This week on IP Think Tank, we took look at the top 5 reasons not to settle IP litigation, transparency in the Indian patent system, how national differences can be exploited in IP Strategy and the concept of 'Friction' in adversarial strategy. 

As always, the week ended with IP Think Tank's Global Week in Review - a look at the major intellectual property stories breaking on the internet and blogosphere for the week ending 23 November 2007.

Please do come and join the ongoing conversation, either here at TheGathering2.0, or at IPThinkTank.

In the Top 5 reasons not to settle IP Litigation I listed my top 5 and commented that personal dislike is a surprisingly common factor.  The list has been added to by commentors, so feel free to check it out.  What would you add?

Indian patent transparency and accountability was aimed at raising awareness of the dismal situation in India in relation to patent transparency - there is no online database of patents and patent office decisions and oppositions are not published.  I mentioned a petition started by the team at SpicyIP, which I encourage you to sign and make known to others.

Global IP Strategy & national differences was kicked off by a piece written by global strategy guru, Pankaj Ghemawat about arbitrage in global strategy.  I broadened out the concept to give some examples of how national differences can be exploited in IP Strategy.

Friction & Warfighting looks at the concept of Friction in adversarial strategy - that everything which is easy becomes difficult and the difficult becomes seemingly impossible.  I provide a few tips to handle Friction in the context of global IP litigation.  There's some interesting points in the comments as well.