What Would You Do? with Maria Boicova-Wynants

About What Would You Do? with Maria Boicova-Wynants

Most strategic failures are decision failures. What Would You Do? explores how real decisions are made under pressure, by the people behind IP, innovation and strategy. Not theory. Not generic leadership advice. Each episode focuses on the moment of choice, where information is incomplete, incentives conflict, and consequences unfold over time. This podcast makes those decision patterns visible. Think clearly. Decide better.

Publisher

Maria Boicova-Wynants

Category

business

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

20 Apr 2026

Latest episode

22 Jun 2026

Latest episodes

10 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   22 Jun 2026

   WWYD episode 10 What Would You Do If You Are Not Sure It's Worth Protecting?

   “Should we protect this?” sounds like an IP question. It usually isn’t. Most of the time, it is a decision-making problem. Because when the answer is not obvious, companies tend to do one of two things. They either drift. “Let’s come back to this.” “We need more information.” “We’ll see how it develops.” Pure avoidance! Or another option: they overcompensate. They protect everything because uncertainty feels uncomfortable and filing something feels like doing something. Also hardly a strategy. But the thing is… It’s not easy! You are being asked to evaluate future value with present information. That will always be uncomfortable. On the other hand, waiting for certainty is not a plan. It is just letting TIME make the decision for you and time is a terrible decision-maker. In this episode, I talk about what I would actually do when you are not sure something is worth protecting. I am not going to give you vague “build a strong IP portfolio” advice. Essentially, TL,DR: here is the practical recap: define the trigger map the window classify the asset honestly make a real decision And the real decision is one of the following three: Protect it. Delay with intent and a review date. Or consciously decide not to protect it. All three can be perfectly valid. What usually costs the most is leaving the question unresolved and calling that caution. And this is already episode 10 of What Would You Do? Now, I will take a summer break from a podcast, so you will have time to review the previous episodes, before I come back with Season 2.

2. 

   15 Jun 2026

   WWYD episode 9 What Would You Do If You Could Win But It's The Wrong Game?

   “Are we protected?” Is that the right question for the board to ask? I don’t think so. It sounds responsible, adult. It sounds like governance. And maybe… five or ten years ago, that question was enough. Legal checked the portfolio. The CFO checked the budget. And… The CEO moved on. But hey, not anymore. IP is not just a downstream legal hygiene function. It never was, but nowadays it certainly isn’t. IP sits inside decisions about: -AI vendors. -Data and content assets. -M&A value. -Brand visibility in algorithmic markets. -Investor confidence. -Pricing power. -Competitive friction. -Exit leverage. And the majority of those decisions are NOT being made by Legal. They are being made by founders, CEOs, boards, investors and deal teams. Sometimes in rooms where the IP function is not even present. That is the danger. Not that the IP work is bad. The filings may be fine. The register may be tidy. The clearance work may be solid. The budget may even be perfectly reasonable. But the company may still be running…yesterday’s IP model in today’s market. The better question to ask is: “What is our IP doing for us?” Did it help us win a deal? Did it support pricing? Did it deter a competitor? Did it strengthen our investor story? Did it change the negotiation? Did it preserve optionality? Did it expose a risk before someone else priced it against us? If the answer is only a list of filings, that tells you something. You may have administrative IP. Useful. Necessary. Often important. But not yet strategic. In Episode 9 of What Would You Do?, I talk about the boardroom version of the sunk cost trap: This is not staying in a losing game, but staying in a (so far still) winning game that has quietly become… yesterday’s game. The hardest part is that nothing looks broken. Yet. The portfolio performs against the expectations that were set… years ago. And the problem is that the expectations have changed. Just… the world has changed. The companies that notice this early will ask better questions before acquirers, investors or competitors ask them first.

3. 

   8 Jun 2026

   WWYD episode 8 What Would You Do If You've Already Invested Too Much to Stop?

