×




AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis

Case Study SWOT Analysis Solution

Case Study Description of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy


This case examines a hard fought litigation over a patent that originated at Bell Labs. It illustrates the challenges that technology companies face today innovating in a complex intellectual property environment in fields where there is a high amount of cumulativeness. The case highlights the leverage that good strategic thinking can bring to influencing the outcome.

Authors :: Willy Shih

Topics :: Leadership & Managing People

Tags :: Government, Intellectual property, SWOT Analysis, SWOT Matrix, TOWS, Weighted SWOT Analysis

Swot Analysis of "AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy" written by Willy Shih includes – strengths weakness that are internal strategic factors of the organization, and opportunities and threats that Litigation Cumulativeness facing as an external strategic factors. Some of the topics covered in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study are - Strategic Management Strategies, Government, Intellectual property and Leadership & Managing People.


Some of the macro environment factors that can be used to understand the AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy casestudy better are - – digital marketing is dominated by two big players Facebook and Google, technology disruption, there is backlash against globalization, challanges to central banks by blockchain based private currencies, increasing inequality as vast percentage of new income is going to the top 1%, cloud computing is disrupting traditional business models, increasing energy prices, there is increasing trade war between United States & China, customer relationship management is fast transforming because of increasing concerns over data privacy, etc



12 Hrs

$59.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

24 Hrs

$49.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

48 Hrs

$39.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now







Introduction to SWOT Analysis of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy


SWOT stands for an organization’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats . At Oak Spring University , we believe that protagonist in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study can use SWOT analysis as a strategic management tool to assess the current internal strengths and weaknesses of the Litigation Cumulativeness, and to figure out the opportunities and threats in the macro environment – technological, environmental, political, economic, social, demographic, etc in which Litigation Cumulativeness operates in.

According to Harvard Business Review, 75% of the managers use SWOT analysis for various purposes such as – evaluating current scenario, strategic planning, new venture feasibility, personal growth goals, new market entry, Go To market strategies, portfolio management and strategic trade-off assessment, organizational restructuring, etc.




SWOT Objectives / Importance of SWOT Analysis and SWOT Matrix


SWOT analysis of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy can be done for the following purposes –
1. Strategic planning using facts provided in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study
2. Improving business portfolio management of Litigation Cumulativeness
3. Assessing feasibility of the new initiative in Leadership & Managing People field.
4. Making a Leadership & Managing People topic specific business decision
5. Set goals for the organization
6. Organizational restructuring of Litigation Cumulativeness




Strengths AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy | Internal Strategic Factors
What are Strengths in SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis

The strengths of Litigation Cumulativeness in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Harvard Business Review case study are -

Ability to recruit top talent

– Litigation Cumulativeness is one of the leading recruiters in the industry. Managers in the AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy are in a position to attract the best talent available. The firm has a robust talent identification program that helps in identifying the brightest.

High brand equity

– Litigation Cumulativeness has strong brand awareness and brand recognition among both - the exiting customers and potential new customers. Strong brand equity has enabled Litigation Cumulativeness to keep acquiring new customers and building profitable relationship with both the new and loyal customers.

Strong track record of project management

– Litigation Cumulativeness is known for sticking to its project targets. This enables the firm to manage – time, project costs, and have sustainable margins on the projects.

Analytics focus

– Litigation Cumulativeness is putting a lot of focus on utilizing the power of analytics in business decision making. This has put it among the leading players in the industry. The technology infrastructure suggested by Willy Shih can also help it to harness the power of analytics for – marketing optimization, demand forecasting, customer relationship management, inventory management, information sharing across the value chain etc.

Cross disciplinary teams

– Horizontal connected teams at the Litigation Cumulativeness are driving operational speed, building greater agility, and keeping the organization nimble to compete with new competitors. It helps are organization to ideate new ideas, and execute them swiftly in the marketplace.

