Visa resultat

Intellectual Property Strategies - Chalmers, CIP057

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

15 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		0		0%
Around 20 hours/week»		2		13%
Around 25 hours/week»		5		33%
Around 30 hours/week»		4		26%
At least 35 hours/week»		4		26%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- If the power point presentation can be posted on Pingpong before the lecture it would be perfect» (Around 20 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

15 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		0		0%
75%»		4		26%
100%»		11		73%

Genomsnitt: 4.73

- Sometimes it feels a bit not worthwhile to go to a 3 hour lecture without learning anything» (75%)
- Great exercises» (100%)
- Not quite all, but almost.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		7		46%
The goals are difficult to understand»		1		6%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		1		6%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		6		40%

Genomsnitt: 2.4

- cant remember them..» (I have not seen/read the goals)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		13		100%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		3		25%
Yes, definitely»		9		75%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- The hand-ins are very valuable and complemented the exam according to visualize the targeted goals.» (To some extent)
- At least i think so, have not seen how the exam was graded yet.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		4		28%
Large extent»		8		57%
Great extent»		2		14%

Genomsnitt: 2.85

- Many of the lecturers have been very good.» (Large extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		2		13%
Some extent»		9		60%
Large extent»		4		26%
Great extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.13

- the exercises where the best and I"d argue that those can be even more extensive in the future» (Small extent)
- Levin is not to great. » (Some extent)
- Honestly not opened the book by Levin at all. Used only the assignments, presentation material and the legal compendium. Asked questions to friends and googled a lot to complement it.» (Some extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		2		13%
Rather well»		8		53%
Very well»		5		33%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- Too slow!!! We need the lecture slides before classes in best cases, to prepare. Some canceled lectures were never rescheduled.» (Rather badly)
- If possible, it would be great if the penetrations were available at pingpong before or during the lecture. » (Rather well)

Specific lectures

Week 1

9. Introduction to patents and patent law (Jannice Käll)

1»		3		21%
2»		5		35%
3»		3		21%
4»		1		7%
5»		2		14%

Genomsnitt: 2.57

- she is not pedagogist as a teacher» (1)
- Unfortunately she was a bit confused and didn"t really answer the questions that were being made during the lecture.» (2)
- The lecturer seemed mainly experienced in means of theory and did not succeed in reaching out us as students because the subjects was isolated to its own. The reality is contextual and I believe that the lecturer can improve the quality to her work by open her scope up to a holistic perspective where the subject is approached by means of examples and contextual reality to enable for the students to relate to the subject. Guideline: enable for the students to relate to the subject by using examples that the audience can understand.» (2)
- It"s a bit hard to understand sometimes» (3)
- The introduction and content were great. Jannice seemed perhaps a bit unsecure in her role, but will probably be better the more she gets used to it.» (3)
- Very well organized lecture and slides! Good! Easy to follow. Informative. Lecturer seemed a bit insecure at times, which was a pity as the lecture was good. » (5)
- Good info, but to slow» (5)

10. Patents to regulate openness (Ulf Petrusson)

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		1		7%
4»		5		35%
5»		8		57%

Genomsnitt: 4.5

- The lecturer gave inspiration and a deeper understanding. I appreciated that it was "discussing" and analysing rather than just about facts. » (5)
- Inspiring and very memorable lecture. Will not work with other things during class...» (5)
- Very good.» (5)

11. The patent as a tool for claiming innovations (Henrik Olsson, AB Volvo)

1»		0		0%
2»		3		20%
3»		6		40%
4»		4		26%
5»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- Large amount of the presentation was about the company, focus should have more been on how their work look like or describing challenges. » (2)
- Interesting to hear, but he seemed unprepeard!» (3)
- Once the discussion got started, the use was great! Perhaps the education can prepare the student by urging them to prepare questions and such. » (4)
- Good that we got the opportunity to ask a lot of questions.» (5)
- Solid real life scenario» (5)

12. Patent Exercises (Emil Winkler)

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		4		26%
4»		2		13%
5»		9		60%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

- Great!» (5)
- great excercise with great learning outcomes. Invaluable to me as a newbie to law.» (5)

Week 2

13. Intro to Copyright and Copyright law (Erik Ullberg, Wistrand)

1»		1		6%
2»		3		20%
3»		5		33%
4»		4		26%
5»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- Very borig lecture, "tired" approach. not well structured contents of the slides. I would have preferred if jannice created the slides/held the lecture. » (1)
- I dont even remember this guy.» (3)
- Basic lecture, efficient. Could have been less reading from presentation and more interactive with the students. More questions to us, or perhaps more examples from real life?» (3)

