A trio of Canadian cannabis companies have reported quarterly earnings in the past two weeks and all produced net income, but in each case, it was due to non-cash gains that indicate they are not yet profitable on a sustainable basis. Two of the three also missed revenue consensus estimates as the Canadian market continues […]
Andy Yang joined Indiegogo at a turbulent time. As the crowdfunding platform’s then-CEO stepped aside for personal reasons, the service also reportedly grappled...
Cryptocurrency trading is getting more and more popular every day, which means there are more people involved and profitable opportunities may be getting scarce as time goes by. Hence, it is crucial to know certain hacks to increase gains strategically. One of the best-known hacks in the industry is to trade during the most profitable […]
The roaring success of Amazon and other eCommerce businesses, coupled with rising internet access globally, has been an inspiration to many online entrepreneurs. The increasing shift to online shopping has attracted much attention and changed the business landscape as we know it. New online stores are opening daily, and most offline businesses have an eCommerce […]
Grassroots Carbon Presents: “Soil Carbon Sequestration: How Nature Captures and Stores Carbon” A free webinar featuring Blue Nest Beef’s CEO Russ Conser. Watch...
At present, there are only a handful of cryptocurrency exchanges that offer margin trade. However, with the rising popularity of margin trading, more exchanges are eager to offer these services to attract experienced traders to Read more
Jag Singh, Managing Director, Techstars, Berlin, offers an investor’s perspective on why it is important for startups and SMEs think about IP at the earliest opportunity.
An article appeared on the Lexology legal news service in the past week that riled me a little – not least because it mentions my name and (in my view) misrepresents something that I wrote a few months ago. For those who may be unfamiliar with Lexology, it is a service that aggregates content from legal and attorney firms, and other service providers, creating a searchable archive and delivering tailored email bulletins to subscribers. It is free to subscribe and read, but the firms that provide all the content pay handsomely for the privilege of being aggregated and distributed. In other words, it is not so much a ‘news’ service for readers as it is a marketing service for the contributing firms. Most of the content is originally published on the firms’ web sites, from which it is automatically picked up (‘ingested’) by Lexology.
While many of the articles appearing on the Lexology site are useful and informative – e.g. reports of the latest legal developments in various jurisdictions served by the contributing firms – some are pure marketing. The piece that has so irked me falls, in my opinion, into the latter category.
Never let it be said, then, that James & Wells has not extracted maximum value from the piece, which bears all the hallmarks of having been written not by Wells and Luxton themselves, but rather by a marketing professional. It takes the classic public relations form of ostensibly objective reporting, interspersed with quoted and paraphrased comments from Wells and Luxton in support of the article’s main theses, which are that:
there has been an ‘exodus of senior patent attorneys from formerly private firms’ because of ‘corporatisation’, and the acquisition and merger strategies of the listed holding companies IPH Limited and QANTM IP Limited (ASX:QIP);
as a result, those firms are losing the benefit of these senior practitioners’ experience, and they are ‘being replaced by younger people with a lot less experience’ who are ‘missing out on the mentorship they need at that point in their career’;
this may lead to junior attorneys feeling ‘overworked and stressed’;
practitioners in ‘corporatised’ firms may lack the autonomy and discretion to keep clients ‘at the forefront’ and to build strong relationships ‘based on trust and respect’; and
established firms now owned within corporate groups are no longer able to guarantee clients that ‘whoever you engaged in that organisation would be able to deliver’.
Overall, the tenor of the article is simply that ‘corporatised firms = bad’ whereas ‘traditional privately held, partnership type models (like James & Wells) = good’. Perhaps it feels plausible that this might be so, and doubtless there are people around who will attest, anecdotally, to some experience that supports the argument.
I am just not persuaded that it is true, or that having firms going around claiming that it is are doing the Australasian profession any favours.