The Case of the RaceCam Innovation in the Sports Industry - Essay Example

Sports Innovation Case Study Name Institution Tutor Date Introduction Organizations constantly implement novelty by developing new, attractive and reliable services and products. With the dynamic nature of the business environment, innovation is perceived as a significant competency due to benefits such as the ability attain and maintain a competitive advantage within the market. Additionally, it facilitates organizational survival and effectiveness. The sporting industry has not been left behind in the adoption of innovation. In fact, innovation is very significant in this particular industry. This is because as Keat (2015) asserts, sports in the international context is fundamentally entrepreneurial due to the fact that it changes to suit and adopt to business needs. Many organizations in the sporting industry have therefore over the years ventured in innovative initiatives. This paper seeks to present a case study of an innovation within the sports industry. The Racecam Innovation Case Synopsis The RaceCam technology was devised in 1979 by Geoff Healey an engineer working for the Australian Television Network Seven (Lloyd, 2011). The innovation consisted of a network of microwave transmitter radios, carmounted cameras and relays in helicopters. The product was aimed at providing television viewers with a close up and live view of motor racing. The technology was lucrative during this period, however, the filing of the patent was not done. The Australian Television Network Seven, who hired Geoff Healey just used the innovation for local broadcasting without enforcing regulatory measures that would prevent the imitation or selling the invention. According to Lloyd, (2011), there were potential opportunities to even license the innovation within the international market, nevertheless, the company did not take advantage of the prospect. The nonexistence of an effective patent protection can make it difficult to safely license new innovations due to the fact that probable licenses may in future imitate the technology (Lloyd, 2011). In the context of the RaceCam innovation, the initial developers greatly lamented the absence of patent protection when later on in 1987, Healy and Brear applied for a patent of a similar innovation using the title ‘Expendable protective window for TV camera’. The two businessmen made reference to the RaceCam technology, however, they argued that their innovation was different because it had movable strips that covered the camera lens that existed in the RaceCam. A more astonishing factor is that; the designers of the RaceCam were not keen to even apply for a trademark to safeguard this brand. Over the years, different types of RaceCam’s have been designed for various sports such as basketball, skiing and cricket (Lloyd, 2011). When one conducts a web search, findings disclose that the RaceCam brand is currently sold by car race camera system suppliers that mainly focus on car racing (Lloyd, 2011). The companies involved in supplying the technology are capable of conducting business using the product due to the fact that; a) The RaceCam trademark was never filed with the Trade Marks Office in Australia b) The initial developers of the technology did not patent their product (Lloyd, 2011). How the Organisation Came to Use the RaceCam Innovation The Australian Television Network Seven used the technology to provide viewers the opportunity to see car races through the driver’s eye. Channel 7 presented the system during the 1979; 1000 car race competition. The company introduced a live broadcast where the racing cars used a network of race cars that were mounted with camera’s, relays in helicopters and miniaturized microwave radio transmitters (Allen, 2013). Where the Innovation Sits Within the Industry The RaceCam innovation is a prolific innovation in the sporting industry today. Since the first invention, the RaceCam technology has profoundly been redefined resulting to advanced modification in its performance. Today the technology is used in various sporting activities. In cricket the Stamp- cam was introduced. The technology involved a camera that was enclosed in a microphone that can pick up sounds as the camera projects the game. The technology has further been adopted in games such a swimming, for instance, in the 2000 Sydney Olympics, Channel 9 used the technology through the partnership with the Orad Hi- Tec Systems a German company (Allen, 2013). The technology is still prominent in the racing segment particularly in Formula 1, Formula 3 and E racing contests. How RaceCam Compares In Use with Other Organisations The 360 Racing technology Company is one of the leading companies in the production of the RaceCam technology. The company upgraded its innovation by using more advanced cameras that are integrated into the racing cars. The company’s product broadcasts interactive 300- degree live streaming that has an onboard camera. It provides a video viewpoint that displays the drivers view while at the same time enabling one to see the cars that are coming from behind. Additionally, the product by the 360 company has been incorporated in new platforms such as mobile phones that enable views to watch races even when in transit. The Camera is unique as a result the company has patented its product (Mortosport Network, 2016). Most of this advanced attributes did not exist in the initial RaceCam innovation. The Future of the Innovation The future of the RaceCam technology can effectively be explained using the diffusion theory of innovation. As postulated by the theory, human interaction promotes the spread and adoption of a new innovation (Rogers, 2010). In this context, based on the fact that the initial innovators (Australian Television Network Seven) did not patent their product, their creation has been adopted by people within the social system. Many companies over the years have used the innovation and gained leverage