Learning organization

- Litigation Cumulativeness is a learning organization. It has inculcated three key characters of learning organization in its processes and operations – exploration, creativity, and expansiveness. The work place at Litigation Cumulativeness is open place that encourages instructiveness, ideation, open minded discussions, and creativity. Employees and leaders in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Harvard Business Review case study emphasize – knowledge, initiative, and innovation.

Low bargaining power of suppliers

– Suppliers of Litigation Cumulativeness in the sector have low bargaining power. AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy has further diversified its suppliers portfolio by building a robust supply chain across various countries. This helps Litigation Cumulativeness to manage not only supply disruptions but also source products at highly competitive prices.

Digital Transformation in Leadership & Managing People segment

- digital transformation varies from industry to industry. For Litigation Cumulativeness digital transformation journey comprises differing goals based on market maturity, customer technology acceptance, and organizational culture. Litigation Cumulativeness has successfully integrated the four key components of digital transformation – digital integration in processes, digital integration in marketing and customer relationship management, digital integration into the value chain, and using technology to explore new products and market opportunities.

Innovation driven organization

– Litigation Cumulativeness is one of the most innovative firm in sector. Manager in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Harvard Business Review case study can use Clayton Christensen Disruptive Innovation strategies to further increase the scale of innovtions in the organization.

High switching costs

– The high switching costs that Litigation Cumulativeness has built up over years in its products and services combo offer has resulted in high retention of customers, lower marketing costs, and greater ability of the firm to focus on its customers.

Operational resilience

– The operational resilience strategy in the AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Harvard Business Review case study comprises – understanding the underlying the factors in the industry, building diversified operations across different geographies so that disruption in one part of the world doesn’t impact the overall performance of the firm, and integrating the various business operations and processes through its digital transformation drive.

Superior customer experience

– The customer experience strategy of Litigation Cumulativeness in the segment is based on four key concepts – personalization, simplification of complex needs, prompt response, and continuous engagement.






Weaknesses AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy | Internal Strategic Factors
What are Weaknesses in SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis

The weaknesses of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy are -

High operating costs

– Compare to the competitors, firm in the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy has high operating costs in the. This can be harder to sustain given the new emerging competition from nimble players who are using technology to attract Litigation Cumulativeness 's lucrative customers.

Employees’ incomplete understanding of strategy

– From the instances in the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy, it seems that the employees of Litigation Cumulativeness don’t have comprehensive understanding of the firm’s strategy. This is reflected in number of promotional campaigns over the last few years that had mixed messaging and competing priorities. Some of the strategic activities and services promoted in the promotional campaigns were not consistent with the organization’s strategy.

Slow to harness new channels of communication

– Even though competitors are using new communication channels such as Instagram, Tiktok, and Snap, Litigation Cumulativeness is slow explore the new channels of communication. These new channels of communication mentioned in marketing section of case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy can help to provide better information regarding products and services. It can also build an online community to further reach out to potential customers.

Skills based hiring

– The stress on hiring functional specialists at Litigation Cumulativeness has created an environment where the organization is dominated by functional specialists rather than management generalist. This has resulted into product oriented approach rather than marketing oriented approach or consumers oriented approach.

No frontier risks strategy

– After analyzing the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy, it seems that company is thinking about the frontier risks that can impact Leadership & Managing People strategy. But it has very little resources allocation to manage the risks emerging from events such as natural disasters, climate change, melting of permafrost, tacking the rise of artificial intelligence, opportunities and threats emerging from commercialization of space etc.

Increasing silos among functional specialists

– The organizational structure of Litigation Cumulativeness is dominated by functional specialists. It is not different from other players in the Leadership & Managing People segment. Litigation Cumulativeness needs to de-silo the office environment to harness the true potential of its workforce. Secondly the de-silo will also help Litigation Cumulativeness to focus more on services rather than just following the product oriented approach.

