The HMS incident has become a trigger for me. This is not simply an isolated issue concerning how my concepts and materials were handled. Rather, through this event, a much larger question has come into view: from whose body does a market originate?

Companies possess products. They have technology, sales organizations, brands, customer lists, and budgets. However, those alone do not bring a market to life. In the BtoB Field, a product does not sell simply because it exists. It is not purchased merely because it has features. Customers do not move just because something is technically superior. There, meaning is required.

What is this? Why is it needed now? Whose problem does it solve, and what kind of problem? Which department holds the budget? What should it be compared against? If adopted, what will it change for the customer? Is this product a mere part, a solution, an infrastructure, or a strategy? When these questions are given language, the product finds its place in the market for the first time. In other words, in BtoB, establishing meaning is itself the act of business creation.

Yet, where lies the IP of the person who established that meaning?

A company might say: what you made while employed belongs to the company; these are materials created as part of company duties; this is a concept for selling the company's products; it is based on the company's brand, customers, and sales activities. To an extent, they are correct. Enterprises have their assets, and employees have their duties. The idea that deliverables created as part of one's duties belong to the company is understandable.

Yet, something remains that cannot be fully explained by this. The expertise a person held before joining the company. The industry understanding accumulated over their past career. The instinct for why a customer moves. The intuition for whom to speak with to open a market. The experience of knowing which words will reach executive management. The internal map of which companies to connect to spark a new market. These were not provided by the company. They are things that the individual has embodied over a long period of time.

This is where the concept of network capital emerges. This is not merely a personal network. It is not the number of business cards, LinkedIn connections, or people met at events. It is something far more somatic. Who is the true decision-maker? Who has only a title, and who actually moves the room? What is a particular company struggling with? Where is a given industry currently stuck? Which words cause an interlocutor to brace themselves, and which make them lean forward? In what order should things be discussed to allow meaning to rise within them? At what timing will the market open? This is not a database; it is a market map within the individual's own body.

In BtoB business creation, this market map is exceptionally vital because BtoB markets do not exist naturally. Of course, the industry is there. The customers are there. The challenges and the budgets are there. Yet, these do not automatically become a market. Someone has to connect them. Someone must give a name to the challenge. Someone must translate the product from a mere collection of features into an object of customer decision-making. A market is not simply discovered; it is constructed through the act of giving meaning.

Imagine, for instance, a company with a product. It has the technology and functions, and it sells well globally. However, in the Japanese market, it is not yet fully understood. Customers do not know what context to buy it under. Sales staff do not know what narrative to suggest it with. Even internally, the true potential of the product has not been adequately verbalized.

Then, someone steps in. Recalling the markets they witnessed in their past career, they bring in a structure from a different industry. They rephrase the customer’s challenges and translate the meaning of the technology. They create case studies, build concepts, and assign names. They distill this into sales collateral, connect with external partners, speak to the media, organize events, and present to prospects. Consequently, the product transforms into a business. This is not mere sales promotion; it is the building of a market.

If so, to whom belongs the value of having built that market? To the company—there are certainly parts where that is true. The product, the brand, the sales organization, and the customer contracts all belong to the company. The budget is also provided by the company. Yet, who created that meaning? Where did that market outlook come from? From whose body did those words emerge? Through whose credibility was the doorway to that customer opened? From whose network did the connection with that partner begin? By virtue of whose past experience was that business opportunity rendered visible?

This part is difficult to see. And the less visible something is, the more easily it is absorbed within a company. Completed presentation decks become company property. Created slides remain on company servers. The results of sales activities are recorded in CRMs, deals enter the company pipeline, and revenue becomes company revenue. Yet, the market perspective, the Meaning Layer, and the network capital that preceded them are rarely recorded. Who established them? From which experience did that spark of inspiration arise? Which relationship opened up the market? That lineage quietly fades away.

This is fundamentally the same issue as the creator's dilemma in BtoC. A manga artist has their style; a musician has their unique sonic habits; a photographer has their gaze; a writer has their prose. However, copyright is easiest to protect when it concerns concrete works: a specific drawing, a specific sentence, a specific character, a specific composition, a specific melody. The underlying artistic style, the atmosphere, the pacing, the way of seeing the world are difficult to protect within conventional frameworks. Yet, that is precisely where the reader or listener receives the true weight of the work.