due to the profits accumulated from the invention. It can therefore be stated that; the future of the RaceCam technology is based on the unrelenting adoption of the novelty by entrepreneurs in the social system who upgrade the product as technology advances. The Problem The case of the Australian Television Network Seven has presented a key challenge that affects innovation among entrepreneurs and organizations. Lloyd (2011) discloses that there has been a decline in the patenting of innovations developed in the Australian sporting. Since the mid- 1990s many innovations have been devised yet organizations do not patent their products. According to a report by the Australian Intellectual property Department (2016), there has been a persistent reduction in the provisional application of patents in the past decade. Nevertheless, in 2015, there was a slight increase of one percent which is basically very minimal. Figure 1. 0 Demonstrates the reduction in patenting levels in Australia. Figure 1. 0 Patent Applications From 2006-2015 Source: Australian Intellectual property Department (2016) A crucial issue that emerges from the case is the problem of lack of patenting by organizations which result to the loss ownership of a new innovation. A factor that aggravates the problem is that the main source of patenting for Australian sporting innovations is the United States. Many products are invented in Australia, however, other countries acquire the benefits accrued from the innovations (Lloyd (2011). The case of the Australian Television Network Seven is a clear depiction of this problem. ReceCam was evidently a lucrative innovation that would have been patented, nevertheless, the company did not do so. A big question that arises is; why do organizations in the sporting industry innovate new products and ideas, yet they do not patent their new inventions. Additionally, it is imperative to make recommendations that can resolve this particular problem. Findings and Discussion A key finding that can be noted from the case is the fact that media companies are significant stakeholders in the sporting industry. This is based on the fact that they support the sector through broadcasting. In addition, they can advance the industry by coming up with innovative ideas and products. Television Network Seven was actively involved in the broadcasting of car racing. The company went ahead to hire an engineer who came up with the innovation. A key challenge that emerges is that despite the fact that such organizations are able to innovate they do not acquire the benefits that linked to their new development. The case can be related to the disruptive innovation theory whereby an innovation moves a company from a long established performance trajectory by introducing improved performance in compassion to the existing services and products. However, the innovation is disrupted when the organization is not able to sustain its product due to disruptions such as imitation (Christensen, et al, 2013). Although the product was able to advance the car racing broadcasting capabilities of Television Network Seven, the innovation may have been disrupted due to various speculative factors. The case also presents the idea that sometimes innovators and organizations have misconceptions about patents. It can also be argued that some innovations can sell and work just fine without being patented. Teska, (2007) argues that a patent is not a condition that signifies huge sales. The quality of the innovation is the most influential factor. A patent alone cannot result in huge profit margins for the company. Sometimes entrepreneurs have the perception that revenues will be rolling due the possession of a patent. It is imperative for innovators to be aware of the fact that a patent is just a document, however, if the products are patented effectively then the organisation may make more money. From the case, Television Network Seven ends up regretting when two entrepreneurs patent their innovation after making slight improvements on the innovation. What is evident is that it is essential for organization to have in-depth knowledge about what a patent entails and the benefits that can be derived from the entire process. A clear fact that can be derived from the case presented is that many innovators are not aware of the benefits of their innovation until it is imitated and the spill-over benefits other entities that did not struggle to invest on R&D that resulted in the invention of the product. Television Network Seven did not see the real benefits of its innovator until it was copied by other companies. This is indeed a grave mistake. Additional Factors that May Have Hindered the Patenting Of the RaceCam Innovation by Television Network Seven Managers are frequently faced with the choice of whether to acquire a patent for their inventions. This decision is often problematic (Hutter, 2015). Indeed legal practitioners and orthodox wisdom propagate the idea that patients are significant in the safeguarding a new innovation. However, a key reason why businesses do no patent their products is because they do not see the real financial benefits that the innovation can bring to the organization. Consequently, it can be stated that the lack of patenting is influenced by a belief system that sees the move as non- beneficial (Hutter, 2015). Anderson (2002) argues that an innovation must be aimed at producing benefits to the organization, some subsection can also spill over to the wider society. Consequently, if the organization gets minimum benefits from its innovation due to lack of patenting, then it can be indicated that the innovation has not met its full potential. In one way it can be argued that Television Network Seven did not perceive the move as important. This is because if the management considered patenting as significant, they would have applied for the patent. Today companies such as The 360 Racing technology produce more advanced RaceCams without restrictions, in