To what degree have you or your practice developed a set of knowledge or practices that can be defined as your own Intellectual Property? Aside from common details, practices derived from software, porsches in renders etc.
And the second part of the question is to what degree you promote to your current and potential clients your IP as a selling/marketing tool?
So obviously this topic is as boring as batsh*t - however, it seems to me that architects might be missing a trick when it comes to developing and promoting their own way of doing things.
The amount of times in the development and consultancy side of things that I hear about IP and its importance is quite staggering. A practice doing work for us that promotes their IP in a genuine way, and follows up on it by doing good work, is highly regarded.
As a way to develop and differentiate your practice, developing or even formalising whatever you do now into an IP strategy would be highly recommended.
Apr 14, 08 5:00 pm ·
·
If there were more architects self promoting their particular "brand" of architectural service, then the public at large would be much better informed as to what is actually available to them via architectural services. 05/19/05 15:46
I'm still not sure whether "Patent Office" within Content is legally serious or not, but it is a very good documentation of OMA/AMO's 'intellectual property'.
It's also strange how authorship is now-a-days sometimes seen as something negative, although 'intellectual property' is all about legal 'authorship'.
Your IP is what distinguishes you from your competitors - it is your invention and what makes you special. Outside of the relationships you might develop over time with potential clients, it is what you can say is yours and unique.
OMA/AMO is a good example. There are other examples where an architecture practice has an IP that is solely crafted to deliver architectural product bereft of architecture, i.e. architecture has been eliminated because it gets in the way of authority approvals, subjective taste, budget, sign-offs etc.
Gehry is another practice that has formidable IP that allows him to create his buildings. He has invested in a boatload of talented people and systems that [for better or worse] allows the Stata centre and WD theatre to come into being.
My thoughts are that if architects spent some time developing their processes and workstreams to deliver the kind of architecture they wanted, in every facet of their business, and then promoted that - they would find they would be better off in terms of production, marketing, finances etc.
Apr 14, 08 5:32 pm ·
·
This is so ironic, diabase, as you're here reenacting some of my 'intellectual property' from almost three years ago. "yours and unique" indeed!
what's the point of i.p.? protect your money making capacity? wouldn't that mean we had to have some money making capacity to protect?!
this is like asking a painter how they protect their i.p.
the answer ... get your work recognized.
i could care less if someone knocks off my work. i'll enjoy the compliment and smile about how they did a worse job even after copying me. no ego. no ego. no ego.
I presume you are acting with tongue in cheek, but how does one get ones work recognised?
Presumeably it should get recognised because its an outstanding piece of work rather than a disaster.
And presumeably you did a good job because the work processes you put in, the staff you have and the relationships you formed were good.
This is IP.
Its not necessarily the protection of IP that is important to me - its the degree to which you actively engage in developing, maintaining and promoting your IP.
Apr 14, 08 9:33 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Architecture & I.P
To what degree have you or your practice developed a set of knowledge or practices that can be defined as your own Intellectual Property? Aside from common details, practices derived from software, porsches in renders etc.
And the second part of the question is to what degree you promote to your current and potential clients your IP as a selling/marketing tool?
So obviously this topic is as boring as batsh*t - however, it seems to me that architects might be missing a trick when it comes to developing and promoting their own way of doing things.
The amount of times in the development and consultancy side of things that I hear about IP and its importance is quite staggering. A practice doing work for us that promotes their IP in a genuine way, and follows up on it by doing good work, is highly regarded.
As a way to develop and differentiate your practice, developing or even formalising whatever you do now into an IP strategy would be highly recommended.
If there were more architects self promoting their particular "brand" of architectural service, then the public at large would be much better informed as to what is actually available to them via architectural services.
05/19/05 15:46
I'm still not sure whether "Patent Office" within Content is legally serious or not, but it is a very good documentation of OMA/AMO's 'intellectual property'.
It's also strange how authorship is now-a-days sometimes seen as something negative, although 'intellectual property' is all about legal 'authorship'.
Your IP is what distinguishes you from your competitors - it is your invention and what makes you special. Outside of the relationships you might develop over time with potential clients, it is what you can say is yours and unique.
OMA/AMO is a good example. There are other examples where an architecture practice has an IP that is solely crafted to deliver architectural product bereft of architecture, i.e. architecture has been eliminated because it gets in the way of authority approvals, subjective taste, budget, sign-offs etc.
Gehry is another practice that has formidable IP that allows him to create his buildings. He has invested in a boatload of talented people and systems that [for better or worse] allows the Stata centre and WD theatre to come into being.
My thoughts are that if architects spent some time developing their processes and workstreams to deliver the kind of architecture they wanted, in every facet of their business, and then promoted that - they would find they would be better off in terms of production, marketing, finances etc.
This is so ironic, diabase, as you're here reenacting some of my 'intellectual property' from almost three years ago. "yours and unique" indeed!
reenacting being the key word....
The dark side has its own lessons.
To what degree have you or your practice developed a set of knowledge or practices that can be defined as your own Intellectual Property?
Russian proverb: So the question, so the answer.
shock :)))) that was good
what's the point of i.p.? protect your money making capacity? wouldn't that mean we had to have some money making capacity to protect?!
this is like asking a painter how they protect their i.p.
the answer ... get your work recognized.
i could care less if someone knocks off my work. i'll enjoy the compliment and smile about how they did a worse job even after copying me. no ego. no ego. no ego.
damn it, it's still here!?
discrete,
I presume you are acting with tongue in cheek, but how does one get ones work recognised?
Presumeably it should get recognised because its an outstanding piece of work rather than a disaster.
And presumeably you did a good job because the work processes you put in, the staff you have and the relationships you formed were good.
This is IP.
Its not necessarily the protection of IP that is important to me - its the degree to which you actively engage in developing, maintaining and promoting your IP.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.