Journalism Ethics and the Ethicist

Given the fast-moving and utterly weird story of the former general, the biographer, the shirtless F.B.I. agent, the other woman and the other general, you may not remember that just a few days ago an intriguing rumor was circulating about The New York Times Magazine column known as the Ethicist.

Without any evidence, many prominent media outlets â€" from The Atlantic Wire to New York magazine - were speculating that Paula Broadwell's husband was the person who had written a letter to that weekly advice column last summer, concerned about his wife's extramarital affair with David H. Petraeus, the former general and now former C.I.A. director.

Twitter was abuzz, too. How delicious, the notion went, that a situation so fraught with high-level figures would have been treated in an advice column to a newspaper months before.

Then came a definitive-sounding Twitter message from the magazine's editor, Hugo Lindgren. The rumor had be en fact-checked and it was false, he said. This was duly sent around the globe in further Twitter messages, and the rumor died a relatively quiet death.

Some readers (and a blogger for The New Republic) have questioned this move. One reader, Lou Kramberg, was among them. He wrote to me:

A New York Times editor has denied that a letter to the Ethicist last summer was sent by the husband of the woman accused of having an affair with General Petraeus. The sender requested that his name be withheld and it was withheld by the Ethicist. Let us assume that the letter was indeed sent by another husband and let us suppose that a similar incident occurs in the future. Only this time, the letter writer is indeed the husband of the accused woman. Any response other than a false denial would be in violation of the wishes of the writer to have their name withheld. Wouldn't it have been better in the Petraeus situation for The Times to have stated that they would no t ask the Ethicist who wrote the letter as a matter of confidentiality and leave it at that?

As Jeff Winkler wrote online for The New Republic:

Did the editor reveal exactly who the person in the July 13 column was? No. But he did reveal who it wasn't. That seems like a deal breaker of the trust that reader-submitters have when writing to advice columnists. Unless the advisee expressly offers details about their life, it seems the adviser should have no comment on any such matters. Even if the detail is a non-revelation, it's still a revelation. And, without putting too fine a point on it, the non-announcement sets a terrible precedent. Should a similar situation involving the anonymity of advice column patients happen again, people will demand confirmation of identity - and assume that the editor's silence means they are on the right track.

I asked both Mr. Lindgren and The Times's standards editor, Philip B. Corbett, about the denial. Both said that the decision was a carefully considered one, and one that they had discussed with Dean Baquet, a managing editor.

“The point of my denial on Twitter was to provide accurate information,” Mr. Lindgren said. “There was a great deal of speculation out there that this letter had been written by Paula Broadwell's husband, and since we had good reason to believe that wasn't true, I said so.”

As for what might happen in the future, both editors said that it's hard to address a hypothetical situation.

“We'd do our best to provide accurate information while respecting the confidentiality of those to whom it has been promised,” Mr. Lindgren said.

Mr. Corbett said: “It's tricky. This is an unusual situation and it's difficult to extrapolate.”

There are competing journalistic values here. Accuracy is important. So is confidentiality.

Does this in any way suggest that The Times won't protect its news sou rces? No. A person who writes to an advice columnist expects not to have his or her name revealed but is, as Mr. Corbett noted, “not a confidential source in the classic sense.”

The editors did not reveal an identity, or make any promises about what they would do in a future situation.

They chose to quell a rumor for the sake of accuracy, and without breaking trust with the letter-writer.

It's a close call. The opposing argument has merit, particularly because the editors' decision may seem to set a precedent. But, given the specifics of this situation, I think that Times editors made a reasonable decision.

Grow America\'s Unusual Approach to Spurring New Ventures and Creating Jobs

Alan Hall, standing in striped suit, at a Grow America competition.

When Alan Hall saw a hardworking neighbor fall asleep at­ a meeting, he knew something was wrong. The man, Mr. Hall learned, had been laid off and taken on three new jobs â€" newspaper delivery in the morning, accounting in the afternoon, managing a convenience store by night â€" to support his family.

“He was barely keeping his nose above water,” said Mr. Hall, a co-founder and managing director of Mercato Partners, an investment firm. So Mr. Hall asked a company in which he is an angel investor to hire the man, who holds an M.B.A., and offered to cover his starting salary. More than a year later, his neighbor is still at work and thriving.

