confused to commercially aware! trying to develop my commercial awareness

[confusedlawstudent]

Started this thread to keep a record of some commercial news stories I read and also hopefully get some discussion going about them to help develop my commercial awareness!

Commercial awareness is a completely new thing to me, and is definitely my biggest weakness in terms of these law firm applications, so hopefully doing this will help.

9/11/22
Today the most interesting story I read was Netflix's introduction of a reduced-fee subscription with ads.

I think this is perhaps a response to Netflix facing a huge decline in subscribers, and due to the cost-of-living crisis, a lower subscription cost might persuade more people to keep their subscription. However, I definitely would not pay for something that has ads anyway. This got me thinking about YouTube - over the years, it has seemed to increase the number of ads in one video to the point where there seems to be one every minute. I know a lot of people will now even watch YouTube videos through TikTok to avoid the ads. So it seems ads were one of the reasons for YouTube's decline, and I think it might be the same for Netflix. Especially because Netflix is charging for a service with ads, and YouTube was free. So I just don't see this being successful.

I wonder if the cost-of-living crisis might increase the popularity of what I call "actual TV", like BBC, where people just pay the TV licence fee and can get on demand (like BBC iPlayer), and all sorts of programs, as well as watching it on as many screens as you want, all without ads. Otherwise, I'm sure TikTok will surge even more since people can now watch films, TV programs, YouTube videos on the app for free and without ads (though the people uploading these things are of course infringing copyright. But it still happens and often goes unnoticed by TikTok). I think something arising out of people uploading films and TV shows to TikTok will essentially cause streaming services to be competing with a social media platform, which seems crazy. TikTok is really coming after everything it seems (even Google - might write another post about this actually!). I nevertheless think people will still use Netflix for reasons like loyalty and the huge popularity of some of the programmes like Stranger Things. So maybe a reduced price with ads will work for some people.

 

[AvniD]

Started this thread to keep a record of some commercial news stories I read and also hopefully get some discussion going about them to help develop my commercial awareness!

Commercial awareness is a completely new thing to me, and is definitely my biggest weakness in terms of these law firm applications, so hopefully doing this will help.

9/11/22
Today the most interesting story I read was Netflix's introduction of a reduced-fee subscription with ads.

I think this is perhaps a response to Netflix facing a huge decline in subscribers, and due to the cost-of-living crisis, a lower subscription cost might persuade more people to keep their subscription. However, I definitely would not pay for something that has ads anyway. This got me thinking about YouTube - over the years, it has seemed to increase the number of ads in one video to the point where there seems to be one every minute. I know a lot of people will now even watch YouTube videos through TikTok to avoid the ads. So it seems ads were one of the reasons for YouTube's decline, and I think it might be the same for Netflix. Especially because Netflix is charging for a service with ads, and YouTube was free. So I just don't see this being successful.

I wonder if the cost-of-living crisis might increase the popularity of what I call "actual TV", like BBC, where people just pay the TV licence fee and can get on demand (like BBC iPlayer), and all sorts of programs, as well as watching it on as many screens as you want, all without ads. Otherwise, I'm sure TikTok will surge even more since people can now watch films, TV programs, YouTube videos on the app for free and without ads (though the people uploading these things are of course infringing copyright. But it still happens and often goes unnoticed by TikTok). I think something arising out of people uploading films and TV shows to TikTok will essentially cause streaming services to be competing with a social media platform, which seems crazy. TikTok is really coming after everything it seems (even Google - might write another post about this actually!). I nevertheless think people will still use Netflix for reasons like loyalty and the huge popularity of some of the programmes like Stranger Things. So maybe a reduced price with ads will work for some people.

@confusedlawstudent pleased to see you take to the forum to share your commercial awareness research!

I think you have laid out your thoughts very logically and everything you've said so far flows well from the story itself.

My only question for you is if you're able to look at what you've written, take a moment and identify what the role of a law firm advising the different parties you've mentioned could involve?

 

[RANDOTRON]

Started this thread to keep a record of some commercial news stories I read and also hopefully get some discussion going about them to help develop my commercial awareness!

Commercial awareness is a completely new thing to me, and is definitely my biggest weakness in terms of these law firm applications, so hopefully doing this will help.

