Tag Archives: intellectual property

The Greatest Inventor You’ve Never Heard of

Meet the Invisible Man of Innovation

The Greatest Inventor You've Never Heard of

GUEST POST from John Bessant

There’s a famous test, originally developed by psychologist J.P. Guilford, to give an idea of how ‘creative’ a person is. Ask them to think of as many uses as possible for an everyday object – a brick, a glass, a shoe, etc. The idea is that the more ideas you come up with (fluency) plus the number of different categories of idea (flexibility) gives an indication of your ability to think creatively.

If we tried the test with the simple safety pin it would certainly trigger some of the usual suspects – a nappy (diaper) pin, a clothes fastener, a medical device or an item of jewellery. Not so frequent a visitor to many peoples’ lists might be ‘a weightlifting aid’ – yet arguably that has been its most glorious moment so far. For one very good reason.

A $15 debt isn’t a big deal, even if it is incurred in 1849; its value would be around $600 in today’s money. An annoyance but not likely to bring on imminent bankruptcy if it remained unpaid. But for Walter Hunt there was a principle involved (he was, by all accounts a very moral man) and also the practical consideration that his relationship with his creditor (one J. R. Chapin) mattered. Chapin had helped him with a number of other projects as a draughtsman, providing the technical drawings needed for his patent applications. So Walter duly worried about how to repay the debt.

A period of hand wringing and fiddling which lasted about three hours, during some of which he picked up a piece of wire to keep his hands busy. And came up with the basic and still powerful principle behind the mechanism of the safety pin. Most pins up to that point were either simple and sharp with a point at the end or loops which came undone easily. These hadn’t changed much since the days when Roman legionaries pinned their cloaks with a fibula, a kind of simple brooch clasp pin.

By coiling the wire on itself he created a simple spring mechanism and by providing a catch at one end he was able to make the safe closure mechanism which we have come to know and love.

Quite a lot of us, in fact; estimates put the number of safety pins produced and sold per year around the world at around one billion, with specialised machines capable of turning out millions per day.

Walter Hunt was not a fool; he recognized that this idea could have value. And he was not inexperienced; he already had a healthy track record of successful innovation behind him and knew how to work the patent system. So he duly filed and was awarded patent number US6281A; he then offered this (and the accompanying rights it conferred) to the W R Grace company who snapped it up (excuse the pun), paying Hunt $400, enough to enable him to settle his debt and have some spare capital. And to lift a small but annoying weight from his shoulders…

It turned out to be a good deal for them; on an initial outlay of $15,000 in today’s money they secured profits running into millions over the next years.

Safety Pins

Image: U.S. Patent Office, public domain via Wikimedia

This kind of thing was second nature to him; he had a gift for seeing and solving problems in a practical way. By 1849 he’d already built a legacy of (mostly) useful items which he had (mostly) patented and had a growing reputation as an inventor. Though not necessarily an innovator – as in someone who can create value from their ideas. Hunt seems to have had a second ‘gift’; in addition to being a visionary inventor he seems to have been cursed with the inability to profit from his inventions.

The man who was labelled a ‘Yankee mechanical genius’ was born in 1796 in Lewis County, New York to a Quaker family. The eldest of thirteen children he was lucky to receive an education and went on to earn a master’s degree in masonry at the age of twenty-one. Although a practical skill much needed in a rural farming community masonry also involves a way of thinking which is much more than simply piling stones on top of each other. Arguably his understanding of interdependence and systems derived in part from this early experience – and enabled him to approach widely differing problems with a sense of their underlying similarities.

Yet if you look back at his track record of inventions he rapidly emerges as a serious contender for being the greatest inventor you’ve never heard of.

For example:

The repeater rifle, in 1848 – up there as a symbol of ‘how the West was won’ in a thousand cowboy movies and the undoubted making of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company with their Winchester rifle. Hunt not only developed the original idea for a ‘volition repeating rifle’ but also the ammunition it might use (his ‘rocket ball’) which was revolutionary in putting the powder charge in the bullet’s base. His designs weren’t very workable and he sold the patents; these changed hands a number of times in the growing armaments industry before being bought by Messrs Smith and Wesson who used them as the basis for a new company. The biggest investor in the new Volcanic Repeating Arms Company was one Oliver Winchester….

Think fountain pens and writing implements and the transition from goose quills to refillable devices and you may well think of the companies which made their name with the innovation. But whilst companies like Parker Pen created the market the foundations were laid by, amongst others, Walter Hunt who predated their work by decades. In 1847, he patented a fountain pen (U.S. Patent 4,927) combining inkstand and pen into one unit, “convenient for the pocket.”

Knife sharpening ? Nail making? Rope making? Castors to help move furniture around? Disposable paper collars? A coal burning stive which would radiate heat in all directions? A saw for cutting down trees? A flexible spring attachment for belts and braces? An attachment for boats to cut through ice? An inkstand? A non-explosive safety lamp? Bottle stoppers? Hunt turned his hand and imagination to hundreds of challenges across an almost impossibly wide spectrum. Leonardo da Vinci would have been proud of him, not least in his ability to draw together ideas and inspirations from many different fields.

His first patented invention was for an improved flax spinning machine in 1826. He worked as a farmer in a region dominated by textile milling and most of his family and friends were in the business of spinning wool and cotton. Faced with rising costs and falling product prices the local mill owner, Willis Hoskins, wanted to reduce wages; Hunt persuaded him to hold off and offered instead to develop a more efficient flax spinning machine. He patented this on June 22, 1826 and its contribution to improving productivity saved the jobs.

