would expire).

Justifies However