addition, they perceive the innovation as a part of their intellectual property right. It is factual that patenting a product does not come easy due to the costs connected to the entire process. As a result, an innovator may choose to evade the costs that are linked to the procedure. In the case Television Network Seven it may be postulated that the management of the company did not want to incur the costs associated with filing for a patent. As a result, they choose to use the innovation to advance their key objective which is the broadcasting of car racing. An outstanding challenge that makes innovators to not patent their new ideas and products is that a large percentage of them are not commercialized or legalized (Fisher, 2016). According to Summerfield, (2015) majority of the innovations which constitutes 80% of new services and products in Australia are never certified and examined and therefore do not lead to enforceable rights. When companies that innovate for instance those in the sporting industry realize this factor, they tend to shy away from the application of patents. The lifecycle of a patent is actually similar to the life cycle of a product. It involves long process such as; looking for an attorney, filing for the application, patent prosecuting which entails the examination of the innovation by a patent examiner. Other steps include insurance, preservation and exploration and the payment of a maintenance fee. When a review of the product life cycle is conducted in relations to the life cycle of a patent, numerous failures can be experienced between the period of invention and that of the application of the patent (Teska, 2007). Recommendations A general consensus that arises from this particular case is that the patenting system is underutilized. As a result, it does not attain the intended objectives. When entrepreneurs are able to come up with new products and services, yet they do to protect their products from imitation then it implies that there is need to educate innovators on the significance of utilizing the patents regulation. Innovators should be made aware of the fact is that filing for a patent is significant, despite the existing challenges associated with the process. If the management of the Television Network Seven was well informed about the significance of patenting, then the innovation would be credited to the company until today. In addition, the organization would accrue benefits such as increasing profit margins from the product, expansion of its market share and the reduction of competition. A key recommendation for innovators essentially in the sporting industry is that it is important for them to be aware that innovation is not all about promoting sporting activities but rather it should be aimed at encouraging entrepreneurship within the industry. We have seen many organisations innovate unique products, patent their innovations and then accrue huge profits from their innovation. For instance, an outstanding example is a German Start –up company that recently innovated a goal control technology that is able to accurately detect the ball and determine whether a score was attained or not by calculating precision( Bernard ,2014). It is imperative for companies in the industry to take up innovation and patent their ideas or products. Also, this paper recommends that it is important for government agencies such as Australian Intellectual property Department to reduce the cost associated to patenting and the high charges linked to the process. This will enable more innovators to get involved in the process. Conclusion The above discussion has presented the case of the RaceCam innovation that was designed by an engineer of the Australian Television Network Seven. The case discloses that the company did not patent its innovation and therefore leading to imitation by other entrepreneurs. Various companies such as the 360 Racing technology Company have used this idea to produce even more advanced RaceCams. The case study further unveils that the percentage of patent registrations in Australia even today has declined. What is evident is that there is need to educate innovators essentially in the sports industry about the significance of patenting. The paper acknowledges that the procedure/ regulation does not always mean profits, but the case of the Australian Television Network Seven, depicts that patenting is indeed important. References Anderson, N 2002, Managing Innovation and Change: A Critical Guide for Organizations Management of innovation and change series, Cengage Learning. Allen, D 2013, 7 Great Australian Sporting Innovations, Business Insider Australia. Australian Intellectual property Department 2016, Australian Intellectual property Report, Retrieved on 22 November 2016 From Bernard, G 2014, Inside the World Cup's Cutting-Edge Goal-Line Technology, Made by a German Startup, bostinno. Christensen, C, Anthony, S and Roth, A 2013, Seeing What's Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change, Harvard Business Press. Fisher, D 2016, The Real Patent Crisis Is Stifling Innovation, Forbes Magazine. Hutter, J 2015, Why Business Fails to Generate Patenting Strategies that Protect Innovation Value & How to Make It Easier, IP strategy. Keat, L 2015, Emerging Trends and Innovation in Sports Marketing and Management in Asia Advances in Marketing, Customer Relationship Management, and E-Services, IGI Global. Lloyd, M 2011, Australian sporting innovation: patently better? Sports Technology, 4(3–4): 114–121 Mortosport Network 2016, Formula E extends partnership with 360° video technology leader 360 racing, Mortosport Network. Park, H 2010, Patents and Industry Standards, Edward Elgar Publishing. Rogers, E 2010, Diffusion of Innovations, Simon and Schuster, 2010 Summerfield, M 2015, ACIP Says ‘Abolish Innovation Patents’ Based on IP Australia Report, Patentology. Teska, K 2007, Patent Savvy for Managers: Spot & Protect Valuable Innovations in Your Company, Nolo, Read More