9/11/22
Today the most interesting story I read was Netflix's introduction of a reduced-fee subscription with ads.

I think this is perhaps a response to Netflix facing a huge decline in subscribers, and due to the cost-of-living crisis, a lower subscription cost might persuade more people to keep their subscription. However, I definitely would not pay for something that has ads anyway. This got me thinking about YouTube - over the years, it has seemed to increase the number of ads in one video to the point where there seems to be one every minute. I know a lot of people will now even watch YouTube videos through TikTok to avoid the ads. So it seems ads were one of the reasons for YouTube's decline, and I think it might be the same for Netflix. Especially because Netflix is charging for a service with ads, and YouTube was free. So I just don't see this being successful.

I wonder if the cost-of-living crisis might increase the popularity of what I call "actual TV", like BBC, where people just pay the TV licence fee and can get on demand (like BBC iPlayer), and all sorts of programs, as well as watching it on as many screens as you want, all without ads. Otherwise, I'm sure TikTok will surge even more since people can now watch films, TV programs, YouTube videos on the app for free and without ads (though the people uploading these things are of course infringing copyright. But it still happens and often goes unnoticed by TikTok). I think something arising out of people uploading films and TV shows to TikTok will essentially cause streaming services to be competing with a social media platform, which seems crazy. TikTok is really coming after everything it seems (even Google - might write another post about this actually!). I nevertheless think people will still use Netflix for reasons like loyalty and the huge popularity of some of the programmes like Stranger Things. So maybe a reduced price with ads will work for some people.

Food for thought: Youtube rolled out their primetime channels to bring streaming movies and TV series onto the Youtube app itself (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/12769543?hl=en). What impact will this have on Netflix and its future? Likewise, what will privatisation of 'actual TV' have on their popularity? Plans to privatise Channel 4 has been shelved (https://www.ft.com/content/2898cce0-42b0-4e5e-b59a-46996229061a), but it can be brought back.

 

[confusedlawstudent]

Food for thought: Youtube rolled out their primetime channels to bring streaming movies and TV series onto the Youtube app itself (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/12769543?hl=en). What impact will this have on Netflix and its future? Likewise, what will privatisation of 'actual TV' have on their popularity? Plans to privatise Channel 4 has been shelved (https://www.ft.com/content/2898cce0-42b0-4e5e-b59a-46996229061a), but it can be brought back.

Hey! Thanks so much for this.

Youtube primetime
I don't really see YouTube having a huge impact on Netflix at least at the moment. While Netflix is facing a decline, it is still the most popular streaming service in the UK. Netflix is also very well established in this market, so I think it would take a while for Youtube to go from just a video sharing platform to an established streaming service. I think what makes Youtube different from services like Netflix though is that it offers videos made by individual creators too. However, the popularity of these is declining significantly so I don't see people abandoning Netflix just to see their favourite shows and content creators on the same platform (which seems to be Youtube primetime's main selling point). I would also be interested to see what this means for the content creators themselves on Youtube - will the streaming service be favoured and the creators will be pushed aside?

Nevertheless, I do feel Netflix really has to do something to prevent other streaming services from catching up with it, and this has to be more than a reduced fee with ads subscription option. Because I think that once all of the favourite shows like Stranger Things and The Crown have finished, people might not have much reason to stay on Netflix.

And a final point - overall, I think that streaming services in general are dying down - they are seeing a much slower growth than before. So I don't completely understand why Youtube have decided that becoming a streaming service is the way to go, when it is arguably a dying market at the moment.

Privatisation of Channel 4
(I don't know much about this so please correct me if anything I'm saying is completely off!)

I think the push for profits that comes with privatisation would be bad for Channel 4. It would mean the programs wouldn't be as innovative, as there would be such a pressure for profits. And it would also mean there would be less about the UK, which of course is Channel 4's main audience. Again, for the same reasons mentioned above, I don't think Channel 4's privatisation would have a huge impact on Netflix - perhaps in the UK market it might because people sometimes like to use a service from their own country. But worldwide, I don't see Channel 4 being successful given how UK centric it has been for a while.

