7 replies to this topic

[Markn93]

I have been thinking recently about the changes made by top teams, regarding top technical personnel such as Paddy Lowe and James Allison, and the benefits the teams they joined have enjoyed. Mercedes know a fair amount about Mclaren's 2014 project and Ferrari the same about Lotus'. This got me wondering about the value of brainpower and knowledge especially when it comes from other teams. I gather that lower down the food chain, personnel change between top teams fairly often and was wondering if people could enlighten me as to what they think teams know of other teams ins and outs. Furthermore this acquiring of personnel as seen in it's most obvious form at Mercedes made me wonder about the attitude teams have towards brainpower and knowledge as a valuable asset, perhaps in the same way they would consider a driver to be one. Has this accelerated in recent years or has this always been the case, and is just in the spotlight more often now as even the lesser fan becomes familiar with the likes of Newey, Brawn, Allison, Fry, etc?

[SpaMaster]

I think, in the case of Lotus, Lotus had patented many of its systems and has intellectual property rights. One of the things that was mooted around during the departure of Allison was how Lotus has tight NDA with Allison and he won't be able to share the Lotus details with outsiders for a certain period of time.

[KnucklesAgain]

I think, in the case of Lotus, Lotus had patented many of its systems and has intellectual property rights. One of the things that was mooted around during the departure of Allison was how Lotus has tight NDA with Allison and he won't be able to share the Lotus details with outsiders for a certain period of time.

I seriously doubt the thing about patents: A patent requires you to publish the invention. That's kind of the basis of the deal: the state gives you protection for a number of years in exchange for publication of new knowledge.

To apply for a European patent you need to supply a description of the invention and any drawings referred to in the description or the claim in a way that makes the invention "sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art". When granted it will be published for all to read: "The European Patent Office shall publish the specification of the European patent as soon as possible after the mention of the grant of the European patent has been published in the European Patent Bulletin".

And it usually takes years until the patent is granted, which in F1 does not appear quick enough to be useful even if you are ok with publishing.

....

Well ok, the European Patent Register knows one patent by Lotus F1 Team Ltd.:
https://register.epo...r...21&tab=main
Edit: which makes sense if they think it has commercial value outside of F1. But as a competitive tool, I don't think so.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 01 August 2013 - 17:39.

[Talisman]

I think, in the case of Lotus, Lotus had patented many of its systems and has intellectual property rights.

Actually F1 teams rarely patent as has already been pointed out for several reasons. Firstly they have to make public how their system works and for what reason it should be patented (ie the benefit). Secondly as soon as it is patented the team can prevent others from developing/using a similar system which is the best way possible to get the FIA to ban it ASAP as they do not want a team to monopolise a technology. Instead it is often more beneficial to simply clarify its use quietly with the FIA and deploy it, hoping that the team retains an advantage for several months as other teams take time to realise what has happened and then develop their own system.

[SpaMaster]

I seriously doubt the thing about patents: A patent requires you to publish the invention. That's kind of the basis of the deal: the state gives you protection for a number of years in exchange for publication of new knowledge.

To apply for a European patent you need to supply a description of the invention and any drawings referred to in the description or the claim in a way that makes the invention "sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art". When granted it will be published for all to read: "The European Patent Office shall publish the specification of the European patent as soon as possible after the mention of the grant of the European patent has been published in the European Patent Bulletin".

And it usually takes years until the patent is granted, which in F1 does not appear quick enough to be useful even if you are ok with publishing.

....

Well ok, the European Patent Register knows one patent by Lotus F1 Team Ltd.:
https://register.epo...r...21&tab=main
Edit: which makes sense if they think it has commercial value outside of F1. But as a competitive tool, I don't think so.

I also said intellectual property rights. I remember during Allison's exit that Lotus has non-disclosure agreements with him that would prevent him from sharing the details of the 2013 and 2014 designs. It is not that difficult to have such systems in place. What Allison could do is use the general knowledge he gained to develop something different at Ferrari. If Allison would have the right to transfer serious Lotus design philosophies to Ferrari, Lotus would have never let him join before the gardening leave. Ferrari first had to pay Lotus to break the contract of Allison. Then they paid even more to have him start working from September itself instead of serving out the originally agreed gardening leave. Lotus would not have let him start work without proper protection in place and I remember their statements during Allison's departing point to this very effect - IP protection (again not just patents).