Where the Innovation Sits Within the Industry The RaceCam innovation is a prolific innovation in the sporting industry today. Since the first invention, the RaceCam technology has profoundly been redefined resulting to advanced modification in its performance. Today the technology is used in various sporting activities. In cricket the Stamp- cam was introduced. The technology involved a camera that was enclosed in a microphone that can pick up sounds as the camera projects the game. The technology has further been adopted in games such a swimming, for instance, in the 2000 Sydney Olympics, Channel 9 used the technology through the partnership with the Orad Hi- Tec Systems a German company (Allen, 2013).

The technology is still prominent in the racing segment particularly in Formula 1, Formula 3 and E racing contests. How RaceCam Compares In Use with Other Organisations The 360 Racing technology Company is one of the leading companies in the production of the RaceCam technology. The company upgraded its innovation by using more advanced cameras that are integrated into the racing cars. The company’s product broadcasts interactive 300- degree live streaming that has an onboard camera. It provides a video viewpoint that displays the drivers view while at the same time enabling one to see the cars that are coming from behind.

Additionally, the product by the 360 company has been incorporated in new platforms such as mobile phones that enable views to watch races even when in transit. The Camera is unique as a result the company has patented its product (Mortosport Network, 2016). Most of this advanced attributes did not exist in the initial RaceCam innovation. The Future of the Innovation The future of the RaceCam technology can effectively be explained using the diffusion theory of innovation. As postulated by the theory, human interaction promotes the spread and adoption of a new innovation (Rogers, 2010).

In this context, based on the fact that the initial innovators (Australian Television Network Seven) did not patent their product, their creation has been adopted by people within the social system. Many companies over the years have used the innovation and gained leverage due to the profits accumulated from the invention. It can therefore be stated that; the future of the RaceCam technology is based on the unrelenting adoption of the novelty by entrepreneurs in the social system who upgrade the product as technology advances.

The Problem The case of the Australian Television Network Seven has presented a key challenge that affects innovation among entrepreneurs and organizations. Lloyd (2011) discloses that there has been a decline in the patenting of innovations developed in the Australian sporting. Since the mid- 1990s many innovations have been devised yet organizations do not patent their products. According to a report by the Australian Intellectual property Department (2016), there has been a persistent reduction in the provisional application of patents in the past decade.

Nevertheless, in 2015, there was a slight increase of one percent which is basically very minimal. Figure 1. 0 Demonstrates the reduction in patenting levels in Australia. Figure 1. 0 Patent Applications From 2006-2015 Source: Australian Intellectual property Department (2016) A crucial issue that emerges from the case is the problem of lack of patenting by organizations which result to the loss ownership of a new innovation. A factor that aggravates the problem is that the main source of patenting for Australian sporting innovations is the United States.

Many products are invented in Australia, however, other countries acquire the benefits accrued from the innovations (Lloyd (2011). The case of the Australian Television Network Seven is a clear depiction of this problem. ReceCam was evidently a lucrative innovation that would have been patented, nevertheless, the company did not do so. A big question that arises is; why do organizations in the sporting industry innovate new products and ideas, yet they do not patent their new inventions.

Read More