Mr. Hall said the experience made him wonder: “How many millions of Americans in the United States today are unemployed or underemployed and going through the same stress that Phil was? What can I do to help?” With a windfall behind him â€" Mr. Hall had sold MarketStar, a global sales and marketing firm he founded, to the Omnicom Group in 1999 â€" he'd also amassed the resources to attempt a solution.

In March, Mr. Hall unveiled a new company, Grow America, with the stated mission of creating jobs by spurring entrepreneurship and bolstering new ventures. Mr. Hall's program doesn't invest money in companies; it gives them money. A pilot program, now underway in Utah, is on track to give away $1 million in cash and services through a series of pitch competitions culminating in January. At that time, Mr. Hall says he intends to expand his contests â€" along with mentoring, marketin g and networking help â€" across the country.

“Our goal is to help 100,000 businesses next year, with the idea that they all grow and hire employees,” Mr. Hall said, adding that his competitions will be open to ventures across all industries, so long as they're at one of three stages: initial idea, start-up or ready to grow. As for the program's potential success, he added, “I will measure it in how many people now work who didn't before.” We caught up with him to ask a few questions:

Q.

Tell us about your plans.

A.

This January, we're launching our national initiative with an online competition. We'll invite people from around the country who have ideas for start-ups, along with founders of new and growth-stage companies, to participate as contestants. We'll give away $4,000 to a single company every two weeks to get the ball rolling. That totals $100,000 a year.

If the time comes when we're a ble to encourage sponsors and our numbers go up, then we would clearly start to do more, with cash around various categories.

The money we give away is really just a token, but it gets people introduced to the other things Grow America can provide.

Q.

What else can you offer?

A.

There are three other areas where we can help: mentoring, marketing and networking. The entrepreneurs we work with, they all want advice, they want counsel. They want someone to tell them what the right next steps are and how to avoid pitfalls. They like to share experiences and to talk with one another.

We've also developed an online platform for entrepreneurs to gather insight, information, knowledge that helps them with the various steps of their business. We'll have podcasts for them, webinars of all sorts.

Q.

Grow America is a for-profit firm, but you're giving away money, rather than investi ng it. How does that work?

A.

I'm coupling philanthropy with capitalism, which I believe are the two most powerful engines that move things along in the economy. In this case, I give money to companies and seek no return whatsoever. It sounds strange. But the idea is that, when I give money away, somehow I make money on the other side more abundantly. It's almost a scriptural thing for me.

Q.

How will Grow America make money?

A.

We'll invite sponsors to join us. It's good P.R. for them. They believe in the vision and, obviously, at some point in time they might be able to help some of the entrepreneurs with their products and services.

Beyond my money, let's say we have a sponsor, like a Microsoft, an Intel, a bank, whoever. We would be taking a portion of those sponsor dollars, applying them back to overhead, then applying the rest to the competition awards, with the hope that , at the end, there's a small profit so we can maintain what we're doing. But we're giving most of that money away.

Q.

Have you tried anything like this before?

A.

For the last six years, we've offered a program here in Utah called Grow Utah, holding contests and educating entrepreneurs, and those things have been very successful. We did that in every community here in the state. We've seen 7,000 new people employed and more being hired because of that initiative. Utah is a small state, but seven thousand is a pretty good jump in a state like this. I thought, “Let's take this Grow Utah model and put it on steroids.”

The Utah program was funded with my money coupled with sponsor money; the other sponsor here locally has been Zions Bank. For each of the past last six years, it's been about a half a million - split between the two of us - per year. So about $3 million, or $1.5 apiece.

Q.

Is there a company you've funded so far that stands out to you?

A.

Keep in mind: I don't vote. I don't judge. I don't do anything. I just hand out money. But one company we've funded that I thought was singular was CompleteSpeech. It makes a speech-therapy device that allows immediate, visual feedback on how to pronounce the right sound. It's obviously a company that can be profitable, but here they are helping people with speech impediments in a most miraculous way.

