[caption id="attachment_60673" align="alignleft" width="411"] Companies in the printing sector aren't the only ones ruffled by a Supreme Court decision that allows rivals to re-sell their old cartridges.[/caption] Executives at some of America's biggest tech companies and retailers are breathing a sigh of relief, while many in the pharmaceutical sector aren't happy. The mixed feelings come in the wake of an important ruling in a seven-year-old patent case that sets a clear precedent around intellectual property rights in the U.S. More specifically, the Supreme Court decision determined that a company loses its patent rights to a product once it has been sold, whether at or home or overseas. The case was brought by printing company Lexmark International, which was trying to stop smaller companies refurbishing and reselling its used printing cartridges. Many of the smaller companies settled with Lexmark, but one, Impression Products, held out for a ruling.
"Extending the patent rights beyond the first sale would clog the channels of commerce"The Supreme court ruled against Lexmark 8-0 on one point and 7-1 on another, overturning an earlier appeals court decision in Lexmark's favor. "Extending the patent rights beyond the first sale would clog the channels of commerce, with little benefit from the extra control that the patentees retain," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The decision has obvious implications for CEOs in the printing sector. HP and Cannon, for example, will lose out on sales of replacement cartridges. But its implications go much further than printing. Any company that resells and repairs another company's products would have been sweating the decision. And that could include tech companies that use multiple components in their products made by others which may have been subject to more licensing costs should the decision have gone the other way. Justice Roberts gave the example of an auto-repair shop while justifying the court's ruling. "The business works because the shop can rest assured that, so long as those bringing in the cars own them, the shop is free to repair and resell those vehicles," he wrote. "That smooth flow of commerce would sputter if companies that make thousands of parts that go into a vehicle could keep their patent rights after the first sale." Some of America's biggest companies, including Costco and Intel, had made court submissions that supported the final ruling. Not surprisingly, companies in patent-heavy industries, such as biotechnology, pharmaceutical and agricultural companies, backed Lexmark during the case. Many were particularly concerned about the potential for their products to be resold more cheaply overseas then imported back into the U.S. One of the court's eight judges, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, dissented on the subject of offshore sales, arguing that patent rights should be protected in this instance. "Because a sale abroad operates independently of the U. S. patent system, it makes little sense to say that such a sale exhausts an inventor’s U. S. patent rights." Regardless, her opinion was in a minority of one and the ruling stands on all counts.
[caption id="attachment_60671" align="alignleft" width="375"] Amazon's Andy Jassy and Jeffrey Wilke, the respective heads of its cloud computing and consumer businesses, made more than Jeff Bezos (above) last year.[/caption] While CEOs are typically considered to be the most important person in a company, there are plenty of examples of underlings being valued more than their bosses. At least on financial terms, Amazon has two: Andy Jassy and Jeffrey Wilke, the respective heads of its cloud computing and consumer businesses, made more than Jeff Bezos last year. But the emergent supremacy of these ultra-powerful hands is nothing compared to what's coming. At least that's the view of Bain, which suggests in a new research report that rapid advances in technology will flatten company hierarchies even more dramatically.
"Teams will be self-managed, leading to a vast reduction in the number of traditional managers."By 2027, it predicts that professional managers won't be considered anywhere near as important as they are today. "Teams will be self-managed, leading to a vast reduction in the number of traditional managers," according to James Allen, James Root and Andrew Schwedel—three of the consultancy's most experienced partners. The cause of this gravitation away from professional managers and towards "mission critical roles" comes amid the advent of technology that is bringing companies closer to customers. And, as previously reported by Chief Executive, the creation of online communities within companies is allowing staff to more easily communicate ideas with one another, lessening the need for coordinators, such as managers. “Becoming a more digital organization results in different work practices, different ways of communicating—and it fundamentally changes a lot of things, including the status of hierarchy," said independent management consultant Jane McConnell. Consider Swedish furniture giant Ikea. It succeeds by providing well designed and cheap furniture, meaning its mission-critical roles would sit in product design, to make great products, and purchasing, to keep costs down. Spotify is among a small band of early movers to introduce revolutionary management structures that empower specialist teams, in its case of around eight software engineers, that do largely as they please without relying on much direction from on-high. But if others were to follow in the Swedish music-streaming company's footsteps what would that mean for the CEO role? It won't disappear completely, Bain suggests. Someone will still have to help provide context and pull all the strings together, though how they do it could change dramatically. Professional managers will be replaced by "formal mentors", the reports authors predict, tasked with guiding mission-critical employees' careers from project to project.
Companies boosted profits in the first quarter, but their outlook statements had a bearish tone and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is warning of a tougher Q2.
Almost 60% of the companies questioned in a new British survey weren't even aware of coming rules that could see laggards fined more than $20 million.
British Airways CEO Alex Cruz apologized on the first day of the crisis ... and the second ... and the third.
Mark Zuckerberg says sudden moments of enlightenment, so often portrayed in movies, are a lie.
And it's not just CEOs in the hospitality sector that have something to worry about.
Jeff Cotten admitted he wanted the job, but had nothing but praise for the board.