NZTR and Intellectual Property.....Do they have any?

[Guest 2Admin2]

Can someone explain what the following means?  It looks garbage to me.

The Future Belongs To Those Who Plan For It

By Greg Purcell

Strategies to improve the racing industry's performance.

• Establishing an IP (intellectual property) steering group

It has required extensive consultation with HRNZ and GRNZ at Chair and CEO level and also with the NZRB at Chair and CEO level.

There has also been considerable consultation within the thoroughbred code.

NZTR made presentations throughout the country in June, meeting with race club presidents and chief executives and the key stakeholder groups to explain our strategies and options.

We have also worked closely with our five major club groups - Auckland Racing Club, Canterbury Racing, Waikato Racing Club, RACE Group and Hawke's Bay Racing Inc. - to develop a thoroughbred approach to intellectual property, which is currently under consideration by all clubs.

 

[Midget 4,489]

It's all about extracting more money if they sell what they perceive as industry IP to the TAB or an offshore betting agency.

This is the trump card Jackson has been touting around Australia and the industry here.

I just hope the owners, trainers and jockeys have someone advising them as to who really owns the IP, and that the three groups above don't sign over their IP in return for being granted the right to participate in the game.

[Guest 2Admin2]

But what is this "IP"?  Two definitions below one from MBIE IP Property Office.  Neither of the definitions appears to refer to anything racing has of any value.

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.

Intellectual property rights include:

• trade marks to distinguish your goods and services
• patents for new inventions
• registered designs for the design of your products
• plant variety rights for new varieties in agriculture or horticulture, and
• copyright for your creative works like books, paintings and software.

[Midget 4,489]

Symbols, names and images, surely a horse racing and being used to promote gambling has a name, an image, and arguably a symbol ?

Ditto trainers and jockeys, Trackside uses their names and images all the time but never pays a cent for the privilege 

[gary1 361]

5 minutes ago, Midget said:

Symbols, names and images, surely a horse racing and being used to promote gambling has a name, an image, and arguably a symbol ?

Ditto trainers and jockeys, Trackside uses their names and images all the time but never pays a cent for the privilege 

i think it works both ways i suppose trackside could charge them for promoting their sport

[Guest 2Admin2]

13 minutes ago, Midget said:

Symbols, names and images, surely a horse racing and being used to promote gambling has a name, an image, and arguably a symbol ?

Ditto trainers and jockeys, Trackside uses their names and images all the time but never pays a cent for the privilege 

Na Midge - Purcell's use of the term intellectual property is a misnomer.  Given his performance at both M's trials it's not surprising.  You may have a set of racing silks that are unique to your stable but as it stands you pay NZTR for the privilege of using them.  You could claim the design was IP or more accurately a trademark.  However I don't see how NZTR was going to make any money from your trademark nor see them paying you for that privilege.

What Purcell is referring to is ownership of the product (racing) and the data (subsequently transformed into information) such as horse and track statistics.  Now I argue that in the first instance due to the low quality of each there is very little value.  Secondly if you want to generate more revenue i.e. from the punter then make that information free and better quality.  They do this in Hong Kong, Singapore and to a lesser degree in Australia. 

What did we do?  We made Trackside pay per view to save $9 million - note that wasn't saved was it?

[Midget 4,489]

24 minutes ago, gary1 said:

i think it works both ways i suppose trackside could charge them for promoting their sport

Risible, without the jockeys and trainers Trackside racing would be sterile and largely useless as entertainment. 

[Ohokaman 5,825]

Similar to Admins explanation....not sure there is much of value here...the last two may be pertinent however....

What is intellectual property

Intellectual property (IP) typically includes things like a logo, brand, trade secret, design or invention.

IP is important for small businesses because it can help:

• create market advantages and business opportunities
• grow profits, including licensing or selling to others
• attract investment
• protect businesses
• maintain your good reputation
• keep competitors away
• be a selling point for potential business buyers.

 

[Midget 4,489]

I think there is value there, and I also think the industry has considerable IP.