They're going to price the device so any family in the United States could have it, any therapist could have it. We were just pleased as can be to give them $100,000 to move their company forward. They're now in the process of adding people and putting dollars into their marketing efforts. They already have customers - they just needed additional staff to ramp up.

Q.

Will you still be able to seed it at a national scale?

A.

No, no. I wish I were John Rockefeller. My piece will be much more modest compared to what others will give. I'm still part of it, but my end goal is to find others who are like-minded and want to keep this initiative going for the good of the country.

We're making what we call thousands of small bets. We don't know which businesses are really going to take off. We're saying, “We don't know who will succeed, but let nature take its course. When someone takes off and starts hiring people? Happy day.” We have to get as many people into the pipeline as we possibly can, connect them with resources. We believe if we get everybody thinking about this and working on it, something good will come of it.

You can follow Jessica Bruder on Twitter.

As Mark Thompson Starts New Job, the BBC\'s Implosion Is Felt in New York

When Mark Thompson started his job on Monday as president and chief executive of The New York Times Company, a British television network was there to capture the moment.

Responding to a shouted question, Mr. Thompson stopped briefly, standing under The Times's logo, to say on camera that he's very saddened by the events at the BBC, which is imploding in the aftermath of a child sex-abuse scandal and cover-up. And he repeated that nothing that has happened there, where he was director general and editor in chief, for the past eight years, should have an impact on his mission at The New York Times.

I wrote on this topic on Oct. 23, urging The Times to report aggressively on Mr. Thompson's role in the BBC's troubles. On Oct. 25, I noted that such an effort was already under way. Times top editors had sent Matthew Purdy, the head of The Times's investigative reporting team, to London to join the efforts of bureau reporters there and media reporters in New York.

Since that time, more than a dozen staff-written articles have appeared in The Times, most notably one by Mr. Purdy on Nov. 5 on the Business Day front, with the headline “As Scandal Flared, BBC's Leaders Missed Red Flags.”

I've been reading them carefully, as I have everything on this subject from other news organizations. Although Mr. Thompson's role is on the business side of The Times, his tenure here cannot help but have a profound, if indirect, effect on its journalism.

My conclusion is that The Times has pulled no punches in reporting on Mr. Thompson's role and on the wider BBC story. And that's not always easy.

I asked Mr. Purdy about the difficulties of reporting on a story that involves one's own employer. He said:

Obviously there are all sorts of potential sensitivities and complications when writing about your own company. And this story had an extra level of complication since it was a bout events that happened elsewhere but involved our incoming C.E.O. But I put all that aside and reported it like any other story. I did not see it as an internal investigation, since the Jimmy Savile case didn't happen at The Times, or The Times's official take on Mark Thompson, but as a story that tried to explored what Thompson did or didn't do as the Savile scandal unfolded and also to put it in the context of his time as director general of the BBC.

Mr. Purdy told me that there was “a lot of interest” from top editors like Jill Abramson and Dean Baquet but “no interference.” Mr. Purdy declined to comment on whether his reporting is concluded, but said The Times is clearly continuing to cover the events at the BBC.

What was turned up? Nothing close to a smoking gun â€" certainly no evidence or even a hint that Mr. Thompson pulled the plug on or covered up an investigation.

Most notable were two conclusions:

â€" That, as ed itor in chief, as well as director general â€" Mr. Thompson probably should have known what was happening within his organization, and that he had multiple opportunities to gain that knowledge. A Times story that appeared in the Oct. 25 print edition quoted a former BBC producer and current member of Parliament, Roger Gale, saying that Mr. Thompson was well paid “to, apparently, not know what was going on under his own roof.”

â€" That Mr. Thompson's depiction of when and how he learned about the “NewsNight” investigation has “evolved.” That is, he started out saying he had no knowledge about a pulled NewsNight investigation of claims about Mr. Savile's child abuse; he later said that he had heard something about it, but never pursued deeper knowledge of it.

I asked The Times's publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., on Monday if he believed his newspaper had reported thoroughly and well on Mr. Thompson.

“Absolutely,” he wrote in an e-mail. “ Mark thinks so, too, by the way.”