   "We've come too far to pivot." Few sentences have destroyed more value. It sounds reasonable. Responsible, even. Until you realise that "we've already invested so much" tells you absolutely nothing about what you should do next. Past investments are facts; future decisions are choices. Yet companies keep funding underperforming projects, renewing irrelevant IP rights, defending outdated positions and chasing strategies that stopped making sense years ago. Why? Because abandoning a path is rarely just a financial decision. It is an identity decision. Walking away from a patent family, a product line, a market expansion, or a strategic initiative often feels like admitting that the earlier decision was wrong. And human beings are remarkably creative when it comes to avoiding that feeling. In Episode 8 of What Would You Do?, I explore one of the most expensive cognitive traps in business: the sunk cost fallacy. I talk about: • Why intelligent people fall for it • Why experience does not protect you from it • How sunk costs hide behind words like "vision", "commitment" and "long-term thinking" • Why the real issue is often psychological, not financial • The question that helps separate persistence from stubbornness Because there is a difference between staying the course and refusing to look at reality. And that difference can be worth millions. 🎙️ Episode 8: What Would You Do If You've Already Invested Too Much to Stop? Connect with me on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariaboicovawynants

4. 

   1 Jun 2026

   WWYD episode 7 What Would You Do If Legal Advice Conflicts With Business Strategy?

   Three words that have killed more strategic momentum inside companies than most competitors ever will. “Legal says no.” Usually, legal is technically right and that is precisely why this gets dangerous. I just released a new episode of What Would You Do? on one of the most dysfunctional dynamics in business: What happens when legal advice and business strategy collide? Because most companies handle this tension terribly. Some override legal completely and call it “moving fast.” Usually translated as: unmanaged risk sponsored by people who won’t still be around when the consequences arrive. Others defer to legal entirely. Momentum dies quietly. Windows close politely. Everyone feels responsible and nobody feels accountable. Corporate evolution at its finest. But the most expensive version is the half-move. The company proceeds… cautiously. Enough to absorb the exposure. Not enough to capture the upside. You get the downside of action and the downside of hesitation simultaneously. An impressive achievement, honestly. This episode goes deeper into something most organizations never properly design: The interface between legal and business. Because legal and business are not usually disagreeing about facts, but are simply optimizing for different definitions of failure. Legal sees downside concentration. Business sees opportunity decay. Both are real. Both matter. And “who wins” is the wrong framing entirely. One of the most important shifts I discuss in this episode is changing the question from: “Can we do this?” to: “Under what conditions could we do this?” That single reframing changes legal from gatekeeper into architect. Suddenly the conversation becomes: what changes the exposure, what mitigates the downside, what delay actually costs, which version of the move preserves the opportunity while containing the risk. That is where strategic decisions actually happen. I also talk about something companies systematically fail to document: The cost of NOT moving. Legal risk gets memos. Inaction risk gets assumptions. And then organizations act surprised when caution slowly becomes culture. This one is for founders, executives, strategy people and anyone who has ever sat in a room where everyone suddenly forgot the original objective and started defending functions instead.

5. 

   26 May 2026

   WWYD episode 6 What Would You Do If You Have to Decide... Without Enough Information?

   People built entire organizational rituals to disguise discomfort as “more analysis”, or hide the fear of making a decision by the delays to gather more data. PowerPoints multiply, research loops continue. Another expert gets invited into the room… And nobody notices that the market kept moving while the team was busy feeling responsible. Episode 6 of What Would You Do? is about one of the most expensive habits I see in business and IP strategy: “We need more data before we decide.” Sometimes that sentence is true. Rarely. And the problem is that damage is not immediate enough for people to notice it while it’s happening. And damage there is! Because delay does not freeze reality. Competitors keep filing, partnerships are forming (without you!), markets keep assigning positions, while you are hesitating, narratives keep hardening, while you are still… thinking about it. Meanwhile your organization accumulates unresolved decisions like cognitive debt. Eventually the team is no longer thinking strategically, but simply carrying unresolved weight from meeting to meeting. We invented bureaucracy largely to avoid accountability while remaining technically employed. In episode 6 of WWYD, I break down: • the difference between an actual information gap and a structural uncertainty problem • why “more data” often worsens decision quality instead of improving it • the hidden organizational cost of sustained indecision • the framework I use to make high-stakes decisions when certainty simply does not exist • why good decisions and good outcomes are not the same thing One line from the episode I say probably captures the core issue best: “The biggest risk is not making the wrong call. It’s drifting into one.” That distinction changes how you approach IP strategy, market positioning, partnerships, filings, pricing, leadership and….honestly… most things that matter. You will never have enough information and yet YOU HAVE TO DECIDE.