Would love to hear your thoughts on all of this @RANDOTRON !

 

[confusedlawstudent]

@confusedlawstudent pleased to see you take to the forum to share your commercial awareness research!

I think you have laid out your thoughts very logically and everything you've said so far flows well from the story itself.

My only question for you is if you're able to look at what you've written, take a moment and identify what the role of a law firm advising the different parties you've mentioned could involve?

Hi @AvniD ! Thank you for the response!!

This aspect of commercial awareness is something I REALLY struggle with - so I'm wondering if you could give me a bit of an example as what a law firm would do? I am absolutely clueless at this point

 

[confusedlawstudent]

13/11/2022

The most interesting story I read today was the chaos which arose after Twitter introduced the ability to pay for a blue tick.

The blue tick on Twitter identifies whether an account is the real person or not. It used to be where only a select amount of people had them, like celebrities, but now anyone can pay for one for $8. This resulted in many people impersonating others, there were even impersonators of Elon Musk himself, and buying the blue tick so that it looked like the real thing. This is of course going to hugely contribute to the dissemination of fake news, and just make Twitter even more unreliable than it already was as a way to get current news information. However, I do think that it will go back to normal pretty soon - Musk will figure out someway to stop this. On the other hand though, the way Twitter is right now, it just seems like a kind of joke of an app to be on given the mess that there is right now. If this doesn't get sorted soon, I think other social network companies with the main focus on opinion sharing and public discourse (like Reddit) will get ahead.

 

[AvniD]

Hi @AvniD ! Thank you for the response!!

This aspect of commercial awareness is something I REALLY struggle with - so I'm wondering if you could give me a bit of an example as what a law firm would do? I am absolutely clueless at this point

I completely understand- this is what I struggled with the most as well. It was only after I read business news specifically dedicated to aspiring lawyers (TCLA newsletter, Watson's Daily) on a regular basis (for at least 15 mins a day) that I developed the ability to identify when a law firm would consider a particular legal solution and why.

For example, if a tech client is about to merge with another tech company, a law firm may need consider whether the merger would trigger a competition review and how they would need to notify the relevant competition authorities about the same, the legal terms under which the deal would be financed (for example, which assets would be best leveraged and how), any non-compete clauses that may triggered by the departure of employees opposing the merger, the employment law provisions that may be triggered in the event of redundancies arising from the merger- the list is endless!

Does this make sense?

 

[confusedlawstudent]

I completely understand- this is what I struggled with the most as well. It was only after I read business news specifically dedicated to aspiring lawyers (TCLA newsletter, Watson's Daily) on a regular basis (for at least 15 mins a day) that I developed the ability to identify when a law firm would consider a particular legal solution and why.

For example, if a tech client is about to merge with another tech company, a law firm may need consider whether the merger would trigger a competition review and how they would need to notify the relevant competition authorities about the same, the legal terms under which the deal would be financed (for example, which assets would be best leveraged and how), any non-compete clauses that may triggered by the departure of employees opposing the merger, the employment law provisions that may be triggered in the event of redundancies arising from the merger- the list is endless!

Does this make sense?

That definitely makes it a lot clearer! Thanks so much!

So I couldn't think of anything as to how law firms would advise clients in relation to the Netflix story I mentioned above.

But I did read an article a few weeks ago about Shutterstock's partnership with OpenAI to use artificial intelligence to provide a text to image service for its customers. This might trigger a lot of copyright issues - most importantly, the potential copyright infringement of the images used to train the AI. So I suppose law firms would have to warn Shutterstock of this? Or advise them on how to train the AI to avoid infringement? There might also be employment law issues if the use of AI results in many people's jobs becoming redundant.

Am I on the right lines?

 

[AvniD]

That definitely makes it a lot clearer! Thanks so much!

So I couldn't think of anything as to how law firms would advise clients in relation to the Netflix story I mentioned above.

But I did read an article a few weeks ago about Shutterstock's partnership with OpenAI to use artificial intelligence to provide a text to image service for its customers. This might trigger a lot of copyright issues - most importantly, the potential copyright infringement of the images used to train the AI. So I suppose law firms would have to warn Shutterstock of this? Or advise them on how to train the AI to avoid infringement? There might also be employment law issues if the use of AI results in many people's jobs becoming redundant.