His motivation was often underpinned by a social concern. Another early invention (1827) was for a coach alarm system. Visiting New York to try and raise funds for developing the falx spinning machine further he witnessed an accident where a horse-drawn carriage ran over a child. The driver, his hands fully occupied with the reins of the team, had been unable to sound a warning horn in time. Hunt was shaken by this and the fact that this was not a rare occurrence; he began thinking of ways to help prevent these accidents. He came up with the idea of a metal gong with a hammer that could be operated by foot; his “Coach Alarm” was patented on July 30, 1827. Facing an uphill struggle he sold the rights to the stagecoach operators Kipp and Brown; the invention became a standard feature on streetcars across the United States, saving countless lives.

Late in life, Hunt addressed the laundry problem. In 1854 a crisp white collar was a mark of status, but keeping linen white required constant starching and ironing. Hunt invented the ‘paper shirt collar’ (U.S. Patent 11,376) which offered the advantage of looking like linen but being disposable after use.

Some of his ideas were, shall we say, a little fanciful though the prototypes proved their point. Inspired by the way flies negotiated ceilings his ‘antipodean apparatus’ was designed to help circus performers (and anyone else mad enough) to walk upside down. Although this one wasn’t patented it was still in use by performers a hundred years later!

antipodean apparatus

Altogether he was responsible for hundreds of patents and about two dozen of Hunt’s inventions are still used in the form in which he created them over one hundred years ago.

Including, of course, the really big one that got away – the sewing machine. The mid 19th century saw a flurry of inventive activity around trying to enable it, eventually converging on a dominant design which combined different elements for feeding, sewing with a lockstitch, holding the fabric, powering the feed, etc. Isaac Singer walked away with the prize in 1851 after a long and bitter battle with Elias Howe whose patent he liberally borrowed from and which predated his machine by several years.

What’s not always mentioned is that Howe’s idea wasn’t original; he’d based his 1846 machine on something he’d seen more than a decade before. In fact this ‘prior art’ was what Singer tried to use in his defence only to have the judge throw it out because the original idea, though clearly the core design for a working sewing machine, had never actually been patented.

The man who’d let this incredible opportunity slip through his fingers? Our very own Walter Hunt.

Sewing Machine

Image: National Museum of American History, public domain

In 1830, Barthelemy Thimonnier in France had patented a machine that used a hooked needle to make a chain stitch, but it was slow and fragile. Hunt’s experiments in the early 1830s led him to a new approach; he realized that a machine didn’t need to mimic a manual seamstress and in particular it didn’t need to pass the needle all the way through. Instead he designed a curved needle with the eye at the point; the needle would pierce the cloth, carrying a loop of thread with it and then a shuttle would pass a second thread through the loop formed by the needle. When the needle retracted, the two threads would lock together – lockstitch.

He kept it in the family, employing one of his many brothers, Adoniram, to improve on his wooden prototype by making a machine out of iron. It worked well, sewing straight seams with a durability and uniformity that manual sewing could not touch. By 1834 – twelve years before Elias Howe – Hunt had a working machine that could have made him one of the richest men in the world. But he held back from patenting it.

Not for want of experience or vision; he’d seen the possibilities which is why he’d been working on the idea. But his vision was partly shaped by his strong-willed and socially conscious daughter who saw it not as a labour-saving device but as a labour killer, threatening the livelihoods of women who worked as seamstresses to establish themselves and find a measure of financial independence. She persuaded Hunt to hold back from registering his patent though he had the working design ready a full twenty years before Singer’s successful entry.

Instead he allowed his invention to ‘slumber’, existing but not being patented or commercialised. He sold the rights to the prototype to George Arrowsmith, but Arrowsmith, the lack of a patent, also failed to commercialize it.

In the infamous ‘Sewing Machine Wars’ of the early 1850s the two big antagonists were Howe and Singer; as part of his campaign Singer discovered Hunt’s ideas and pressed him to search for any evidence of the earlier machine which might help invalidate Howe’s lockstitch-based patent. Eventually they found the rusty remnants of the 1834 machine and Hunt rebuilt it to working status, enabling Singer to argue that Howe was not the first inventor.

In 1854, Patent Commissioner Charles Mason issued a ruling that became a cornerstone of patent law; he acknowledged that Hunt had indeed invented the machine first. However, he ruled against Hunt based on the doctrine of laches (abandonment), writing that “…. When the first inventor allows his discovery to slumber for eighteen years, with no probability of its ever being brought into useful activity, and when its only resurrected to supplant and strangle an invention which has been given to the public… all reasonable presumption should be in favour of the inventor who has been the means of conferring the real benefit upon the world”.

The ruling forced Singer and other sewing machine manufacturers to settle their differences and operate a patent pool with each paying relevant royalties to the others for use of particular intellectual property. Hunt received a small payment from Singer for his testimony, but he missed out on the royalties that built the fortunes which came to Singer and Howe.

He was granted a patent for another improvement to the sewing machine dealing with feeding of material into the machine without jamming it. Singer eventually agreed in 1858 to pay Hunt $50,000 for this design – but Hunt didn’t live long enough to collect his due.

He died on June 8, 1859 of pneumonia in his workshop in New York City. His grave in Green-Wood Cemetery is marked by a modest granite shaft, a stark contrast to the massive monuments of other ‘Gilded Age’ entrepreneurs.

Although Hunt died without a fortune to his name he was no fool. His name might be missing from the pantheon of great inventors who changed the world through steel and steam – creating the products and the markets which defined a new industrial age. Yet anyone who could twist a piece of wire into a global success in three hours in order to settle a debt deserves a closer look.