6. 

   18 May 2026

   WWYD episode 5 What Would You Do If Your IP Is Strong But Nobody Cares?

   Your IP portfolio might be legally strong. That does NOT mean it matters. That is probably one of the most expensive misunderstandings in business. And I see it constantly. Patents filed, trademarks registered, claims broadened, jurisdictions expanded, even reporting dashboards full of “IP strength” metrics that look reassuring in board meetings. And yet nothing changes in the market. The portfolio exists. The leverage does not. That disconnect is the real topic of the latest episode of my podcast What Would You Do? When filing is mistaken for positioning or protection is mistaken for relevance, that's... wrong. And once that happens, companies stop asking the harder question: “What decision does this actually change?” But that is the only question that matters! Without impact on someone else’s behaviour, IP is not functioning as a strategic asset. It is documentation. Expensive documentation, professionally drafted, carefully maintained… sitting in a database while the market continues with its day completely unbothered. One point I explore deeply in this episode: Most IP reporting measures legal strength, not strategic relevance. Legal metrics. They do not tell you whether the position changes anything commercially. And a company can score perfectly on all of them while still building a portfolio nobody needs, fears, licenses, avoids, redesigns around, or values. The real loss is not dramatic. That is why it survives for years. No crisis or litigation disaster, no catastrophic failure. Just slow resource leakage into assets disconnected from market movement. Budget, management attention, strategic focus… all drifting toward maintaining “protection” instead of strengthening actual market position. One of the practical frameworks I discuss in the episode is what I call the “counterparty map”. For every meaningful IP asset, you should be able to answer very concretely:Who specifically cares about this?Who is blocked by it? Who would pay for access? Who would need to redesign around it? What exact decision changes because this exists? If you cannot answer those questions with names, mechanisms and commercial consequences, then the asset may be legally valid while strategically hypothetical. And that distinction matters much more than most companies are comfortable admitting. “We are protected” is not a business strategy.It is a legal condition. The full episode goes much deeper into all of that and also in what I would actually do to reconnect IP to market behaviour again. Enjoy the show and in the meantime, connect with me on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariaboicovawynants

7. 

   11 May 2026

   WWYD episode 4 What Would You Do If Your Competitor Moves Faster… With Your Idea?

   A competitor launches in your space. Same problem. Similar positioning. Overlapping features. You feel rage. Then urgency. Then you reach for the lawyers. Stop. Most of the time, what's actually happening isn't theft. It's convergent development. Or the idea wasn't as unique as it felt from inside. Both feel identical to theft under pressure. Neither calls for enforcement. Move anyway and you don't look strong. You look frightened. In markets and in boardrooms, those look very different. The competitor didn't take your advantage. The reaction did. Episode 4 of What Would You Do is out. The 72 hours after someone shows up with your idea, and the four moves I'd actually make. Think clearly. Decide better. And... connect with me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariaboicovawynants

8. 

   4 May 2026

   WWYD episode 3 What Would You Do If You Could Protect It But... It Slows You Down?