Am I on the right lines?

Could there be a way around copyright issues if Shutterstock gives an exclusive license for the copyright over its own images to OpenAI? And as for the employment issues, what if the AI isn't replacing any jobs- would there still be any issues of redundancy?

I'd also think about the partnership itself and how it would be legally structured. Think about the term of the partnership, circumstances under which either party may want to terminate the partnership (what if the AI doesn't work as well as promised?), the remuneration split, any non-compete clauses for key employees etc.

 

[confusedlawstudent]

Could there be a way around copyright issues if Shutterstock gives an exclusive license for the copyright over its own images to OpenAI? And as for the employment issues, what if the AI isn't replacing any jobs- would there still be any issues of redundancy?

I'd also think about the partnership itself and how it would be legally structured. Think about the term of the partnership, circumstances under which either party may want to terminate the partnership (what if the AI doesn't work as well as promised?), the remuneration split, any non-compete clauses for key employees etc.

That's such a great help! I think it is really going to take a while for me to get the hang of this - I just don't know how I am going to come up with it all!

 

[AvniD]

That's such a great help! I think it is really going to take a while for me to get the hang of this - I just don't know how I am going to come up with it all!

It takes time- I'd say at least a month of reading news consistently- but it can and will happen! 💪

 

[ADKM]

13/11/2022

The most interesting story I read today was the chaos which arose after Twitter introduced the ability to pay for a blue tick.

The blue tick on Twitter identifies whether an account is the real person or not. It used to be where only a select amount of people had them, like celebrities, but now anyone can pay for one for $8. This resulted in many people impersonating others, there were even impersonators of Elon Musk himself, and buying the blue tick so that it looked like the real thing. This is of course going to hugely contribute to the dissemination of fake news, and just make Twitter even more unreliable than it already was as a way to get current news information. However, I do think that it will go back to normal pretty soon - Musk will figure out someway to stop this. On the other hand though, the way Twitter is right now, it just seems like a kind of joke of an app to be on given the mess that there is right now. If this doesn't get sorted soon, I think other social network companies with the main focus on opinion sharing and public discourse (like Reddit) will get ahead.

Hi @confusedlawstudent interestingly I read this news today in the FT and there has been a major update in this sphere. With EU's new Digital Services Act and Twitter's new subscription service, the Blue Tick, if Musk continues to pursue aggressive strategies to control the dissemination of data, they could be permanently banned from functioning in Europe. EU's concern is pretty well understood because of the recent resignations of officials who had a say over content moderation policies and this is particularly important when considering Musk's stand on eliminating fake profiles (which seems shady to say the least), I foresee a great challenge for law firms especially in their technology, telecoms and outsourcing practices.

This is because of the security risks that IT faces and the operational challenges which come with multiple providers and advisors. With such complexities, I think a way in which a law firm's TMT practice can navigate this is through conveyor contracts and agreements whereby they will need to figure out whether the IT infrastructure can be transferred or not. If not, law firms need to figure out ways to navigate this non-transfer of data and without proper preparations in place, I think the situation could get worse (examples can include permanent deletion of data due to incorrect IT infrastructure or inefficient strategies used to effectuate a transition from the physical to the digital domain; a solution is the establishment of cloud computing technology to transfer data and keep it secure). I think this can be especially relevant to Twitter and law firms can certainly advice Twitter in this aspect by formulating a centralised contract across the company and order new circuits for the integration of IT infrastructure, as lead times over circuit orders can take time, especially now when there is a tremendous supply crunch (due to the ongoing war in Ukraine).

Domain is another important aspect where law firms face another challenge and which, if planned properly can generate significant revenue to law firms. I think they need to address a primary issue by considering Twitter's operational strategies: whether a new domain is needed? When one looks at the way Musk has begun his stint at Twitter and the exit of senior management personnel who were responsible for content moderation policies, I think the creation of a domain is essential for Twitter as a centralised domain is Twitter's face to the world. A way in which law firms can advise in this regard is by delivering a coherent message with a well planned domain conversion structure in place (to cover up for contingencies whilst keeping data under control). This will help maintain transparency in the digital domain and also maintain clear communication channels between internal and external customers reducing anxiety during transition. This is how I think this piece of news is relevant to law firms like Baker & McKenzie, CMS, HSF, DLA Piper who have strengths in multiple practices varying media, corporate, competition and certain US firms like Sidley Austin who are leaders in the Financial Regulatory practice (especially in London).