If we use the rights to our IP as leverage in renewed contract and licencing negotiations with the NZRB and or off shore betting agencies we could probably get a far better deal than that under which we currently operate, and that licencing agreement with the NZRB is up for renewal.

This might be a significant opportunity, I wouldn't scoff at it....yet.....and don't get distracted by or show contempt for the messenger, just think about the message and remove him from the picture in your mind.

 

[Guest 2Admin2]

Midge - what makes our "IP" any different from the rest of the world's racing?  Is their special IP in our betting systems?  NO.  Is our product any different from the rest of the world?  NO - poorer quality doesn't make it special.  Are our tracks managed differently and better quality because of the vast amount of R & D we have undertaken?  NO.  Does the trademark on your silks offer any value over and above the thousands of others throughout the world?  NO.  What makes it so special that we can say we have special unique "IP"?  This approach is about as senseless as the debate around "leakage."  I put the messenger out of the picture and still come to the conclusion it is hare brained.

We should be taking rights to our product and its perceived value.  Which may not be worth much in a marketplace where we are sadly well off the pace.

[Midget 4,489]

My thoughts were based around a scenario whereby you're selling, or assigning, your IP to a third party that might use it to generate revenue.

I guess then you'd ask yourself if you're getting value, or could you do better entering into a relationship with an alternate agency who might pay you more for the privilege of selling bets on what you produce..

Does that make sense ?

[Leggy 4,076]

6 hours ago, 2Admin2 said:

We have also worked closely with our five major club groups - Auckland Racing Club, RACE Group and Hawke's Bay Racing Inc. - to develop a thoroughbred approach to intellectual property, which is currently under consideration by all clubs.

I'm afraid NZTR and intellectual are not a well established mix. They have demonstrated that they don't know how to analyse data, understand statistics or use them usefully, and now they seem to be struggling under the notion that 1+1+1 = 5, or so it seems.

[Leggy 4,076]

Also, I think you'll find that audio and video creations of horse races are copyright IP.

[Guest 2Admin2]

8 minutes ago, Leggy said:

I'm afraid NZTR and intellectual are not a well established mix. They have demonstrated that they don't know how to analyse data, understand statistics or use them usefully, and now they seem to be struggling under the notion that 1+1+1 = 5, or so it seems.

That was my mistake Leggy - I couldn't cut and past the content from the Thoroughbred Monthly so I had to type it missed out a couple!

[Guest 2Admin2]

1 minute ago, Leggy said:

Also, I think you'll find that audio and video creations of horse races are copyright IP.

Again you will find jurisdictions like Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore provide easy free access to race videos and don't seem to mind people sharing the content.  They are all about promoting the product through as many channels as possible to as many possible punters as they can.

[Leggy 4,076]

6 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

That was my mistake Leggy - I couldn't cut and past the content from the Thoroughbred Monthly so I had to type it missed out a couple!

OK. Cheers.

[Leggy 4,076]

Doc12.docx

See if this works?

 

 

 

[Midget 4,489]

The article isn't too promising, bit obtuse and vague for me, dependent on race fields legislation and that's a long shot for mine but I suppose you can live in hope, and surely this lot are going to get something right at some stage....even a blind squirrel gets the odd acorn......

Can someone post that old speech by Andrew Brown.

[Midget 4,489]

I googled but couldn't find the Andrew Brown speech referred to as "Racing Ahead", but I did various credible references to it, and it seems the important bit was the promise of 185 million delivered to code by 2015.

During the Google search I found various references to Bayliss, who also said 180 million would be delivered and operational costs would be reduced to 30% of gross profit before distributions.

John Allen seems more cautious and doesn't seem to promise anything much, so it's left to the head of this code to sell the dreams.....and based on history you'd probably need to keep your expectations very low....

[Midget 4,489]

Share this video

http://youtu.be/nPC1JmC4iqA

Came across this too, thought I'd post it for a laugh, or a cry....

[slam dunk 1,317]

Couple of points.