14. Virtual/Soft Products (Jannice Käll)

1»		7		50%
2»		6		42%
3»		1		7%
4»		0		0%
5»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.57

- too away from our knowledge, hard to grasp» (1)
- Poorly structured and confusing» (1)
- A very confusing lecture.» (1)
- This time jannice was not well structured at all. Hard to follow. » (2)
- Do not really get why we had this class!» (2)
- I have still not understood this. Janice focused to much on her assignment and to little in describing this. It was hard to follow her reasoning, she lost me many times.. Perhaps work more visually with writing on the board when describing a complex reasoning?» (2)
- Again, as above.» (2)

15. Databases and biobanks (Boo Edgar)

1»		5		35%
2»		4		28%
3»		4		28%
4»		1		7%
5»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.07

- Didn"t attend t the class unfortunately.» (?)
- no structure» (1)
- Took it too far. Perhaps feeling a need to present sensational stuff, which in turn makes reality a second priority...» (1)
- What was this about?» (2)
- Enthusiastic lecturer which is very good. Ii would appreciate a slightly more humble approach, especially to students questions. » (3)
- The integrity question was interesting. Likewise was the database perspective. But I honestly couldn"t understand the purpose of the lecture.» (3)

16. Copyright exercises (Jannice Käll)

1»		1		6%
2»		0		0%
3»		4		26%
4»		7		46%
5»		3		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- We didnt have time for all the questions but it was very good that we got the answers handed out afterwards, which we didnt get from any of the other exercise-leaders.» (4)
- She was much better here!» (4)
- Great exercise.» (4)

17. Music IP Management (Emil Winkler)

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		4		26%
4»		5		33%
5»		6		40%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

- Interesting but it could have been shorter, more consice as it was not that extremely relevant...» (3)
- I don"t really see the point of giving this class 3 hours but Emil was very good at presenting. Very nice slides!» (5)
- Best and most inspiring lecture this period. Funny guy, awesome presentation material, many real life examples. Definitely a keeper!» (5)
- as a musician, it was very interesting. I also believe non-musicians found it interesting as the perspective managed to describe general understandings of IPM.» (5)

18. Bigger picture part1 (Lars Andersson)

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		4		26%
4»		5		33%
5»		6		40%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

- It remains unclear what we need to do after the lecture» (3)
- Inspiring!» (4)
- Super good lecture and lecturer! » (5)
- Very interesting lecture!» (5)
- Very good.» (5)

Week 3

19. Intro Trademarks and domain names (Pernilla Book, Sara Backman, MSA)

1»		0		0%
2»		3		20%
3»		7		46%
4»		4		26%
5»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- Unfortunately, not so well structured and easy to follow. Not so inspirational either. Why were they there? To market their firm? » (2)
- the content and purpose was not clear. Poor learning outcomes.» (2)
- Pernilla was much better than Sara.» (3)
- Great presentation material, but a bit stiff lecture.» (3)

20. Market regulations within biotech (Boo Edgar)

1»		5		33%
2»		4		26%
3»		3		20%
4»		3		20%
5»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.26

- no structure» (1)
- Did not understand very much at all. Felt that we jumped straight into something and then jumped around to different topics, very confusing. Some of the elements presented after the exercise should have been presented before it (the table of claims for example).» (1)
- Hard to follow. Please introduce and describe the lecture/subject more carefully the first minutes, that could have helped a lot.» (2)
- did not attend this lecture» (3)
- Interesting, but seemed to be seperate fr.o.m. The course» (4)

21. Intro Design rights (Pernilla Book, Sara Backman, MSA)

1»		0		0%
2»		1		7%
3»		4		28%
4»		6		42%
5»		3		21%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

- Missed the class. » (?)
- This time, interesting and inspiring. Note that this time it was the ICM-alumni who runned the show and it was great.» (4)
- Good solid lecture» (5)

22. Applied Trademark Law (Ann-Charlotte Söderlund Björk, Gozzo Advokater)

1»		4		28%
2»		3		21%
3»		2		14%
4»		2		14%
5»		3		21%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- Unfortunately very arrogant lecturer, I completely lost my respect for her.» (1)
- She came of as quite arrogant, considering herself to be a real hotshot and more important than the class. Her response to uestions were unprofessional at some point.» (1)
- No slides or presentation material made it hard to follow...» (2)
- Very interesting indeed. Very high standard on the lecturer. I felt privileged to have the opportunity to listen to a person that knowledgeable in the subject. » (5)