 

[confusedlawstudent]

Hi @confusedlawstudent interestingly I read this news today in the FT and there has been a major update in this sphere. With EU's new Digital Services Act and Twitter's new subscription service, the Blue Tick, if Musk continues to pursue aggressive strategies to control the dissemination of data, they could be permanently banned from functioning in Europe. EU's concern is pretty well understood because of the recent resignations of officials who had a say over content moderation policies and this is particularly important when considering Musk's stand on eliminating fake profiles (which seems shady to say the least), I foresee a great challenge for law firms especially in their technology, telecoms and outsourcing practices.

This is because of the security risks that IT faces and the operational challenges which come with multiple providers and advisors. With such complexities, I think a way in which a law firm's TMT practice can navigate this is through conveyor contracts and agreements whereby they will need to figure out whether the IT infrastructure can be transferred or not. If not, law firms need to figure out ways to navigate this non-transfer of data and without proper preparations in place, I think the situation could get worse (examples can include permanent deletion of data due to incorrect IT infrastructure or inefficient strategies used to effectuate a transition from the physical to the digital domain; a solution is the establishment of cloud computing technology to transfer data and keep it secure). I think this can be especially relevant to Twitter and law firms can certainly advice Twitter in this aspect by formulating a centralised contract across the company and order new circuits for the integration of IT infrastructure, as lead times over circuit orders can take time, especially now when there is a tremendous supply crunch (due to the ongoing war in Ukraine).

Domain is another important aspect where law firms face another challenge and which, if planned properly can generate significant revenue to law firms. I think they need to address a primary issue by considering Twitter's operational strategies: whether a new domain is needed? When one looks at the way Musk has begun his stint at Twitter and the exit of senior management personnel who were responsible for content moderation policies, I think the creation of a domain is essential for Twitter as a centralised domain is Twitter's face to the world. A way in which law firms can advise in this regard is by delivering a coherent message with a well planned domain conversion structure in place (to cover up for contingencies whilst keeping data under control). This will help maintain transparency in the digital domain and also maintain clear communication channels between internal and external customers reducing anxiety during transition. This is how I think this piece of news is relevant to law firms like Baker & McKenzie, CMS, HSF, DLA Piper who have strengths in multiple practices varying media, corporate, competition and certain US firms like Sidley Austin who are leaders in the Financial Regulatory practice (especially in London).

Thanks so much for your insight! So helpful!

 

[confusedlawstudent]

I've been listening to the Watson's Daily podcast almost everyday, and have been reading the ZipLaw newsletters. I feel like I'm understanding it all slightly more. So here is my shot at a recent story:

25/11/22
Earlier in November, Made.com went into administration because of supply chain issues and sharp decline in sales. Next has bought some of their IP, the domain name and brand name for only £3.4 million. Other assets were bought by other buyers to raise cash to pay secured creditors. The burden is on the consumers who don't receive their order or their money back - they will only get like 1.6% of their money back.

How does this impact law firms?
- Lawyers will have advised on the transfer of the IP.
- Lawyers for Next will have had to do due diligence before buying made.com's IP.
- Litigation lawyers will be dealing with claims from customers for their money back.
- Lawyers will be advising made.com on the restructuring.

Overall - there has been a decline in shares in online retailers recently. This will be good for law firms as they will be gaining from this when advising on restructuring and insolvency procedures.

 

[AvniD]

I've been listening to the Watson's Daily podcast almost everyday, and have been reading the ZipLaw newsletters. I feel like I'm understanding it all slightly more. So here is my shot at a recent story:

25/11/22
Earlier in November, Made.com went into administration because of supply chain issues and sharp decline in sales. Next has bought some of their IP, the domain name and brand name for only £3.4 million. Other assets were bought by other buyers to raise cash to pay secured creditors. The burden is on the consumers who don't receive their order or their money back - they will only get like 1.6% of their money back.