The same dynamic occurs in BtoB. What is easily protected includes documents, trademarks, contracts, patents, customer data, product specifications, and sales results. Yet, the elements generating the value exist prior to these: market perspectives, Meaning Layers, personal connections, credibility, industry understanding, translation of customer challenges, the narrative of the business, and words that move the market. These are difficult to handle within legal frameworks. And yet, in BtoB business creation, this is precisely where value is born. Just as style precedes the artwork, a market perspective precedes the business. Both are highly susceptible to being taken away.

AI absorbs a writer's style. A corporation absorbs a business creator's market perspective. AI claims, "I have learned," while the corporation claims, "This is a work product." AI obscures the lineage of its outputs, while the corporation obscures the lineage of its business concepts. AI companies sell models, platforms profit from distribution, and users obtain generated content. Yet, what flows back to the original creator? The corporation moves the business forward, sales representatives pitch, revenue is registered, and the organization reports success. Yet, what flows back to the person who established that market? These structures are remarkably similar. In both cases, the "invisible creation" that precedes the finished product is being absorbed.

In BtoB, the person who establishes meaning is not necessarily treated as an inventor. A technical invention, like a patent, can be documented. A brand name, if registered as a trademark, can be protected as a right. A document, as a copyrighted work, may enjoy a degree of protection. However, the act of assigning meaning to a business is slightly different. This is a redefinition of the product, a rearrangement of the market, a translation of customer challenges, the generation of sales possibilities, and the act of naming a demand that does not yet have a name. It is close to invention, yet it is not a patent. It is close to expression, yet it is not a mere copyrighted work. It is close to sales, yet it is not mere commercial activity. It is close to management, yet it does not arise solely from board minutes. Within this middle ground lies BtoB's invisible IP.

This problem deepens the more senior the business creator is. If someone joins a company in their twenties, grows within it, and creates something using the company's products, customers, and culture, the company-derived elements are very high. However, when an individual in their forties or fifties brings the insights, networks, reputation, and cross-industry perspectives acquired through a long career to establish a market, the story changes. That person is not starting from zero the moment they join. They already possess a market map, customer understanding, media relationships, trust within the industry, and a comparative sense spanning multiple sectors.

The company utilizes that person's entire trajectory. Is that entire trajectory comprehensively bought out by a monthly salary? This is where a strong sense of dissonance arises. Certainly, the company pays a salary, grants a title, delegates authority, and provides resources. Yet, the network capital brought by that person was not created inside that company. It is based on experience from past jobs, past successes and failures, learning abroad, somatic sensations gathered while moving across industries, and time spent facing customers. It is the credibility built as an individual. When those elements connect with a company's product, a new business is born.

This is a co-creation of the company and the individual. It belongs solely to neither. Yet, under most current employment relationships, it tends to be processed collectively as company property.

What is required here is not just a concept of ownership, but a concept of lineage. Who crafted these words? Who initially presented this market definition? Who discovered this customer challenge? Who designed this proposal scenario? From whose network did the initial deal originate? Through whose credibility was the door opened? Who translated the meaning internally, and who communicated it externally? This lineage must be recorded.

Even if it becomes a corporate asset, that lineage must not be erased. Rather, lineage should be crucial for the company itself. From what context did a business emerge? Through whose insight did the market open? Which network actually generated value? If this is not recorded, the company itself loses reproducibility. It will not understand why the market was established. It will not know why that customer moved, why those words resonated, or why that partner was essential. Consequently, after the business creator departs, only the shell remains: only documents, concept names, and CRM records. Yet, the physical embodiment that moved the market is lost. At that moment, the business hollows out.

When considering BtoB IP, we must distinguish between company-derived assets, individual-derived assets, and co-created assets. Company-derived assets include products, technology, existing customers, brands, sales organizations, internal data, budgets, contracts, and channels. Individual-derived assets include market insights gained from past careers, cross-industry experience, networks, reputation, conceptualization abilities, the power to read customer challenges, the capacity to forge language, and the vision to see cracks in the market. Co-created assets are the new business concepts, category names, proposal narratives, market positioning, customer adoption models, partner ecosystems, initial success stories, and outward-facing narratives.

The issue lies with the third category. If a company treats co-created assets as 100% corporate property, an individual's network capital is absorbed without compensation. Conversely, it is difficult for an individual to claim it entirely as their own; it took shape precisely because the company's product, environment, customer touchpoints, and sales resources were present. What is needed, therefore, is not black-and-white ownership, but the visualization of contribution. Who established what part, and how? To what extent are company-derived and individual-derived assets blended there? How will the results be reused in the future? If that person's concepts or network are utilized even after they depart, how will they be treated? This inquiry should be designed from the very beginning.