Aligning sales with marketing

– It come across in the case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy that the firm needs to have more collaboration between its sales team and marketing team. Sales professionals in the industry have deep experience in developing customer relationships. Marketing department in the case AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy can leverage the sales team experience to cultivate customer relationships as Litigation Cumulativeness is planning to shift buying processes online.

Capital Spending Reduction

– Even during the low interest decade, Litigation Cumulativeness has not been able to do capital spending to the tune of the competition. This has resulted into fewer innovations and company facing stiff competition from both existing competitors and new entrants who are disrupting the industry using digital technology.

High cash cycle compare to competitors

Litigation Cumulativeness has a high cash cycle compare to other players in the industry. It needs to shorten the cash cycle by 12% to be more competitive in the marketplace, reduce inventory costs, and be more profitable.

High bargaining power of channel partners

– Because of the regulatory requirements, Willy Shih suggests that, Litigation Cumulativeness is facing high bargaining power of the channel partners. So far it has not able to streamline the operations to reduce the bargaining power of the value chain partners in the industry.

Need for greater diversity

– Litigation Cumulativeness has taken concrete steps on diversity, equity, and inclusion. But the efforts so far has resulted in limited success. It needs to expand the recruitment and selection process to hire more people from the minorities and underprivileged background.




Opportunities AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy | External Strategic Factors
What are Opportunities in the SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis


The opportunities highlighted in the Harvard Business Review case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy are -

Finding new ways to collaborate

– Covid-19 has not only transformed business models of companies in Leadership & Managing People industry, but it has also influenced the consumer preferences. Litigation Cumulativeness can tie-up with other value chain partners to explore new opportunities regarding meeting customer demands and building a rewarding and engaging relationship.

Use of Bitcoin and other crypto currencies for transactions

– The popularity of Bitcoin and other crypto currencies as asset class and medium of transaction has opened new opportunities for Litigation Cumulativeness in the consumer business. Now Litigation Cumulativeness can target international markets with far fewer capital restrictions requirements than the existing system.

Increase in government spending

– As the United States and other governments are increasing social spending and infrastructure spending to build economies post Covid-19, Litigation Cumulativeness can use these opportunities to build new business models that can help the communities that Litigation Cumulativeness operates in. Secondly it can use opportunities from government spending in Leadership & Managing People sector.

Harnessing reconfiguration of the global supply chains

– As the trade war between US and China heats up in the coming years, Litigation Cumulativeness can build a diversified supply chain model across various countries in - South East Asia, India, and other parts of the world. This reconfiguration of global supply chain can help, as suggested in case study, AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy, to buy more products closer to the markets, and it can leverage its size and influence to get better deal from the local markets.

Creating value in data economy

– The success of analytics program of Litigation Cumulativeness has opened avenues for new revenue streams for the organization in the industry. This can help Litigation Cumulativeness to build a more holistic ecosystem as suggested in the AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study. Litigation Cumulativeness can build new products and services such as - data insight services, data privacy related products, data based consulting services, etc.

Using analytics as competitive advantage

– Litigation Cumulativeness has spent a significant amount of money and effort to integrate analytics and machine learning into its operations in the sector. This continuous investment in analytics has enabled, as illustrated in the Harvard case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy - to build a competitive advantage using analytics. The analytics driven competitive advantage can help Litigation Cumulativeness to build faster Go To Market strategies, better consumer insights, developing relevant product features, and building a highly efficient supply chain.

Building a culture of innovation

– managers at Litigation Cumulativeness can make experimentation a productive activity and build a culture of innovation using approaches such as – mining transaction data, A/B testing of websites and selling platforms, engaging potential customers over various needs, and building on small ideas in the Leadership & Managing People segment.

Buying journey improvements

– Litigation Cumulativeness can improve the customer journey of consumers in the industry by using analytics and artificial intelligence. AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy suggest that firm can provide automated chats to help consumers solve their own problems, provide online suggestions to get maximum out of the products and services, and help consumers to build a community where they can interact with each other to develop new features and uses.