How does this impact law firms?
- Lawyers will have advised on the transfer of the IP.
- Lawyers for Next will have had to do due diligence before buying made.com's IP.
- Litigation lawyers will be dealing with claims from customers for their money back.
- Lawyers will be advising made.com on the restructuring.

Overall - there has been a decline in shares in online retailers recently. This will be good for law firms as they will be gaining from this when advising on restructuring and insolvency procedures.

I can definitely tell you've been working on your commercial awareness every day- your analysis is more pointed and commercially focused 👏 👏 👏

You've identified a lot of the legal work correctly! There will be lawyers advised at every stage- in figuring out the financing of the deal (acting for the borrower or lender if there is debt financing involved), M&A lawyers would be working out the terms of sale/purchase, R&I lawyers would be advising on the administration, and so and so forth.

How did you arrive at the 1.6% figure for customers who will get their money back? And what options are available to consumers who may have purchased goods or received gift cards or maybe those customers who would like to send faulty goods back? This article breaks down some of the redress options for customers quite well!

 

[confusedlawstudent]

Hey @AvniD ! I'm just wondering if you could help me with something -

I read in the news about the new US export restrictions on exporting equipment used in microchip manufacturing to China. I am thinking about the implications of this, and I am wondering if this would affect worldwide microchip supply in general? Like if China doesn't have the equipment from the US, it is going to be more difficult and expensive to produce microchips, and would this mean that companies like AI companies will have difficulty getting the microchips/the microchips will be more expensive for them because of the restrictions?

Don't know if I'm completely thinking this wrong or not so would love your insight!

Thank you!

 

[AvniD]

Hey @AvniD ! I'm just wondering if you could help me with something -

I read in the news about the new US export restrictions on exporting equipment used in microchip manufacturing to China. I am thinking about the implications of this, and I am wondering if this would affect worldwide microchip supply in general? Like if China doesn't have the equipment from the US, it is going to be more difficult and expensive to produce microchips, and would this mean that companies like AI companies will have difficulty getting the microchips/the microchips will be more expensive for them because of the restrictions?

Don't know if I'm completely thinking this wrong or not so would love your insight!

Thank you!

Really good question and you are on the right track, restricting the export of manufacturing equipment could slow down the supply of microchips overall. Whether this makes it more expensive to produce microchips remains to be seen, but it definitely would make it more difficult.

The central question here is how significant are these restrictions and if there are ways around them i.e. are they absolute in nature? There is a possibility to still export microchips to China after obtaining a license so the questions then pivots to whether these licenses are easy to obtain, which would then determine the impact of the restrictions.

 

[confusedlawstudent]

Cloud computing market slowdown

Cloud computing is the delivery of computing services, like databases and software, over the internet.

Given the upcoming recession, cloud computing customers are reducing their costs, causing a slowdown in the cloud market. Big cloud-based software provider Salesforce is laying off 10% of its workforce and is closing some offices as a result. There could be more companies having to do this soon.

How does this impact law firms?
Given the benefits of cloud computing in almost all sector, it is likely that most commercial law firms will be affected by this slowdown.
🔹Employment lawyers will advise laid off employees in negotiating settlement packages, and also advise any companies on redundancy projects.
🔹As some companies might choose to revisit the services or goods they offer to reduce costs, commercial lawyers will be drafting terms and conditions, supply agreements, and negotiating existing contracts to meet client's objectives.
🔹Corporate lawyers will advise on restructuring if companies choose to reorganise its internal operations to cut costs, improve efficiency and enhance growth.
🔹There might also be some scope for IP lawyers, who will advise on registering any new IP rights arising from cloud computing companies trying to innovate and produce new technology in order to stand out from the crowd.

I don't think this slowdown will last for long though, as the cloud offers too many clear cut benefits, and moving business to the cloud is quite necessary for businesses to stay on top.

Also, while it might be expected that this slowdown would mean customers would switch cloud providers to reduce costs, resulting in increased competition, there is apparently not much competition in the cloud market. This is because companies face high switching costs if they try to move their computing to a different cloud provider.