Yet, in real-world enterprises, such questions are rarely addressed. In most cases, employment contracts and work regulations are drafted comprehensively: deliverables during employment belong to the company; information acquired in the course of duties constitutes trade secrets; customer information belongs to the company; and a duty of confidentiality remains even after resignation. This is understandable. However, while this mechanism is strong for protecting corporate assets, it is far too crude to handle the network capital brought in by an individual or the lineage of how a market was established. Especially in domains like new business development, global expansion, partner cultivation, category creation, and philosophical concept development, achievements cannot be fully explained within the framework of ordinary work products. There is meaning there that could not have been born were it not for that specific person. Yet, the organization calls it "work," and "work" belongs to the company. I believe this simplification has reached its limit in this era.

This is precisely the dissonance I felt regarding the HMS incident. It is not simply a matter of a document being used. It is about how a concept was born. Who converted it into market language? Through whose career and insight was it established? Through whose network was it rendered visible as a business opportunity? This is what is being questioned. Concepts like the Decision Stack. Market definitions like the Self-Brand. New delivery models like DaaS. External connections like the Samsung project. When these are utilized within a company’s products or sales activities, where does the company’s contribution end and individual creation begin? The line is not easily drawn. Yet, precisely because it is not easy, the lineage must not be erased. If everything is absorbed into "standard corporate duties," the creative embodiment present there vanishes. And it becomes impossible to see what that individual truly built.

The creation of new BtoB businesses often involves "naming." When a market does not yet possess words, someone provides a name. This is DX. This is Sustainability. This is Supply Chain Risk. This is Data-Driven Management. This is Trust. This is Decision. This is Self Brand. This is DaaS. Of course, words alone generate nothing. Yet, without words, neither internal teams nor external targets can move. The moment a name is assigned, budgets shift, departments are assigned, comparisons are decided, proposals are drafted, sales representatives can speak, and customers can explain the value internally. Naming in BtoB is not mere copywriting. It is an operation that generates a market.

To whom, then, does the IP of that naming belong? If trademarked, it may belong to the company. If written in documents, it may be a corporate deliverable. Yet, the intellectual work, the experience, the context, the connection, and the intuition prior to the emergence of those words—where do they reside? Here, too, conventional frameworks fail to provide a sufficient answer.

Network capital is even more complex. It appears portable, yet it is not entirely so. A personal connection seems to belong to the individual. Yet, if they meet using a company business card, it also becomes a company relationship. If they pitch a company product, it becomes a company deal. If they host an event using a company budget, it becomes a company activity. But why did the counterparty agree to meet? Was it because of the company name? Was it interest in the product? Was it trust in that specific person? Was it a relationship from past work? Was it because they found value in that person's market perspective? In most cases, these elements are intertwined. Therefore, network capital belongs strictly to neither the company nor the individual. Yet, by exploiting this ambiguity, a company is able to treat the entirety as its own asset. Customer information, deal histories, proposal decks, and event outcomes all become company property. But to whom belongs the physical self that unlocked those relationships? This question remains.

I believe this issue will only grow in importance. This is because enterprises will increasingly depend on the network capital of individuals. Product differentiation is becoming difficult. Information is copied rapidly. AI lowers the cost of document creation and research. Advertising and content are automated. Under these conditions, what remains is who can establish meaning. Who can read the true challenges of the customer? Who can connect disparate industries? Who can speak in words that command trust? Who can establish something that is not yet a market, as a market?

This is a domain that AI cannot entirely replace. This is because it requires a lived history. The experience of failing. The experience of being deceived. The experience of not selling. The experience of being scolded by customers. The experience of not being understood abroad. The experience of a market opening in a single moment. The experience of a business's meaning changing through someone's single remark. These are the things that form a BtoB market perspective. Markets do not arise solely from data. Markets are born from the body.

Therefore, when considering IP in BtoB, looking only at "whether it is a corporate or individual deliverable" is no longer sufficient. We need more granular questions. Who found that market? Who verbalized that challenge? Who forged those words? Through whose credibility did that customer move? By whose network capital was that business established? How did the company subsequently utilize it? What flowed back to the individual? We must ask these questions.

What flows back may not necessarily be financial. It could take many forms: credit, titles, compensation, stock options, bonuses, royalties, terms of use after departure, name display during external presentations, records as a co-creator, or recognition as an achievement to carry into the next career. Yet, it is wrong for nothing to flow back while only the lineage is erased.

