Using the ergodicity idea (Taleb, Ole Peters) for a patent attorney audience: the crowd's average is not the individual's path. IP has no more risk than other domains, only more irreversibility, and inaction can close a path as surely as action, so survival comes before value.
The research on AI surrender has a blind spot: the risk is situational (time pressure) not dispositional, and even diligent reviewers atrophy the craft of drafting.
PwC's scaling report names capital, capability, and culture as barriers, but misses that Ireland has no ecosystem for forming in-house IP strategists: FDI strategic roles sit at HQ abroad.
Medtech companies already capture invention in their ISO 13485 design and development file; they just harvest compliance instead of IP. One question at the design review changes that.
IP is the only business unit where you can be completely incompetent for seven years before anyone notices — the broken feedback loop that turns "Granted" stamps into silent liabilities.
AI-drafted patents lack the fear-based adversarial thinking of human attorneys. We won't know the true cost until motivated litigators attack them in five years.
In-licensing IP is faster than building and preserves optionality — test an approach without locking in.
Reframing the IP portfolio from an asset list to a portfolio of bets and hedges, using Netflix's streaming pivot as a case for optionality. A portfolio with no identifiable hedges is one bet in disguise.
Applying the Chimp Paradox model to IP portfolio management — the failure mode isn't bad decisions, it's the absence of a system to make decisions before the reactive impulse fires.
On the discipline of naming the bets inside an IP strategy. Strategies fail not because the bets are wrong but because they're never explicit — includes a 'we are betting that…' test to run on your current document.
Applying the Stoic discipline of premeditatio malorum to IP strategy: rehearse the futures ahead, find the few irreversible bifurcation points, guard those, and keep everything else open.
The slow work of building portfolio strategy and earning IP a seat at the business table is what makes fast responses possible when urgency arrives — illustrated through the scenario of an unexpected publication.
Applying Flyvbjerg's slow-planning paradox to IP filing decisions. Pressure to file fast is usually a symptom of avoiding strategic conversations — and the prosecution timeline makes upstream errors disproportionately expensive.
The inside-view trap in patent filing, and how base rates from the outside view prevent strategic drift.