Nothing in that reporting changed his mind; his support for Mr. Thompson has not wavered and continued in an e-mail to Times staff members Monday.

Mr. Sulzberger wrote:

We welcome him at a time of tremendous change and challenge, which must be met with equal focus and innovation. Mark will lead us as we continue our digital transformation, bolster our international growth, drive our productivity and introduce new technologies that will help us become better storytellers and enrich the experience for our readers and viewers. That is what he did as director general of the BBC.

The challenges at The Times are very real, as they are throughout journalism. Failing to meet them could damage one of the world's great news organizations at a critical time. It's safe to say that everyone here â€" from The Times's board of directors to the mail clerks - hopes that Mr. Sulzberger's faith in Mr. Thomp son will be rewarded.

But here's the twist: The same global and digital media explosion that Mr. Thompson must lead has conspired to shrink the universe. Even as Mr. Thompson came to work, a headline on The Times's home page described those he left behind: “BBC Fallout Spreads as More Executives Step Aside.”

The world is smaller now. What happens in London reverberates in New York. And the chaos at the BBC â€" in which many of the people Mr. Thompson has supervised stepped aside as recently as this past weekend - feels uncomfortably close to home.

Will Higher Taxes Affect Small Businesses? You Tell Us

President Obama may have won a decisive reelection victory, but it is John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House, who is making the rounds and claiming a mandate. And everywhere he goes, he's talking about what would happen to small businesses if the Bush-era tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans are allowed to expire. To ABC News's Diane Sawyer, Mr. Boehner said, “Raising taxes on small-business people is the wrong prescription given where our economy is.” He told USA Today, “Raising taxes on small businesses will kill jobs in America. It is as simple as that.”

In a statement to reporters the day after the election, Mr. Boehner made what some observers described as a concession: House Republicans would consider new revenue as part of a deal to avert the “fiscal cliff.” But he then explained that the new revenue could not come from higher tax rates. “In the New Testament, a parable is told of two men. One built his house on sand; the other built h is house on rock,” he said. “The foundation of our country's economy - the rock of our economy - has always been small businesses in the private sector. I ran one of those small businesses, and I can tell you: raising small businesses' taxes means they don't grow.”

To support the claim, Mr. Boehner turned to the same controversial Ernst & Young study on which Mitt Romney relied in the first presidential debate in Denver.

Of course, this view is no less controversial now than it was at the time of that debate. Since the debate, we've learned about a September report (pdf) from the nonpartisan, and respected, Congressional Research Service, which surveyed the historical record and found that “the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth” - but “appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.” The Congressional Research Service withdrew the report after Republican senators complained.

Then, last week, a report from the Congressional Budget Office seemed to suggest that raising the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans would have little effect on economic output in the fourth quarter of 2013.* Extending the top tax rates would cost the economy 200,000 jobs, according to the C.B.O., an estimate well below the 700,000 jobs that Ernst & Young predicted would be lost. In fact, the C.B.O. figures show that while raising taxes (on everybody) amounts to about two-thirds of the total deficit reduction in 2013, it has a much smaller effect on gross domestic product, the measurement for output. (The C.B.O. report relies in part on economic modeling, much like the Ernst & Young study, meaning that the C.B.O.'s assumptions about the relationship between taxes and economic output informed the results.)

And Agenda readers who own small businesses have weighed in as w ell. Jed Horovitz in New Jersey wrote, “Each year, I decide how much money to re-invest in my company and how much to take out. Because I pay taxes on my profit, I always look for productive ways to invest in my company first. Spending pretax money makes sense. If my taxes were lower, I would take more money out and just put it in the bank.”

Carol Gillen, who described herself as “the wife and bookkeeper of a small-business owner” in New York, said, “Demand drives hiring, not the personal income tax of the owner.”

But The Agenda would like to hear from more business owners. We want to take a close look at how you and your companies would be affected by increasing the top tax rates, including how it might affect hiring and investment plans. It would be an intensive profile - we would want to talk through specifics on revenue, income, taxes and investments. (We have made the same request to the National Federation of Independent Business and the S Corpo ration Association of America, both of which strongly oppose any income tax increase.)