This discussion is not about being hostile to corporations. Rather, it is an essential topic for companies themselves. This is because organizations that ignore lineage lose the people who create. Those who can truly build markets are sensitive to having what lies within them carelessly absorbed. They are sensitive to their words being used as someone else's achievement, to their networks being treated solely as corporate assets, and to their market perspectives being reused without lineage. This is not a simple desire for recognition. It is a question of how things born from one's own body are handled. If there is no respect there, people are deeply wounded. And they will cease to bring forth what is truly important next time. For the company, too, this is a loss.

In the era of AI, this issue will become even harder to see. AI summarizes past documents, drafts proposals, writes sales emails, analyzes markets, suggests concept drafts, and offers names. Consequently, companies will find it even easier to lose track of "who thought of this." A document someone created in the past. An explanation template someone devised. An insight someone gathered from a dialogue with a customer. Words someone polished in the course of selling. These are ingested by AI as Observation Archives and used for the next pitch. It is convenient. But it is perilous.

In an era where AI reuses internal insights, the management of IP lineage within the company becomes even more critical. Whose insight was learned? Whose proposal structure was reused? Whose customer understanding was templated? Whose market perspective was absorbed into the company's AI? If internal AI is introduced without raising these questions, the same issue will occur within the enterprise. Just as a creator's style is absorbed by AI, a business creator's market perspective will be absorbed by the internal AI. And the lineage will vanish, much like The Folklore of Generated Things.

This is why I believe an approach like Trust OS is necessary. It is not merely an external trust infrastructure. It is also a system to record who established what meaning within the company. Who said it first? Who put it into a slide deck? Who pitched it to the customer? Who defined it as a market? Who connected the partner? Who translated it into the language of the business? This lineage should be kept not as mere search results, but as a record of value creation.

Of course, it is not realistic to turn everything into a formal right. It is also difficult to set royalties on everything. Corporate activity is a collaborative effort, and it does not succeed through individual contribution alone. Even so, the lineage must not be erased. Recording lineage is not merely about disputing ownership. It is so that the organization does not forget where value originated.

BtoB markets do not arise solely from products. They are born from people. From what that person has seen, from their failures, from the relationships they have forged, and from the words they have chosen. Markets are born from the body. Therefore, the IP of a business creator cannot be understood by looking only at completed presentation decks, trademarks, or contracts. We must look at what lies prior to them: market perspectives, language, personal connections, credibility, experience, context, Meaning Layers, and network capital. These are invisible. For that very reason, they are easily absorbed. And, once absorbed, they are treated as if they never existed. Herein lies the core of the BtoB IP issue.

The HMS incident was an individual event for me. Yet, behind it lies a far larger question. To what extent can a company utilize an individual? What does a salary buy of that person? Does a job description cover their entire trajectory? Does network capital transfer to the company? Where does the lineage of the person who established meaning remain? This is a problem that I believe will occur in many BtoB companies from now on. In particular, it will be an exceptionally important issue for senior talent, business development talent, marketing talent, partner cultivation talent, and category-creating talent. They are not merely offering labor hours to the company. They are offering their trajectory, their market maps, their credibility, and the insights accumulated within their bodies. That is what generates business. If so, that lineage should be recorded.

From whose body does a market originate? There is no simple answer to this question. It arises from company assets, from individual experiences, from dialogues with customers, from connections with partners, from past failures, and from shifts in the era. A market is not a singular possession. In most cases, it is a co-created asset. However, just because it is co-created does not mean the lineage can be erased. Rather, because it is co-created, we must carefully examine who brought what to the table. Without that care, enterprises will process markets born from human bodies solely as their own assets. And people will quietly wear away.

In BtoC, the question is being asked: to whom does a style belong? In BtoB, the question is being asked: from whose body does a market originate? The root is the same. How do we treat the invisible creation that lies prior to the finished product? How do we record value for which legal systems do not yet have language? How do we preserve lineage before it is absorbed by companies, AI, or platforms? Here, I believe, lies the heart of the future IP issue.

Markets do not fall from the sky. They do not arise solely from products, nor from a company's logo alone. Someone saw it. Someone spoke it into words. Someone connected it. Someone believed in it. Someone made the first move. From that body, the market is born. Therefore, considering the IP of a business creator is not simply about asserting rights. It is an act of remembering how a market was born. And refusing to erase the lineage—that, I believe, is the first ethic of BtoB.

© SHIRO & Co.

First published: 2026-06-01