Companies that provide infrastructure-as-a-service like Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure will stay strong during the slowdown, whereas companies like Salesforce and Dropbox who offer software-as- a-service are more dispensible and likely to suffer in this time.

❔Infrastructure-as-a-service is where the cloud provider just manages the infrastructures, and the customer can access them through the internet. This gives the customer control over the infrastructure.
❔Software-as-a-service provides the software via a third party, meaning businesses have to give ultimate control to the third-party service providers.

-------------

So that is my attempt at analysing something I read in the FT! Any insight/corrections are much appreciated!

 

[confusedlawstudent]

Today I read this article in the Financial Times called The UK's dream of becoming a 'science superpower'. I have never been into life sciences, so do not have much knowledge about it, but I decided to give it a go!

Supercharging the UK life science industry 🌱👩‍🔬

The UK government wants to supercharge the life science industry. In 2021, ministers entered a long-term investment agreement with Abu Dhabi's Mubdala Investment Company that will se an initial £800 million committed from Mubdala to invest in UK life sciences. The UK will add £200 million to this. The UK government has also committed to an increase in public Research & Development spending to £22 billion a year by 2024-25, and a significant proportion of this is in life sciences.

How will this impact law firms?

• The funding from the government is going to help businesses expand. More funding means more research, so lawyers will be advising on the regulatory issues with regard to conducting research trials on animals and humans.
• When expanding, life science companies are going to be entering supply contracts with distributors, retailers etc., which commercial lawyers will draft.
• Corporate lawyers will advise on any acquisitions a life science company wants to make. For example, they might decide to acqui-hire to gain the talent needed for a successful life science company.
• With more research opportunities, comes new inventions, so IP lawyers will help with registering the required patents, and also any IP licensing a company wishes to do in order to gain more revenue streams.

Overall, I think this new government initiative will have a positive impact on the life science industry in the UK, and it will continue to grow. However, there is still the pressing issue of UK start-ups being sold off to US companies just at the point where they are starting to have proven revenue streams. If this continues, the life science industry will not grow as much as the government wants.

 

[AvniD]

Today I read this article in the Financial Times called The UK's dream of becoming a 'science superpower'. I have never been into life sciences, so do not have much knowledge about it, but I decided to give it a go!

Supercharging the UK life science industry 🌱👩‍🔬

The UK government wants to supercharge the life science industry. In 2021, ministers entered a long-term investment agreement with Abu Dhabi's Mubdala Investment Company that will se an initial £800 million committed from Mubdala to invest in UK life sciences. The UK will add £200 million to this. The UK government has also committed to an increase in public Research & Development spending to £22 billion a year by 2024-25, and a significant proportion of this is in life sciences.

How will this impact law firms?

• The funding from the government is going to help businesses expand. More funding means more research, so lawyers will be advising on the regulatory issues with regard to conducting research trials on animals and humans.
• When expanding, life science companies are going to be entering supply contracts with distributors, retailers etc., which commercial lawyers will draft.
• Corporate lawyers will advise on any acquisitions a life science company wants to make. For example, they might decide to acqui-hire to gain the talent needed for a successful life science company.
• With more research opportunities, comes new inventions, so IP lawyers will help with registering the required patents, and also any IP licensing a company wishes to do in order to gain more revenue streams.

Overall, I think this new government initiative will have a positive impact on the life science industry in the UK, and it will continue to grow. However, there is still the pressing issue of UK start-ups being sold off to US companies just at the point where they are starting to have proven revenue streams. If this continues, the life science industry will not grow as much as the government wants.

Loving these analyses! 👏 👏

You've identified a lot of the work that lawyers would be engaged in really well. My only suggestion would be to think about how tax lawyers and employment lawyers may fit in here - how does accessing government funding impact tax liabilities? How will acquisitions impact the workforce carrying out crucial R&D? Think also about banking and finance lawyers who would be stepping in to plan how these deals will be financed and any actions that may need to be taken in accordingly - setting up facilities, due diligence on the client, negotiating debt terms etc.

Using mind maps may be a good way to get down all the distinct roles that different lawyers and law firms may play in any given deal/matter. Let me know if you end up using them and how you find them!