It's a lot to ask, we know, but it's an important issue. If you own such a company and have employees - making you a job-creator - and you're game, please drop us a line to let us know you're interested.

*More precisely, the C.B.O. report said that extending all of the Bush tax cuts and fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax so that it does not reach deeper into the middle class would add about 1.4 percent to the nation's gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2013. Meanwhile, fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax and extending all of the Bush tax cuts except for wealthier Americans would add about 1.3 percent to G.D.P., so the additional G.D.P. attributed to extending the tax cuts for the top two tax brackets amounts to one-tenth of 1 percent.

This Week in Small Business: Now What?

What's affecting me, my clients and other small-business owners this week.

The Election: A Second Term

President Obama wins but Nate Silver wins bigger. Here is one voter who's definitely happy! Roseanne places fifth. Small-business owners are divided, and stocks plunge 300 points the next day. Small-business experts weigh in on Mr. Obama's second term. J.D. Harrison lists five things the election will mean for small businesses. J. Jennings Moss says the re-election will bring opportunities for entrepreneurs. Michael Gowan lists five technology initiatives for the second term, and here is what's next for Obamacare. Rich Miller and Steve Matthews say the economy is set for better times, and Ezra Klein says America could have survived with either Mitt Romney or Mr. Obama as president. Roger Johnston explains how he hacked an electronic voting machine, and dead candidates win elections in Florida and Alabama. Mark Cuban says, “you would think that the cand idate with the most business experience would be best prepared to build a national organization that ran like clockwork and made the final difference in the election. You would be wrong.” Amanda MacArthur explains how some small businesses took advantage of election marketing for foot traffic. A coal company lays off workers and blames the president. This is now the most retweeted tweet ever.

Sandy: How Your Business Can Help

Bank of America projects small-business customers will need $2.5 billion to recover from Hurricane Sandy. This is how your business can help the storm victims. Jerry Seinfeld reaches out to those affected. The Internal Revenue Service extends payment and filing deadlines for companies in the disaster zone. (Don't get too weepy: it also plans to step up its small-business audits in 2013.) Here is where business is brisk after the storm. Laurie Kulikowski explains how small businesses and social media saved her town: “the resiliency I've s een over the past week by local businesses has been uplifting, especially as the nation talks about the fragility of our small-business economy and how important hiring and supporting these businesses is during a difficult economy.” The Small Business Administration hosts a webinar on how to prepare for the winter. Employers struggle with how to pay people who missed work.

The Economy: Odds of Recession?

For the first time in nine years, McDonald's same-store sales fall. The editors at Global Economic Intersection are concerned about the worsening geopolitical system, and the staff at Der Spiegel thinks America is in decline. Cullen Roche puts the odds of recession at 100 percent. Stan Collender thinks the 2013 budget debate will be “a train wreck.” Growth in the service sector slows and Suzuki ends car sales in the United States. Earnings season is ugly all around. The trucking industry continues to have driver shortage proble ms (pdf). But gas prices continue to drop and the National Retail Federation reports that small businesses are expecting better holiday sales. Bankruptcy filings are down.

Management: Ready to Export?

Coffee shops might do better if they just used plain English. Chuck Pagano gives an inspiring speech. David Heinemeier Hansson says that in order to “follow the goal creep” you must set small goals. Giuseppe Colombi offers five qualities of a successful microbusiness owner, including “the ability to identify qualities in others.” John A. Lizotte offers six steps to assess whether your small business is ready to export, and Jeff Haden shares seven tips for finding a great overseas supplier. A small printing company suggests 11 essential movies for entrepreneurs, and this video condenses the top 250 movies into two and a half minutes. A business owner has a wrenching battle with Sears.

Finance: Firing Your Accountant

A study finds credit has improv ed for small-business owners. Richard Branson has thoughts on how to delegate control of your finances: “There's no better way to do that than through personal visits to staff and customers.” Debbie Dragon explains when to fire your accountant. Here are a few thoughts on when it is time to buy second-hand or surplus equipment. Here is what you need to know about crowdfunding. Christopher Null explains six Kickstarter nightmares and how to prevent them. Bonuses on Wall Street head up. Google Ventures increases its funds.