His life reveals a complex man of high principles – a ‘benevolent Quaker’ – and possessed of an internal motivation owing much more to a fascination with solving problems and puzzles than the inspiration of a possible fortune. Someone who found joy in the quest rather than the goal, the ultimate ideas man.

An obituary published in the New York Tribune on June 13th, 1859 captured a little of this restless spirit. “For more than forty years, he has been known as an experiment in the arts. Whether in mechanical movements, chemistry, electricity or metallic compositions, he was always at home: and, probably in all, he has tried more experiments than any other inventor.”

Sometimes the quest is more exciting than the destination, sometimes the act of creating something new is its own reward.


You can find my podcast here and my videos here

And if you’d like to learn with me take a look at my online courses here

And subscribe to my (free) newsletter here

All images generated by Google Nanobanana or Substack AI unless otherwise indicated

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

A New Era of Economic Warfare Arrives

Is Your Company Prepared?

LAST UPDATED: January 9, 2026 at 3:55PM

A New Era of Economic Warfare Arrives

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Economic warfare rarely announces itself. It embeds quietly into systems designed for trust, openness, and speed. By the time damage becomes visible, advantage has already shifted.

This new era of conflict is not defined by tanks or tariffs alone, but by the strategic exploitation of interdependence — where innovation ecosystems, supply chains, data flows, and cultural platforms become contested terrain.

The most effective economic attacks do not destroy systems outright. They drain them slowly enough to avoid response.

Weaponizing Openness

For decades, the United States has benefited from a research and innovation model grounded in openness, collaboration, and academic freedom. Those same qualities, however, have been repeatedly exploited.

Publicly documented prosecutions, investigations, and corporate disclosures describe coordinated efforts to extract intellectual property from American universities, national laboratories, and private companies through undisclosed affiliations, parallel research pipelines, and cyber-enabled theft.

This is not opportunistic theft. It is strategic harvesting.

When innovation can be copied faster than it can be created, openness becomes a liability instead of a strength.

Cyber Persistence as Economic Strategy

Cyber operations today prioritize persistence over spectacle. Continuous access to sensitive systems allows competitors to shortcut development cycles, underprice rivals, and anticipate strategic moves.

The goal is not disruption — it is advantage.

Skydio and Supply Chain Chokepoints

The experience of American drone manufacturer Skydio illustrates how economic pressure can be applied without direct confrontation.

After achieving leadership through autonomy and software-driven innovation rather than low-cost manufacturing, Skydio encountered pressure through access constraints tied to upstream supply chains.

This was a calculated attack on a successful American business. It serves as a stark reminder: if you depend on a potential adversary for your components, your success is only permitted as long as it doesn’t challenge their dominance. We must decouple our innovation from external control, or we will remain permanently vulnerable.

When supply chains are weaponized, markets no longer reward the best ideas — only the most protected ones.

Agricultural and Biological Vulnerabilities

Incidents involving the unauthorized movement of biological materials related to agriculture and bioscience highlight a critical blind spot. Food systems are economic infrastructure.

Crop blight, livestock disease, and agricultural disruption do not need to be dramatic to be devastating. They only need to be targeted, deniable, and difficult to attribute.

Pandemics and Systemic Shock

The origins of COVID-19 remain contested, with investigations examining both natural spillover and laboratory-associated scenarios. From an economic warfare perspective, attribution matters less than exposure.

The pandemic revealed how research opacity, delayed disclosure, and global interdependence can cascade into economic devastation on a scale rivaling major wars.

Resilience must be designed for uncertainty, not certainty.

The Attention Economy as Strategic Terrain and Algorithmic Narcotic

Platforms such as TikTok represent a new form of economic influence: large-scale behavioral shaping.

Regulatory and academic concerns focus on data governance, algorithmic amplification, and the psychological impact on youth attention, agency, and civic engagement.

TikTok is not just a social media app; it is a cognitive weapon. In China, the algorithm pushes “Douyin” users toward educational content, engineering, and national achievement. In America, the algorithm pushes our youth toward mindless consumption, social fragmentation, and addictive cycles that weaken the mental resilience of the next generation. This is an intentional weakening of our human capital. By controlling the narrative and the attention of 170 million Americans, American children are part of a massive experiment in psychological warfare, designed to ensure that the next generation of Americans is too distracted to lead and too divided to innovate.

Whether intentional or emergent, influence over attention increasingly translates into long-term economic leverage.

The Human Cost of Invisible Conflict

Economic warfare succeeds because its consequences unfold slowly: hollowed industries, lost startups, diminished trust, and weakened social cohesion.

True resilience is not built by reacting to attacks, but by redesigning systems so exploitation becomes expensive and contribution becomes the easiest path forward.

Conclusion

This is not a call for isolation or paranoia. It is a call for strategic maturity.

Openness without safeguards is not virtue — it is exposure. Innovation without resilience is not leadership — it is extraction.

The era of complacency must end. We must treat economic security as national security. This means securing our universities, diversifying our supply chains, and demanding transparency in our digital and biological interactions. We have the power to stoke our own innovation bonfire, but only if we are willing to protect it from those who wish to extinguish it.

The next era of competition will reward nations and companies that design systems where trust is earned, reciprocity is enforced, and long-term value creation is protected.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is economic warfare?

Economic warfare refers to the use of non-military tools — such as intellectual property extraction, cyber operations, supply chain control, and influence platforms — to weaken a rival’s economic position and long-term competitiveness.

Is China the only country using these tactics?

No. Many nations engage in forms of economic competition that blur into coercion. The concern highlighted here is about scale, coordination, and the systematic exploitation of open systems.

How should the United States respond?