Identify volunteer opportunities

– Covid-19 has impacted working population in two ways – it has led to people soul searching about their professional choices, resulting in mass resignation. Secondly it has encouraged people to do things that they are passionate about. This has opened opportunities for businesses to build volunteer oriented socially driven projects. Litigation Cumulativeness can explore opportunities that can attract volunteers and are consistent with its mission and vision.

Leveraging digital technologies

– Litigation Cumulativeness can leverage digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to automate the production process, customer analytics to get better insights into consumer behavior, realtime digital dashboards to get better sales tracking, logistics and transportation, product tracking, etc.

Loyalty marketing

– Litigation Cumulativeness has focused on building a highly responsive customer relationship management platform. This platform is built on in-house data and driven by analytics and artificial intelligence. The customer analytics can help the organization to fine tune its loyalty marketing efforts, increase the wallet share of the organization, reduce wastage on mainstream advertising spending, build better pricing strategies using personalization, etc.

Redefining models of collaboration and team work

– As explained in the weaknesses section, Litigation Cumulativeness is facing challenges because of the dominance of functional experts in the organization. AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study suggests that firm can utilize new technology to build more coordinated teams and streamline operations and communications using tools such as CAD, Zoom, etc.

Reconfiguring business model

– The expansion of digital payment system, the bringing down of international transactions costs using Bitcoin and other blockchain based currencies, etc can help Litigation Cumulativeness to reconfigure its entire business model. For example it can used blockchain based technologies to reduce piracy of its products in the big markets such as China. Secondly it can use the popularity of e-commerce in various developing markets to build a Direct to Customer business model rather than the current Channel Heavy distribution network.




Threats AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy External Strategic Factors
What are Threats in the SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis


The threats mentioned in the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy are -

Backlash against dominant players

– US Congress and other legislative arms of the government are getting tough on big business especially technology companies. The digital arm of Litigation Cumulativeness business can come under increasing regulations regarding data privacy, data security, etc.

Barriers of entry lowering

– As technology is more democratized, the barriers to entry in the industry are lowering. It can presents Litigation Cumulativeness with greater competitive threats in the near to medium future. Secondly it will also put downward pressure on pricing throughout the sector.

New competition

– After the dotcom bust of 2001, financial crisis of 2008-09, the business formation in US economy had declined. But in 2020 alone, there are more than 1.5 million new business applications in United States. This can lead to greater competition for Litigation Cumulativeness in the Leadership & Managing People sector and impact the bottomline of the organization.

Aging population

– As the populations of most advanced economies are aging, it will lead to high social security costs, higher savings among population, and lower demand for goods and services in the economy. The household savings in US, France, UK, Germany, and Japan are growing faster than predicted because of uncertainty caused by pandemic.

Environmental challenges

– Litigation Cumulativeness needs to have a robust strategy against the disruptions arising from climate change and energy requirements. EU has identified it as key priority area and spending 30% of its 880 billion Euros European post Covid-19 recovery funds on green technology. Litigation Cumulativeness can take advantage of this fund but it will also bring new competitors in the Leadership & Managing People industry.

Shortening product life cycle

– it is one of the major threat that Litigation Cumulativeness is facing in Leadership & Managing People sector. It can lead to higher research and development costs, higher marketing expenses, lower customer loyalty, etc.

Stagnating economy with rate increase

– Litigation Cumulativeness can face lack of demand in the market place because of Fed actions to reduce inflation. This can lead to sluggish growth in the economy, lower demands, lower investments, higher borrowing costs, and consolidation in the field.

Increasing wage structure of Litigation Cumulativeness

– Post Covid-19 there is a sharp increase in the wages especially in the jobs that require interaction with people. The increasing wages can put downward pressure on the margins of Litigation Cumulativeness.