Mobile, Text and E-Mail: A Sneaky Trick

With enterprises equipping employees for mobile work, sales of smartphones and tablets will surpass the one billion mark in 2013, according to Gartner Research. New research indicates that mobile local ad revenues will grow to $5.8 billion in 2016 from $664 million in 2011. Google's Osama Bedier explains why the digital wallet is key to the marketplace, and Square is now accepting payments for Starbucks lattes. Here are five ways to track calls generated by mobile ads. Matthew Johnson argues that when done properly, text-message marketing can work for your customers. Josh Grillo has a sneaky trick for making e-mails stand out in a crowded in-box. Here are some great ways to use photos in e-mails to get more subscriber action.

Social Media: Viral Video

Here are 11 “shocking” social media statistics. Siobhan Baranian explains what happens when companies don't use social media in a professional way, and here's some advice on creating a social media policy for your company. Here are seven lessons in creating a truly social business. Chris Marentis thinks that you can increase your fan base exponentially with Facebook's promoted and sponsored stories. This spoof of viral videos went viral, and it seems as if Google's “House View” may be going too far! Philip Nowak explains how to manage Klout scores. Here are 20 content marketing lessons from Jimi Hendr ix. Paige Arnof-Fenn shares some secrets for content branding.

Sales and Marketing: Gerber Babies Meet

John Jantsch has a three-step approach for finding profitable clients. Misty Young says this is the second easiest customer to acquire. Ilana Rabinowitz says her favorite “Mad Men” clip explains “why we do marketing.” Ashley Furness shares the secret to Ritz-Carlton's customer-service mojo. A marketing company suggests that e-books should be part of your marketing strategy. The oldest and newest Gerber baby meet each other (neither one would want to mess with this baby).

Around the Country: A Favorite Small Business

Valpak looks for North America's favorite small business. Cloud-based VoIP provider Phonebooth plans to award $20,000 to the most innovative small business. Skype introduces a small-business community. Here's why a Dutch start-up chose to make its home in New York. Staples plans to become Amazon's national “locker room.” This is your official unofficial holiday calendar.

Around the World: Grinding to a Halt

This is Global Entrepreneurship Week, and the president proclaims November National Entrepreneurship Month. Factory orders slump in Germany. The service sectors in China (pdf) and Britain expand at a weaker pace. Athens grinds to a halt. Here is everything you need to know about China's mysterious leadership transition. Nestlé predicts that 50 percent of its sales will come from emerging markets. Miami, Dubai and London are among the top global cities enjoying double-digit property appreciation.

Technology: Tablet Wars

A paperlike display can show video, and a Twitter-activated vending machine wows the crowds. Here are five strange scientific breakthroughs to make you think. Researchers at Rice University and Lockheed Martin may have developed a low-cost method of creating longer-lasting, high-capacity lithium-ion batteries. Many small businesses are willing to d ump their iPads and Android tablets for the Surface as competitors challenge Apple's grip on the tablet market. Gizmag has a good tablet comparison guide. Pearlie Davis shares a few awesome smart phone apps for entrepreneurs and small businesses. PC Magazine updates its list of the 100 best iPad apps. More small businesses are tapping into the cloud for efficiency. Jonathan Feldman has ways to survive the coming I.T. apocalypse.

Tweets of the Week

‏@KnowledgeBishop If today's customer has a question, they don't visit your website, they search Google.

@gitomer: It's not about right or wrong - it's how you react to and handle the problem

@mikevanhorn: Growth killing attitude: “I need skilled employees,” but “I'm afraid I'm training my own competition.”

Bests of the Week

Mark Tho ma warns that Hurricane Sandy is testing our resolve to preserve capitalism: “If inequality and the economic and political power that come with it continue to grow, the belief that capitalism is unfair could become widespread. This, in turn, could bring about the kinds of changes to the market system that free-market advocates fear so much.”

Mike Myatt explains five things every leader should know to preserve his or her span of control: “Don't focus on the team you inherit, focus on the team you need - if they happen to be one and the same, consider yourself lucky. Are you looking for doers, thinkers or teachers? Do you want to build a team of tactical geniuses, or brilliant strategists, or sage mentors? Compromise has its place, but not where matters of talent are concerned.”