If NZTR are investing into something like TRACKUS which can generate a mountain of data e.g. sectionals,positions in running, distance actually covered..... they probably imagine they can control even more stuff meaning even more salaries. NB thats where any benefits will go to and the net dollar benefits to the industry after the salaries will be negligible. NZTR would do better setting up "steering" committees that can grow revenue.

Trainers actually have the most valuable intellectual property but at the moment give it away free through Trackside TV, radio and other interviews.

[Nerula 1,402]

Midge is getting warm I think, as to what the "IP" is in this case. It is a term that encapsulates the whole of the racing product of which NZTR is the Licensor. This 'line in the sand' needs to be established before other negotiations pending are finalized.

The immediate value that can be establishes is in streaming the local product offshore to other outlets. As to who owns the "product" you could draw a parallel with say Duco who put on the event and sell the rights as they are the promoter. The rights are not captured by the boxer or trainer.

To return to racing: If the clubs are the promotor of the "product' and i'm sure they are, they could assign the streaming rights to their licensor who would then negotiate with an interested party on their behalf.

Now comes the interesting part. To incentivise clubs NZTR I believe in fairness should, pay out from the streaming rights a dividend to the clubs, in a ratio to the betting sales made from the offshore betting sales. Then in turn the clubs could incentives their licensees as part of their effort to improve the quality of the product and promotion. Lets have reward for Quality Racing and not Communist racing.

There is value here and NZTR is wise to be in discussion with major clubs at this time. They also have expert advise to back them up.

As to who owns the IP Is the most fundamental question of all

 

 

 

[Guest 2Admin2]

28 minutes ago, Nerula said:

Midge is getting warm I think, as to what the "IP" is in this case. It is a term that encapsulates the whole of the racing product of which NZTR is the Licensor. This 'line in the sand' needs to be established before other negotiations pending are finalized.

The immediate value that can be establishes is in streaming the local product offshore to other outlets. As to who owns the "product" you could draw a parallel with say Duco who put on the event and sell the rights as they are the promoter. The rights are not captured by the boxer or trainer.

To return to racing: If the clubs are the promotor of the "product' and i'm sure they are, they could assign the streaming rights to their licensor who would then negotiate with an interested party on their behalf.

Now comes the interesting part. To incentivise clubs NZTR I believe in fairness should, pay out from the streaming rights a dividend to the clubs, in a ratio to the betting sales made from the offshore betting sales. Then in turn the clubs could incentives their licensees as part of their effort to improve the quality of the product and promotion. Lets have reward for Quality Racing and not Communist racing.

There is value here and NZTR is wise to be in discussion with major clubs at this time. They also have expert advise to back them up.

As to who owns the IP Is the most fundamental question of all

 

 

 

IT'S NOT IP!!!!  It is the right to own and sell a product.  Joseph Parker owns his trademark - Duco own their's.  Duco has contracted to promote Parker and manage him.  Although with the latter I would imagine there is a different structure to do so.  Now draw some parallels with racing.  FFS they sold the racing broadcast jewels to a private company and helped fund them to do so.  They may think they own the copyright to the live broadcast however three minutes after a race the margin utility of that copyright is nil.  Except to the enthusiastic owner of the winner who forgot to record the race at home.  Arguably given what that owner paid to supply the product they should own Tge copyright.

There's fuck all unique creative endeavour in broadcasting x thousand races a year to call it IP.

[Nerula 1,402]

Call it whatever acronym you like. You just tell us who you think Own the racing product and whether they have any rights to commercialise that offshore. Never mind what ever the structure is here. Address the fundamental question.

[Guest 2Admin2]

12 minutes ago, Nerula said:

Call it whatever acronym you like. You just tell us who you think Own the racing product and whether they have any rights to commercialise that offshore. Never mind what ever the structure is here. Address the fundamental question.

Well you address the fundamental question - how does NZ intend to produce a quality product at a price that will sell in a global market?  That's the fundamental question.  Spending time on fruitless costly time wasting activities defining IP and asking government for more monopoly protectionism are the type of activities that got us in this crap.