High dependence on third party suppliers

– Litigation Cumulativeness high dependence on third party suppliers can disrupt its processes and delivery mechanism. For example -the current troubles of car makers because of chip shortage is because the chip companies started producing chips for electronic companies rather than car manufacturers.

Easy access to finance

– Easy access to finance in Leadership & Managing People field will also reduce the barriers to entry in the industry, thus putting downward pressure on the prices because of increasing competition. Litigation Cumulativeness can utilize it by borrowing at lower rates and invest it into research and development, capital expenditure to fortify its core competitive advantage.

Technology acceleration in Forth Industrial Revolution

– Litigation Cumulativeness has witnessed rapid integration of technology during Covid-19 in the Leadership & Managing People industry. As one of the leading players in the industry, Litigation Cumulativeness needs to keep up with the evolution of technology in the Leadership & Managing People sector. According to Mckinsey study top managers believe that the adoption of technology in operations, communications is 20-25 times faster than what they planned in the beginning of 2019.

Trade war between China and United States

– The trade war between two of the biggest economies can hugely impact the opportunities for Litigation Cumulativeness in the Leadership & Managing People industry. The Leadership & Managing People industry is already at various protected from local competition in China, with the rise of trade war the protection levels may go up. This presents a clear threat of current business model in Chinese market.

Consumer confidence and its impact on Litigation Cumulativeness demand

– There is a high probability of declining consumer confidence, given – high inflammation rate, rise of gig economy, lower job stability, increasing cost of living, higher interest rates, and aging demography. All the factors contribute to people saving higher rate of their income, resulting in lower consumer demand in the industry and other sectors.




Weighted SWOT Analysis of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Template, Example


Not all factors mentioned under the Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats quadrants in the SWOT Analysis are equal. Managers in the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy needs to zero down on the relative importance of each factor mentioned in the Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats quadrants. We can provide the relative importance to each factor by assigning relative weights. Weighted SWOT analysis process is a three stage process –

First stage for doing weighted SWOT analysis of the case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy is to rank the strengths and weaknesses of the organization. This will help you to assess the most important strengths and weaknesses of the firm and which one of the strengths and weaknesses mentioned in the initial lists are marginal and can be left out.

Second stage for conducting weighted SWOT analysis of the Harvard case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy is to give probabilities to the external strategic factors thus better understanding the opportunities and threats arising out of macro environment changes and developments.

Third stage of constructing weighted SWOT analysis of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy is to provide strategic recommendations includes – joining likelihood of external strategic factors such as opportunities and threats to the internal strategic factors – strengths and weaknesses. You should start with external factors as they will provide the direction of the overall industry. Secondly by joining probabilities with internal strategic factors can help the company not only strategic fit but also the most probably strategic trade-off that Litigation Cumulativeness needs to make to build a sustainable competitive advantage.



--- ---

Safety Regulation and the Rise of Towngas in Hong Kong SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Ka-Fu Wong, Richard Y.C. Wong, Andrew Lee , Global Business


Student Plays Fantasy Hockey (B) SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Fredrik Odegaard, Chris Engelking, Linden Head, Matthew Rabson , Technology & Operations


Lenovo: Disruption of the PC Industry SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Ali Farhoomand , Innovation & Entrepreneurship


These People are Fiduciaries SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Lena G. Goldberg , Leadership & Managing People


Benihana of Tokyo SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

W. Earl Sasser Jr., John R. Klug , Technology & Operations


Mother Dairy: Creating a National Footprint SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Neena Sondhi, Supriya M. Kalla, Umashankar Venkatesh , Sales & Marketing


Sawchyn Guitars: Can an Old Business Learn New Tricks? SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Meredith Woodwark, Matthew Wong , Innovation & Entrepreneurship


Martin Smith: May 2000 SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Josh Lerner, G. Felda Hardymon , Finance & Accounting


Risk Management at Lehman Brothers, 2007-2008 SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Markus Maedler, Scott van Etten , Finance & Accounting