This Week's Question: Would you buy a Surface?

Gene Marks owns the Marks Group, a Bala Cynwyd, Pa., consulting firm that helps clients with customer relationship management. Y ou can follow him on Twitter.

Could the Inventor of the Bionic Wrench Have Avoided This Fight?

John Gress for The New York Tim Dan Brown, inventor of the Bionic Wrench.

The Times has published an article detailing how Dan Brown, inventor of the Bionic Wrench, wound up in a patent dispute with Sears, which has introduced a competing product, the Max Access.

As the article explains, the tools have one significant difference:

The Bionic Wrench is made in the United States. The Max Axess wrench is made in China.

The shift at Sears from a tool invented and manufactured in the United States to a very similar one made offshore has already led to a loss of American jobs and a brewing patent battle.

The story of the Bionic Wrench versus Craftsm an, which bills itself as “America's most trusted tool brand,” also raises questions about how much entrepreneurs and innovators, who rely on the country's intellectual property laws, can protect themselves. For the little guy, court battles are inevitably time-consuming and costly, no matter the outcome.

The article goes on to explain that sales of the Bionic Wrench took off after Mr. Brown got Sears to do a test sale. After the test sold out, Sears ordered 75,000 wrenches the next year - and Mr. Brown agreed not to sell his wrench to Home Depot or Lowe's.

Please read the story - and then tell us if you think there is anything Mr. Brown, who teaches industrial design at Northwestern University, might have done differently to protect his product.

Your Ideas Are Worthless

In a recent post, I wrote about my belief that ideas had no value and that it wasn't worth anyone's time to protect a business idea. It's a notion I have been talking about for some time, but it is a controversial concept that often provokes strong disagreement. That disagreement, I think, stems from a misunderstanding of what an idea really is - or at least what I deem an idea to be.

Let me try to clarify. I received a comment asking that if I really thought ideas were worthless, why did I bother to copyright my book, “The Entrepreneur Equation“? The answer is simple. I didn't protect the idea of the book; I protected the final work product - postexecution.

I didn't try to copyright my original idea for writing a book around the framework of evaluating the risks and rewards of entrepreneurship. The reality is that I wouldn't have been able to do so - that idea cannot be protected. Furthermore, I didn't keep the idea a secret f or fear that someone else would write the same book. I shared with many people what I was doing to get feedback and to create accountability for me to finish it. I had individuals, some paid, some just helping, review early drafts to make the book stronger. Only after writing the 80,000-plus words and then revising, editing and packaging it into a final product did I seek protection. But I wasn't protecting my idea; I was protecting my execution, my work product.

If you create something of value that can be protected and it makes sense to protect it (i.e. the cost of protecting it makes sense in relation to the amount of money you believe that you can generate from that work product), then do it. But there's a big difference between protecting a concept for a new business and protecting a highly differentiated methodology that you have perfected over a period of years.

In my article, I wrote that Google wasn't the first search engine and that the idea for its sea rch engine didn't need to be protected. One response was, well, what about Google's algorithm? So, here's the nuance:

• Google comes up with the idea for a faster, more focused search engine with better results - that is an idea, and it's not worth protecting.
• Google has an idea to create an algorithm to perform that more focused search - that is an idea and it's still not worth protecting.
• Google spends time and capital resources writing and producing an algorithm that changes the way search is done. This is no longer an idea; this is work product that IS worth protecting.

Copyrights, patents, trademarks and other forms of intellectual property protection are important.  As I said when Apple went to court to sue Samsung, intellectual property protection gives entrepreneurs the confidence to invest in innovation. Again, however, it comes down to execution, not ideas. Your idea for a television show isn't something to protect; your scrip t for the pilot episode might be. Your idea for shoes that can fly can be bantered about, but if you create those shoes, you definitely want to patent them.

Intellectual property protection can be valuable and worthwhile, but protecting your business ideas is not. It can even be counterproductive.

Carol Roth is a business strategist who has helped clients raise more than $1 billion in capital. You can follow her on Twitter.