   Your IP lawyer wants you to file. Sometimes that is the worst thing you can do. Not because patents are bad. Because filing early on an unvalidated assumption builds a legal structure to defend a hypothesis the market hasn't voted on yet. Six months of work. Broad claims. Big spend. You launch. Customers want something adjacent. Now you have patents. On the wrong thing. But the reverse can likewise backfire! Since the other trap is the mirror image. You wait, test, learn. Your own demo becomes prior art. Or a competitor files first. The question is not "protect first or move first." It is: what do you protect, when, in what form, and to what end? Four moves I would do instead, in order: Map every planned disclosure before anything else. Investor meetings, pilots, talks, launches. Separate timing from scope. Timing is a legal question. Scope is a business one. Stop collapsing them. Segment the portfolio. Trade secrets, design rights, copyright, trademarks. Not everything valuable is patentable. Not everything patentable is worth patenting. Anchor protection to business milestones, with legal deadlines built in. The companies that fall into the "protect everything" trap take IP the most seriously. Caution without precision starts to look like rigor. It functions like paralysis. A beautifully structured portfolio and a product six months behind - that is IP as a cage, not a tool. And this is precisely what Episode 3 of What Would You Do? is all about. Think clearly. Decide better.

9. 

   27 Apr 2026

   WWYD episode 2 What Would You Do If Your Team Disagrees On IP Strategy?

   Your IP strategy is failing because you’re trying to answer different questions in the same room. That’s Episode 2 of WWYD - What Would You Do? So let’s have a peak into that room, shall we? CTO says trade secrets.Legal says patents.CEO says cost. And you know what’s funny? Everyone is right. And completely misaligned. This is not a knowledge gap, nor a “we need more analysis” problem. It’s a DECISION DESIGN failure. Because IP strategy is not about choosing tools. It’s about deciding: What are we actually protecting?Why does it matter to the business?Which risk are we unwilling to carry? Until that is explicit, every “strategy discussion” is theatre at best. More slides, opinions, expensive meetings… And… going nowhere. Meanwhile, the real damage happens. Execution fragments. Teams pull in different directions. Opportunities get lost between silos. And externally, it also shows, don’t get illusions it doesn’t. Investors see it.Partners feel it.Acquirers price it in. Not as “bad IP”. As lack of CONTROL. I will put it harsh perhaps, but… IP strategy is NOT consensus. It’s OWNERSHIP. No decision owner = no decision.No decision = drift.Drift = value leakage. In this episode of WWYD, I break what actually works and that is: → Stop debating tools → Align on the business question first → Make risks brutally explicit → Assign a real decision owner → Use different IP tools deliberately, not ideologically Disagreement is not the problem. But unresolved disagreement, sure as hell, is. And that’s where strategy dies. 🎙 Episode 2 of What Would You Do? is live on YouTube, Spotify and Apple Podcasts. If your last “strategy meeting” felt productive but nothing changed… 🎙️ Episode 2 of WWYD (What Would You Do?) will be interesting. Connect with me on LinkedIn for more daily content: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariaboicovawynants Or check out my website https://www.boicova-wynants.eu Until next time! Clarity first. Then action.

10. 

    20 Apr 2026

    WWYD episode 1 What Would You Do If Your Core Idea Is Already Public?

    You don’t lose when your idea becomes public. You lose in the decisions that follow. Many founders think disclosure kills value. It doesn’t. Bad decisions under pressure do. Panic filing. Random pivots. Overprotecting the wrong things. Ignoring what actually creates leverage. All of it comes from one flawed assumption: “That idea was the asset.” It wasn’t. An idea going public doesn’t destroy IP. It exposes whether you ever had a position. Because once others can say the same thing, the only question that matters is: Why should the market choose you? Not first-mover excuses. Not “better team” claims. Something structural. Something hard to replicate. Something that survives comparison. If that’s unclear, you don’t have an IP problem. You have a decision problem. And this is where companies fail. They treat IP as a filing exercise, instead of what it actually is: A series of high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, with delayed consequences and no obvious feedback loop. That’s why smart people still get it wrong. In this episode, I break down what I would actually do when the idea is already out. In essence: Strip the emotion. Re-map where value really sits. Rebuild leverage deliberately. No theory. Just decisions. 🎙 Episode 1 of What Would You Do? is live. Clarity first. Then action. And remember: If your IP doesn’t reflect how your business actually wins, it’s theatre. Connect with me on LinkedIn for more daily content on decision-making in high-stakes, complex, ambiguous environments - https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariaboicovawynants

Contact What Would You Do? with Maria Boicova-Wynants

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.