[Talisman]

This got me wondering about the value of brainpower and knowledge especially when it comes from other teams. I gather that lower down the food chain, personnel change between top teams fairly often and was wondering if people could enlighten me as to what they think teams know of other teams ins and outs. Furthermore this acquiring of personnel as seen in it's most obvious form at Mercedes made me wonder about the attitude teams have towards brainpower and knowledge as a valuable asset, perhaps in the same way they would consider a driver to be one. Has this accelerated in recent years or has this always been the case, and is just in the spotlight more often now as even the lesser fan becomes familiar with the likes of Newey, Brawn, Allison, Fry, etc?

Its always happened, in fact that is part of the reason why the UK gained an advantage over other countries when it came to F1 teams. There are thousands of F1 related teams and suppliers in the UK with a lot of staff flow between them meaning that no single British based company or team gets a monopoly on a new technology, but that teams and companies outside the UK find it difficult to get hold of the same.

In recent years Toyota managed to get hold of the double diffuser idea for 2009 because they recruited two Honda aerodynamicists who told them what Brackley was up to. Similarly the FIA supposedly found out about the Honda fuel tank system because staff had gone from Brackley to Renault, telling their new team what Brackley was up to.

IMO high performing midfield teams like Honda in 2005, BMW/Sauber in 2008-9 and Sauber in 2012 and FI over the past couple of seasons find it difficult to maintain their upward momentum because better funded teams poach the best mid-level engineers from them, effectively asset-stripping them and depriving them of a lot of intellectual assets. That would explain why after a couple of good seasons those teams then descend back into mediocrity before rising back up again.

[KnucklesAgain]

I also said intellectual property rights.

In a legal way there is no such thing (edit: well there is in legal theory and thought, what I meant was there is no single, coherent "IP law"). "IP" is a catch-all term used for the sum of copyrights, patent protection, trade secrets, design patents, NDAs and similar contracts, and probably other stuff. In most cases it is used when someone wants you to believe that they can have the benefits of all of those without the downsides of the individual protection rights (I'm not blaming you, just saying).

But if you sue someone for breach, you can't tell the court, "well I have IP rights". You need to specify exactly which rights you think were breached. Therefore in the context of your post, I don't think it makes sense to use the term either.

I remember during Allison's exit that Lotus has non-disclosure agreements with him that would prevent him from sharing the details of the 2013 and 2014 designs. It is not that difficult to have such systems in place.

What Allison could do is use the general knowledge he gained to develop something different at Ferrari. If Allison would have the right to transfer serious Lotus design philosophies to Ferrari, Lotus would have never let him join before the gardening leave. Ferrari first had to pay Lotus to break the contract of Allison. Then they paid even more to have him start working from September itself instead of serving out the originally agreed gardening leave. Lotus would not have let him start work without proper protection in place and I remember their statements during Allison's departing point to this very effect - IP protection (again not just patents).

It's not difficult to have, just difficult to defend. An NDA is simply a contract (it's an "agreement"), likely with various provisions, clauses, and limitations. You can always ignore it, be sued and pay the damages if you really want to. You could even challenge its validity in court, and many European countries don't take NDAs and non-compete agreements lightly. They often value the ability of employees to find work more highly, and they are quite often found invalid, at least in parts. Of course the higher your position and salary the more likely they are upheld, but it is not a guarantee. And if the secrets are valuable enough, well, just ignore the NDA and pay the damages.

Edit: and an NDA can never prevent you from applying your skills and general knowledge of the art, even if you acquired them while under NDA

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 02 August 2013 - 06:16.

[Markn93]

Its always happened, in fact that is part of the reason why the UK gained an advantage over other countries when it came to F1 teams. There are thousands of F1 related teams and suppliers in the UK with a lot of staff flow between them meaning that no single British based company or team gets a monopoly on a new technology, but that teams and companies outside the UK find it difficult to get hold of the same.

In recent years Toyota managed to get hold of the double diffuser idea for 2009 because they recruited two Honda aerodynamicists who told them what Brackley was up to. Similarly the FIA supposedly found out about the Honda fuel tank system because staff had gone from Brackley to Renault, telling their new team what Brackley was up to.

IMO high performing midfield teams like Honda in 2005, BMW/Sauber in 2008-9 and Sauber in 2012 and FI over the past couple of seasons find it difficult to maintain their upward momentum because better funded teams poach the best mid-level engineers from them, effectively asset-stripping them and depriving them of a lot of intellectual assets. That would explain why after a couple of good seasons those teams then descend back into mediocrity before rising back up again.

I had no idea of that, even though it makes a great deal of sense, great example, thanks