23. Introduction to the field of brand management (Lars Andersson)

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		3		21%
4»		4		28%
5»		7		50%

Genomsnitt: 4.28

- Lars is good as a lecturer and the contents of the lecture were good! » (5)
- Very good.» (5)

24. Trademark and design analysis (Lars Andersson)

1»		0		0%
2»		1		6%
3»		2		13%
4»		3		20%
5»		9		60%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

- Inspiring, but very basic.» (4)
- Good. » (5)
- Very good.» (5)

25. Trademark and design exercises (Lars Andersson)

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		2		13%
4»		5		33%
5»		8		53%

Genomsnitt: 4.4

- Great way of learning!» (4)
- very useful excercise. learning outcomes: great.» (5)
- Very good.» (5)

26. Bigger picture part 2 (Lars Andersson)

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		2		13%
4»		4		26%
5»		9		60%

Genomsnitt: 4.46

- Very good lecture. » (5)
- Very good.» (5)

Week 4

27. Introduction to resource-based theory and intellectual asset management (IAM), part I (Jonas Lindgren)

1»		1		7%
2»		1		7%
3»		6		42%
4»		5		35%
5»		1		7%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- Speaks in business-terms, which is ok for us with a similar background. For the rest of the class, it was just nonsense. » (1)
- Major disappointment. I noticed that my fellow classmates could not acquire the concept of RBV. As I am personally a strong supporter of RBV, I was negatively surprised why the lecturer could not use the contemporary INV perspective on entrepreneurial RBV considering resourcefulness. The apple excercise was very interesting though. But I was surprised that JL did focus his guiding answers on separate product focus: if this was his initial idea on how to approach the task, please inform the students?» (2)
- Basic info, good stuff though.» (3)
- Clear, concise etc. Very good.» (4)
- Very good lecture. Very well structured and pedagogic with recaps etc. Also, jonas seems to really know the subject, he has a nice, humble approach towars the students and towards questions. One of the absolute best lecturers so far.» (5)

28. Introduction to resource-based theory and intellectual asset management (IAM), part 2 (Jonas Lindgren)

1»		1		7%
2»		1		7%
3»		5		35%
4»		6		42%
5»		1		7%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- See above.» (1)
- as above» (2)
- A bit hard to really get the most of it. The red thread weren"t that clear.» (3)
- Clear, concise etc. Very good.» (4)
- Very good lecture. Very well structured and pedagogic with recaps etc. Also, jonas seems to really know the subject, he has a nice, humble approach towars the students and towards questions. One of the absolute best lecturers so far.» (5)

Study climate

29. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
Rather good»		5		33%
Very good»		9		60%
I did not seek help»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- Both class mates and the faculty were very supportive.» (Very good)
- lecturers are always open to discussions and as I have understood it. The doors are always open for us students.» (Very good)

30. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

Very poorly»		1		6%
Rather poorly»		1		6%
Rather well»		0		0%
Very well»		13		86%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- The level of the students ambitions as well as skills in terms of for example analysing ability, writing a report-ability etc differ a lot!! I seriously wonder how some students got their spots at the programme and how the application procedures really were carried out.. I am very disapointed as I thought I was gonna get the opportunity to work with people who had gone through the same procedure as I, meaning that they should be well suited and prepared for the programme. » (Very poorly)
- Sometimes it is easy to feel alienated» (Rather poorly)
- Great group dynamics, even in the rough times.» (Very well)

31. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		6%
Adequate»		9		60%
High»		4		26%
Too high»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- But good! » (High)
- There is a lot to do taking into consideration of school project and final assignment I would also like a bit spare to do some extra learning on my own » (High)
- As it should be.» (High)

32. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		6%
Adequate»		9		60%
High»		4		26%
Too high»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- Almost little less than expected.» (Adequate)
- But good!» (High)
- Same as above» (High)

Summarizing questions

33. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		2		13%
Good»		10		66%
Excellent»		3		20%

Genomsnitt: 4.06 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- useful!» (Good)
- I am learning continuously though sometimes it is frustrating, maybe it"s because I need to step out of my comfort zone» (Good)
- Way too much focus on biotech, especially for students who applied for the tech-track..» (Good)
- The course will definitely be useful in my work in the future!» (Excellent)
- Very relevant course for the education!» (Excellent)

34. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

35. What should definitely be changed to next year?

36. Additional comments