By strengthening resilience rather than retreating from openness — protecting critical research, diversifying supply chains, aligning innovation policy with national strategy, and designing systems that reward contribution over extraction.

How should your company protect itself?

Companies should identify their critical knowledge assets, limit unnecessary exposure, diversify suppliers, strengthen cybersecurity, enforce disclosure and governance standards, and design partnerships that balance collaboration with protection. Resilience should be treated as a strategic capability, not a compliance exercise.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






Apple Watch Must Die

At least temporarily, because it’s proven bad for innovation

Apple Watch Must Die

by Braden Kelley

I came across an article in The Hill, titled ‘Apple flexes lobbying power as Apple Watch ban comes before Biden next week‘ that highlighted how Apple has been found guilty by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of infringing upon the intellectual property of startup AliveCor to provide its wearable electrocardiogram features in its Apple Watch.

Apple is now trying to get President Biden to veto the ruling (I didn’t know that was a thing) so that they can keep selling Apple Watches. In my opinion this is a matter for the courts and yet another example of how big tech (and big companies in general) far too often brazenly misappropriate the intellectual property of the little guys. So much so in Apple’s case that over the last 30+ years a popular term has emerged for it called ‘Sherlocking’.

According to the new Microsoft Bing (with ChatGPT):

Sherlocking is a term that refers to Apple’s practice of copying features from third-party apps and integrating them into its own software¹². The term originated from a search tool named Sherlock that Apple developed in the late 90s and later updated to include features from a similar app named Watson²³.

President Biden must let the courts do their job and not intervene if innovation is to thrive in America.

Apple has been found guilty by the ITC and should be forced to stop selling Apple Watches if that is what the court has decided. They should pay damages and redesign their product to design out the intellectual property theft. And, if they feel they are innocent, then they have an avenue of appeal and should exercise it.

But, bottom line, turning a blind eye to intellectual property theft is bad for innovation. We must encourage and protect entrepreneurship for innovation to thrive.

I’ll leave you with this clip from the movie Tucker to ponder on the way out:

And a trailer from probably the best movie on the subject of the struggle of the innovator against big business, based on the real life story of the inventor of the intermittent wiper – Dr. Robert Kearns, it’s called ‘Flash of Genius’:

Hopefully President Biden will stay out of it and let the courts decide based on the evidence.

Keep innovating!

SPECIAL UPDATE: On February 21, 2023 the Biden Administration elected NOT to veto the ITC ruling, leaving the courts to decide whether Apple is innocent or guilty.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 2/18/2023
(1) Apple ‘Sherlocking’ Highlighted in Antitrust Probe—Google Also …. https://www.itechpost.com/articles/105413/20210422/apple-sherlocking-highlighted-antitrust-probe-google-questioned-over-firewall.htm Accessed 2/18/2023.
(2) What Does It Mean When Apple “Sherlocks” an App? – How-To Geek. https://www.howtogeek.com/297651/what-does-it-mean-when-a-company-sherlocks-an-app/ Accessed 2/18/2023.
(3) Sherlock (software) – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) Accessed 2/18/2023.
(4) All the things Apple Sherlocked at WWDC 2022 – TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/13/all-the-things-apple-sherlocked-at-wwdc-2022/ Accessed 2/18/2023.

Image credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.






The Power of Open Innovation Networks

From Silos to Synergy

The Power of Open Innovation Networks

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

The era of the lone genius is over. The complex challenges and lightning-fast pace of modern business demand a new approach to innovation—one built on collaboration, connectivity, and the shared pursuit of a bigger goal.

For decades, the dominant model for innovation was a closed system: companies built walls around their R&D departments, jealously guarded their intellectual property, and believed that all the best ideas must come from within. This “not invented here” syndrome, while once a hallmark of industrial strength, is now a recipe for stagnation. The world is too interconnected, knowledge is too vast, and the pace of disruption is too rapid for any single organization to possess all the necessary expertise and insights to stay ahead. The future of innovation belongs to those who embrace the power of open innovation networks.

Open innovation is a strategic philosophy that acknowledges the limitations of internal knowledge and seeks to leverage external ideas, technologies, and talent to accelerate innovation and growth. It’s about building permeable boundaries around your organization, allowing for a vibrant flow of knowledge both inward and outward. This isn’t just about outsourcing R&D; it’s about building a robust ecosystem of partners—including startups, universities, customers, and even competitors—to co-create value and solve problems that would be impossible to tackle alone.

Adopting an open innovation mindset requires a profound shift in culture and strategy. It means moving beyond a zero-sum view of competition and embracing a collaborative, win-win approach. It also requires a deliberate and structured process to identify, engage, and manage external partnerships. Here are the key elements of building a successful open innovation network:

  • Cultivate a Strategic Focus: Start by defining your innovation gaps. What are the specific technological hurdles, market challenges, or customer needs that your internal teams are struggling to address? This clarity will guide your search for external partners.
  • Build a Robust Scouting Process: Don’t wait for ideas to come to you. Actively scout for innovation. This can involve attending industry conferences, running innovation challenges, participating in university research consortiums, or dedicating a team to monitor the startup landscape for promising technologies.
  • Adopt Flexible Collaboration Models: Open innovation isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach. You might partner with a university for basic research, acquire a startup to gain access to a new technology, or form a joint venture with a non-competing company to enter a new market. Be prepared to be agile and creative with your partnership structures.
  • Navigate Intellectual Property (IP) with Purpose: IP management is often seen as a barrier, but it can be a facilitator. Establish clear, transparent frameworks for how IP will be shared, owned, and leveraged. The goal is to create trust and a clear value exchange, not to hoard every piece of information.
  • Champion a Culture of Openness: This is arguably the most difficult but most critical element. You must break down internal silos and encourage your teams to be receptive to “not invented here” ideas. Create incentives for collaboration and celebrate successful partnerships to embed this mindset into your company’s DNA.

Case Study 1: The Transformative Success of Procter & Gamble’s “Connect + Develop”

The Challenge: Overcoming Internal R&D Limitations

In the early 2000s, consumer goods titan Procter & Gamble (P&G) was facing a slowdown in innovation. Their internal R&D model was a powerhouse, but it was becoming too slow and expensive to keep up with changing consumer demands and emerging technologies. The company needed to expand its innovation pipeline without dramatically increasing its costs.

The Open Innovation Approach:

P&G launched its groundbreaking “Connect + Develop” program with a bold goal: to source 50% of its product ideas from outside the company. They created a global team of “technology entrepreneurs” tasked with scouting for external innovation. They established an online portal to review submissions from individual inventors, small startups, and established companies. The partnerships they formed ranged from simple licensing agreements to full-blown joint development ventures. This new model allowed P&G to leverage the collective intelligence of a global network.

The Results:

The program was a phenomenal success. It led to the creation of numerous iconic products, including the highly popular Swiffer Duster, which was developed from a prototype submitted by an external inventor. Other successes, like the Olay Regenerist skincare line and the Crest Whitestrips, leveraged external technologies and insights to become market leaders. By the program’s peak, P&G’s innovation success rate had more than doubled, and its R&D productivity had soared. The most important outcome was the shift in culture, proving that a global powerhouse could be agile and open.

Key Insight: Open innovation is not just for startups. Large, established companies can use it to revitalize their innovation pipeline, reduce costs, and accelerate time to market by leveraging a global network of talent and ideas.

Case Study 2: The Collaborative Frontier of Drug Discovery

The Challenge: Tackling Complex Diseases and Skyrocketing Costs

Developing new pharmaceuticals is one of the most expensive and risky innovation processes in the world. With R&D costs for a new drug often exceeding a billion dollars and clinical timelines stretching over a decade, the industry is constantly under pressure. Tackling complex diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s, and rare genetic disorders requires a deep and diverse pool of knowledge that no single company can possess.

The Open Innovation Approach:

In recent years, the pharmaceutical industry has been at the forefront of open innovation. This includes pre-competitive collaborations where companies share non-proprietary data on disease mechanisms and molecular targets to accelerate foundational research. They also form strategic partnerships with nimble biotech startups to access novel drug candidates or cutting-edge gene-editing technologies. Furthermore, organizations like the Structural Genomics Consortium have created a global network of researchers who openly share data on protein structures, accelerating the discovery of new drug targets for the entire scientific community.

The Results:

This collaborative model is fundamentally changing how drugs are discovered. By pooling resources and openly sharing knowledge, companies are reducing redundant research efforts and accelerating the pace of scientific discovery. Partnerships with startups allow large pharma companies to de-risk their pipelines and bring promising therapies to market faster. Ultimately, this synergy helps to reduce the financial burden, advance scientific understanding, and increase the likelihood of bringing life-saving treatments to patients sooner. It’s a powerful example of how collaboration can be more effective than competition when facing a common and complex challenge.

Key Insight: In high-stakes, highly complex fields, open collaboration is not just an option—it’s an essential strategy for accelerating progress and creating a greater collective impact.

The journey from silos to synergy is a challenging but necessary one for any organization that wants to remain a relevant and powerful force for innovation. It requires a fundamental shift in how we think about intellectual property, risk, and partnership. It demands leaders who are willing to build bridges and foster a culture of trust and shared success.

In a world where change is the only constant, the ability to connect, collaborate, and co-create with a vast network of external partners is no longer a competitive advantage—it’s a core competency. The future is open, and for those who are willing to break down their walls, the possibilities for innovation are limitless.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Dall-E

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






Intellectual Property in the Age of Man-Machine Collaboration

Who Owns the AI-Assisted Idea?

LAST UPDATED: February 8, 2026 at 8:45PM

Intellectual Property in the Age of Man-Machine Collaboration

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

Throughout my career championing Human-Centered Innovation™, I have consistently maintained that innovation is a team sport. Historically, that “team” consisted of diverse human minds — designers, engineers, anthropologists, and marketers — clashing and coalescing in a physical or digital room. But today, the locker room has a new player that never sleeps, never tires, and has read everything ever written. As we integrate generative AI into the very marrow of our “Value Creation” process, we are hitting a massive legal and ethical wall: Who actually owns the output?

This isn’t just a question for lawyers; it is a fundamental challenge for innovation leaders. In my Chart of Innovation, we distinguish between invention and innovation. Invention is the seed; innovation is the widely adopted solution. If the seed is planted by a machine, or if the machine is the water that makes it grow, the harvest — the intellectual property (IP) — becomes a contested territory. We are moving from a world of “Sole Authorship” to a world of “Co-Pilot Contribution,” and our current IP frameworks are woefully unprepared for this shift.

The Shift from Lone Inventor to Networked Creation

Traditional intellectual property regimes assume a relatively clean chain of custody. An inventor creates something novel. An organization files a patent. Ownership is defined by employment contracts and jurisdictional law. Collaboration complicates this, but AI fundamentally disrupts it.

AI systems contribute pattern recognition, recombination, and acceleration. They do not merely automate tasks; they influence direction. When a product manager refines a concept based on AI-generated insights, who is the author of the resulting idea? When a design team iterates with generative tools trained on external data, whose intellectual DNA is embedded in the output?

These questions matter not because AI needs credit, but because humans and organizations do. Ownership determines incentives, investment, accountability, and trust.

The Paradox of the Prompt

The core of the conflict lies in the “Human Spark.” Patent offices around the world, most notably the USPTO and the European Patent Office, have largely held that AI cannot be listed as an inventor. Property rights are reserved for natural persons. However, in the Value Translation phase of innovation, the human prompt is the catalyst. If I provide a highly specific, complex architectural prompt to a generative model and it produces a blueprint, am I the creator? Or am I merely a curator of the machine’s statistical probabilities?

For organizations, this creates a terrifying “IP Void.” If a product’s core design or a software’s critical algorithm is deemed to have been “authored” by AI, it may fall into the public domain, stripping the company of its competitive advantage and its ability to monetize the solution. To navigate this, we must rethink the human-centered aspect of our collaboration with silicon.

Case Study 1: The Pharmaceutical “In Silico” Breakthrough

In early 2025, a leading biotech firm utilized a proprietary AI platform to screen millions of molecular combinations to find a stable binder for a previously “undruggable” protein target. The AI identified the top three candidates, one of which eventually passed clinical trials. When the firm filed for a patent, the initial application was scrutinized because the invention — the specific molecular arrangement — was suggested by the algorithm.

The firm successfully argued that the IP belonged to their human scientists because they had set the constraints, validated the results through physical lab work, and made the critical Human-Centered Change of translating a digital suggestion into a medical reality. This case established a precedent: IP is secured through the human-guided synthesis of AI output, not the raw output itself.

Case Study 2: Generative Design in Automotive Engineering

A major automotive manufacturer used generative design to create a lightweight, ultra-strong chassis component. The AI generated 5,000 iterations based on weight and stress parameters. The engineering team selected one, but then manually modified 15% of the geometry to account for manufacturing constraints and aesthetic alignment with the brand’s Human-Centered Design language.

Because of this 15% manual intervention and the “Intentional Curation” of the parameters, the manufacturer was able to secure a design patent. The lesson for innovation leaders is clear: Direct human modification is the bridge to ownership. Raw AI output is a commodity; human-refined AI output is an asset.

“Innovation transforms the useful seeds of invention into widely adopted solutions. In the age of AI, the machine may provide the seeds, but the human must provide the soil, the water, and the fence. Ownership belongs to the gardener, not the seed-producer.”

Braden Kelley

The Startup Landscape: Securing the Future

A new wave of companies is emerging to help innovation leaders manage this “Ownership Crisis.” Proof of Concept (PoC) platforms like AIPatent.ai and ClearAccessIP are creating digital audit trails that document every step of human intervention in the AI process. Meanwhile, startups like Fairly Trained are certifying that AI models are trained on licensed data, reducing the risk of “IP Contamination.” These tools are essential for any leader looking to FutureHack™ their way into a sustainable market position without losing their legal shirt.

As an innovation speaker, I am frequently asked how to balance speed with security. My answer is always the same: Do not let the “corporate antibodies” of your legal department kill the AI experiment, but do not let the experiment run without a human-centered leash. You must document the intent. Ownership in 2026 is not about who pressed the button, but who defined why the button was pressed and what the resulting light meant for the world.

The Real Risk: Governance Lag

The greatest risk is not that AI will “steal” ideas, but that organizations will fail to update their innovation governance. Ambiguity erodes trust. When people are unsure how their contributions will be treated, they contribute less, or not at all.

Forward-thinking organizations are moving beyond ownership-as-control toward stewardship-as-strategy. They are defining contribution frameworks, transparency norms, and value-sharing models that reflect how innovation actually occurs.

This is not a legal exercise alone. It is a leadership responsibility.

Designing for Fairness, Speed, and Strategic Advantage

Leaders must ask different questions. Not just “Who owns this idea?” but “What behaviors do we want to encourage?” and “What clarity do our collaborators need to feel safe innovating with us?”

AI-assisted innovation rewards those who replace rigid ownership models with adaptable, principle-driven systems. The organizations that win will be those that treat intellectual property not as a defensive weapon, but as an enabling architecture for collaboration.

Conclusion

The age of collaboration demands a new philosophy of intellectual property. One that recognizes contribution over authorship, stewardship over possession, and trust over control. AI has not broken innovation. It has simply revealed how outdated our assumptions have become.

Those willing to redesign their IP thinking will unlock more than compliance. They will unlock commitment, creativity, and sustained advantage.

I believe that it is important to understand that while technology changes, the need for human accountability never does. If you are looking for an innovation speaker who can help your team navigate the ethics and ownership of AI, consider Braden Kelley to help you turn these technological challenges into human-centered triumphs.

FAQ: AI and Intellectual Property

1. Can an AI be listed as a co-inventor on a patent?
As of current legal standards in the US and EU, AI cannot be listed as an inventor. Only “natural persons” are eligible for authorship or inventorship rights.

2. How can companies protect ideas generated by AI?
Protection is achieved by documenting significant human intervention. This includes the “creative selection” of prompts, the human validation of results, and the manual refinement of the final output.

3. What is the risk of “IP Contamination”?
IP Contamination occurs when an AI model trained on unlicensed or copyrighted data produces output that mirrors protected works, potentially exposing the user to infringement lawsuits.

Image credits: Microsoft CoPilot

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






The Role of Intellectual Property in Innovation

The Role of Intellectual Property in Innovation

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

The role of intellectual property in innovation is becoming increasingly important. Intellectual property is defined as the legal right to a creative work or invention, which includes patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. It is a way to protect the creativity and innovation of individuals and organizations, ensuring that they can benefit from their innovations and protect them from potential competitors.

Intellectual property can be used in a number of ways to encourage innovation. For example, a patent can be used to protect an invention from being copied or used without permission. This incentivizes companies to invest in research and development, as they know that their innovations will be protected. Similarly, trademarks can be used to protect a company’s brand, preventing others from using their name or logo without permission.

Copyrights are also an important form of intellectual property, allowing creators to protect their work from being reproduced or used without their permission. This gives creators control over how their work is used, and ensures that they are properly compensated for their efforts.

Trade secrets are also used to protect valuable information about a company’s products and processes. This prevents competitors from gaining access to a company’s confidential information, which can give them an unfair advantage.

Intellectual property is essential in encouraging innovation, as it provides a financial incentive for individuals and companies to invest in research and development. It also helps protect the creativity and hard work of individuals and organizations, which is essential for a healthy and vibrant economy. Without intellectual property, it would be much harder for innovators to benefit from their creativity and inventions.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






Empowering Every Resident with Tools for Change and Innovation

Empowering Every Resident with Tools for ChangeWhat if you could empower every citizen with tools that will help your city, state or country innovate and change faster than the competition for a penny a person?

Well, now it’s possible…

A revolution is beginning, and the smart cities, states, countries, and even organizations, are arming themselves with the tools they need to win…

The Change Planning Toolkit™ has been designed to create a more visual, collaborative and agile method for getting everyone literally all on the same page for change. The Change Planning Toolkit™’s collection of tools, frameworks, and worksheets and the approach outlined in the book Charting Change operate together in a spirit built upon the standards created by the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP) and the interactive approaches that the Lean Canvas and Business Model Canvas have made comfortable for people.

ACMP Standard Visualization

The Change Planning Toolkit™ is anchored in the best practices of organizational change and project management. At its center is the Change Planning Canvas™, a powerful tool that will help you beat the 70% change failure rate by enabling you to quickly visualize, plan, and execute projects and change initiatives alike. The more than fifty (50) tools in the Change Planning Toolkit™ will help you deliver projects and change efforts on time, while simultaneously accelerating implementation and adoption.

Change Planning Wall

If the benefits are not clear, be sure and get your 10 Free Change Planning Tools and you’ll get a better sense of the power of the Change Planning Toolkit™ (it is visual after all) and check out the additional benefits in the image below:

Change Planning Toolkit Benefits

The Change Planning Toolkit™ is breaking away from the business model where people traditionally license intellectual property in the innovation and management information space by the named user, where fees for example are:

1. Gartner — $20,000-30,000 per year for a single user
2. Forrester — ~$20,000 per year for a single user
3. BeingFirst — $975 per year for a single user
4. ProSci — $350-400 per download (for a single user) or $4,000+ per user for training
5. MarketingProfs.com — $279 per year for a single user
6. Skillsoft — $150 per year for business skills training for a single user

… or you can hire a top consultant to do some knowledge transfer to your organization for $400-$1,000 per hour (or more).

Change Planning Toolkit Valuable Tools

Now, what is Change Planning Toolkit™ offering that is different?

First, the Change Planning Toolkit™ provides an integrated system of tools far more powerful and far more capable of increasing organizational agility than any other.

Second, the Change Planning Toolkit™ is now available using two business model variations not usually offered in the intellectual property space, which include:

1. Access for Every Employee (aka the Site License option)

  • Access for EVERY employee in your organization, priced at a very affordable $2/yr per employee plus a $299.99 annual fee
  • Includes access to a QuickStart Guide to get you up and running quickly
  • Includes access to POSTER SIZE versions of key tools, including the Change Planning Canvas™ and Visual Project Charter™
  • SPECIAL OFFER – The next three (3) firms to purchase a full-day training session (which includes train-the-trainer) will receive a free* Change Planning Toolkit™ site license

——————————————————————————–
Book a Training Session and get a free* site license
——————————————————————————–

2. Access for Every Resident (aka the City/State/Country License option)

  • Access for EVERY resident of your city, state, or country. Priced at a very affordable $0.01/yr per resident ($1,000/yr minimum)
  • Yes, that is right. Cities, states and countries are all eligible for a license that makes these tools available to all residents for just a PENNY per year per resident!
  • SPECIAL OFFER #1 – Purchase a city, state, or country license worth more than $25,000 and get up to 50 people trained to use the toolkit and how to train others to use it (training fees waived for one session, expenses still to be reimbursed)
  • SPECIAL OFFER #2 – Purchase a city, state, or country license worth more than $100,000 and get up to 200 people trained to use the toolkit and how to train others to use it (training fees waived for four (4) sessions in up to two (2) locations with two adjacent days per location, expenses still to be reimbursed)
  • SPECIAL OFFER #3 – Purchase a city, state, or country license worth more than $1,000,000 and get up to 1,000 people trained to use the toolkit and how to train others to use it (training fees waived for twenty (20) sessions in up to ten (10) locations with two adjacent days per location, expenses still to be reimbursed)

——————————————————————————–
CONTACT ME to get access for all of your residents
——————————————————————————–

Some educational institutions may be able to apply for grants from the government to cover the cost of the license and training as part of their efforts to raise the skills of their local residents. Central Wyoming College is an example of an educational institution that won a Federal grant to do just that. It’s possible.

And these licenses are available for both the:

  1. Change Planning Toolkit™
  2. Human-Centered Innovation Toolkit™ (coming soon)

Become a Human-Centered Innovation Toolkit™ Patron

The Human-Centered Innovation Toolkit™ will be coming soon, and you can become a Patron by helping to fund its completion through a site license or a city/state/country license and as a reward get instant access to the POSTER SIZE version of The Experiment Canvas™ and the many other tools I’ve already completed. You’ll then of course get access to the rest of the toolkit as I complete it. You’ll get this instant access at a permanent 50% discount off the normal $2/yr per employee or $0.01/yr per resident, meaning your cost will be a paltry $1/yr per employee or $0.005/yr per resident for the lifetime of the license.

SPECIAL BUNDLE DISCOUNT:

— Get instant access for both the Change Planning Toolkit™ and the Human-Centered Innovation Toolkit™ (coming soon) for all of your residents for a low bundle price of $0.014/yr per resident ($1,000/yr minimum) – that’s less than a penny-and-a-half per resident (a full 60% discount off the second license).

——————————————————————————–
CONTACT ME to get a jump on the competition
——————————————————————————–

Empower Your Residents and Employees to Cope with the Accelerating Pace of Change

So don’t wait, act today and get access for all of your employees or all of your residents to these powerful, intuitive and beautifully visual and collaborative tools that will help increase the speed of innovation and change in your organizations to cope with the accelerating pace of change in the world all around us. Countries all around the world are fighting to be the destination of choice of aspiring entrepreneurs and bold innovators and to rise in comparative rankings like the:

World’s 50 Most Innovative Countries (license cost based on population)

  1. Switzerland ($84,541)
  2. Sweden ($99,206)
  3. Netherlands ($170,328)
  4. United States ($3,264,740)
  5. United Kingdom ($655,111)
  6. Denmark ($57,118)
  7. Singapore ($57,845)
  8. Finland ($55,413)
  9. Germany ($806,361)
  10. Ireland ($47,492)
  11. ————————————–
    State of California ($392,500)
    ————————————–

  12. South Korea ($507,050)
  13. Luxembourg ($5,841)
  14. Iceland ($3,343)
  15. Japan ($1,260,452)
  16. France ($649,387)
  17. Hong Kong ($74,019)
  18. Israel ($83,232)
  19. Canada ($366,261)
  20. Norway ($53,308)
  21. Austria ($85,924)
  22. ————————————–
    State of Texas ($278,625)
    ————————————–

  23. New Zealand ($46,049)
  24. China ($13,882,327)
  25. Australia ($246,417)
  26. Czech Republic ($105,551)
  27. Estonia ($13,058)
  28. Malta ($4,205)
  29. Belgium ($114,438)
  30. Spain ($460,701)
  31. Italy ($597,980)
  32. Cyprus ($11,876)
  33. ————————————–
    New York City ($85,504)
    ————————————–

  34. Portugal ($102,648)
  35. Slovenia ($20,713)
  36. Latvia ($19,446)
  37. Slovakia ($54,322)
  38. UAE ($93,976)
  39. Bulgaria ($70,453)
  40. Malaysia ($311,642)
  41. Poland ($385,636)
  42. Hungary ($97,879)
  43. Lithuania ($28,306)
  44. —————————————
    Chicago ($27,205)
    —————————————

  45. Croatia ($42,098)
  46. Romania ($192,375)
  47. Turkey ($804,175)
  48. Greece ($108,929)
  49. Russia ($1,433,750)
  50. Chile ($183,135)
  51. Vietnam ($954,146)
  52. Montenegro ($6,263)
  53. Qatar ($23,381)
  54. Ukraine ($444,051)

Are you happy with your country’s position on the World’s 50 Most Innovative Countries list?

Are you happy with your company’s level of organizational agility or level of innovation success?

Is your organization or country keeping up with the accelerating pace of change?

If not, then you need these tools. And if you are satisfied with your competitive position, then you need these tools to maintain your current position…

——————————————————————————————————
CONTACT ME to get access for all of your residents or employees
——————————————————————————————————


Accelerate your change and transformation success

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






Launching an iPhone before Apple

Launching an iPhone before AppleWe live in an amazing age. An era when barriers to entry and barriers to scale sometimes seem to decreasing faster than the size of semiconductors. If Moore’s law states that the number of transistors per square inch doubles approximately every two years, what would you call the similar increase in speed to scale that has emerged over the past decade?

Two weeks ago I came across a couple of videos showing not one, but two different companies who are already shipping clones of Apple’s iPhone 6, a phone that Apple hasn’t yet been able to announce and get out the door?

Do we live in an amazing era or what?

The first video is of the iPhone 6 clone called the Wico i6:

The second video is of an iPhone 6 clone called the Goophone:

Now, people are very loyal to Apple (at least outside of China) and so this is likely to impact their business very little. But would the same be true in your business?

What would the impact be to your business if a competitor launched your new flagship product before you could?

Are you creating an overall solution that is more valuable than every existing alternative and likely to be widely adopted when you launch it?

If not, shouldn’t you be?

After all if you’ve been following me for any length of time you’ll know that my definition of innovation is the following:

“Innovation transforms the useful seeds of invention into widely adopted solutions valued above every existing alternative.”

By this very definition, these clones may attempt to copy the inventions contained in the iPhone 6, but if Apple has truly packed any innovation into their forthcoming handset, it will take more than copying the look and feel of their hardware and GUI to steal any of their innovation thunder.

Innovation is of course all about value, and so any true innovation will not only excel at Value Creation, but the creators will also have put a lot of effort into Value Access AND Value Translation. Follow the link for more on my value innovation framework.

So, if you link my value innovation framework together with my definition of innovation and work to satisfy the conditions of both, you’ll see it doesn’t really matter what the competition does as long as you focus on creating value in all three areas and launching a solution truly valued above every existing alternative (including copycats, clones, or pre-emptive launches), you can still have a wildly successful launch.

So, keep innovating!


Build a common language of innovation on your team

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.