Archive for September, 2010

Sep
17

Trust and Sound IP Systems: An Essential Component for a Nation’s Innovation Success

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Trust and Sound IP Systems: An Essential Component for a Nation’s Innovation Success

For years, China has been making progress in creating laws and systems that enable protection of intellectual property. Respect for IP rights is essential in creating a culture where innovation and collaborative partnerships can succeed. If individuals and companies lose trust in a government’s ability to respect such rights, the incentives to innovate are reduced (though incentives to copy may be high). Now China threatens to erode some of the trust they have been building with this week’s announcement that they are considering forcing foreign makers of electric cars and hybrids to transfer their technology to China. From today’s Wall Street Journal, we have the story “China Spooks Auto Makers.” Here is an excerpt:

China’s government is considering plans that could force foreign auto makers to hand over cutting-edge electric-vehicle technology to Chinese companies in exchange for access to the nation’s huge market, international auto executives say.

China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is preparing a 10-year plan aimed at turning China into “the world’s leader” in developing and producing battery-powered cars and hybrids, according to executives at four foreign car companies who are familiar with the ministry’s proposal.

The draft suggests that the government could compel foreign auto makers that want to produce electric vehicles in China to share critical technologies by requiring the companies to enter joint ventures in which they are limited to a minority stake, the executives say.

The plan is “tantamount to China strong-arming foreign auto makers to give up battery, electric-motor, and control technology in exchange for market access,” says a senior executive at one foreign car maker.

I understand the importance that China places on electric vehicles for the future and I can understand the desire to encourage technology transfer instead of exploitation, but when the rules change midstream and companies are forced to turn over intellectual property if they wish to do business in that market, the word “spook” is appropriate. Not only will some automakers be scared away, but it sends a broader signal that IP rights may be disrespected when the economic incentives are strong. This action may result in short term gains for China, but in the long run many prospective business partners will be more reticent to share and collaborate, and innovators within China may consider the threat of lost IP rights and take their best concepts elsewhere.

The unintended consequences of China’s attempt to accelerate its prominence in electric vehicles may be a larger setback in innovation capabilities overall by signaling disrespect for IP rights.

Related problems occur throughout the business world. In many corporations, for example, corporate decisions aimed at achieving a short-term gain can lose the trust of prospective innovators and result in an empty innovation pipeline that could have been full and healthy had a culture of innovation been more carefully nourished.

Comments Comments Off on Trust and Sound IP Systems: An Essential Component for a Nation’s Innovation Success
Sep
10

Fighting Past Fatigue, Venture Capitalist Style

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Fighting Past Fatigue, Venture Capitalist Style

I was reviewing some information from one Venture Capital firm that described their annual efforts. Far from the laid-back lifestyle that some people imagine, this successful VC firm spent much of their year traveling to meet with over 6,000 companies. A few hundred would be selected and screened more carefully, and then a dozen or so might be selected for funding. Whew, what an exhausting funnel. But they are looking for gems in the rubble of entrepreneurial activity, most of which is bound for failure.

The experience of skilled venture capitalists points to a few key issues that all of us can apply to increase the odds of success in our entrepreneurial efforts and help us be more selective and less fatigued in filling the limited funnels of our own innovation efforts. Mike Alder, one of my favorite gurus of start-up success, now head of the Technology Transfer Office at Brigham Young University, once told me that the most important thing in his experience was the management team. Great technology with a dysfunctional or incompetent team will go nowhere. It takes a good team and especially a good leader to have a serious chance of success. That’s been our experience also at Innovationedge, where we have worked with a number of start-ups to assist them in commercialization (though most of our focus is on helping larger companies with their new product and innovation efforts).

Inc. Magazine has a valuable little piece, “6 Thoughts Inside the Mind of a Venture Capitalist” by John Warrillow. Read the whole article, but here are the six key questions that many VC people consider when they hear a pitch. Even if you never deal with the VC community, you should be using most of these questions as you evaluate your own entrepreneurial activities and plans.

1. “Why you?” (Are you uniquely qualified to play in this space? Do you have the expertise it takes to have credibility and a chance to succeed?)

2. “Should your concept really be its own product?” (Or is it just a new feature for an existing product? If it’s the latter, you should be licensing your product to the existing players in the market, not launching a new one.)

3. “How much will it cost to get someone to buy your product?” (I’m often amazed at how many start-ups haven’t carefully considered this. Details of distributing the product, for example, are often neglected. Demand for the product is almost always wildly exaggerated.)

4. “Can I protect your idea?” (If you want to sell your company or license your invention and lack means to prevent direct copying, you’ve got an uphill battle. One VC leader told me that they are simply much more interested in technology with a patent, even if the patent isn’t rock solid. Of course, sometimes know-how from proprietary research can give you a hard-to-imitate-lead without a patent. Sometimes.)

5. “How much money do I need to invest before your company will be worth more than it is today?”

6. “Can I fill the holes on your management team?” (A related question: Are you located in a place that high-powered business leaders would never move to? Can I relocate you to a more interesting area?)

The questions begin and end with consideration of the qualifications of the team and its leader. If you sink in that area, the business isn’t going to float.

Screen your projects with the VC lens, and you’ll be less likely to plunge into futile innovation fatigue.

Comments Comments Off on Fighting Past Fatigue, Venture Capitalist Style

In Conquering Innovation Fatigue, we explain how “Patent Pain” is one of the external innovation fatigue factors that can slow down innovation. This factor includes actions by courts and lawmakers that add to the difficulty and expense of protecting intellectual property rights. A new aspect of this problem is the recent explosion in risk to patent holders–particularly the holders of “used” patents (patents directed to products that the patent holder markets). This risk stems from a recent Federal Circuit decision, Forest Group, Inc. v Bon Tool Company (link is to the PDF file of the Dec. 28, 2009 decision). The controversial aspect of this decision is that it suddenly changes the way the law has been applied in a way that could severely punish patent holders for what might be an innocent mistake.

The law provides a penalty of up to $500 per offense for false patent marking–inappropriately marking a product with a patent number such as one that has expired. It can be an act of intentional fraud or, in many cases, a simple mistake. That $500 penalty per offense has long been interpreted as $500 per continuous false marking act, not as $500 for every falsely marked product. All that changed a few months ago, thanks to the Federal Circuit Court’s decision. Now if you sell a billion packages of diapers and one of the patents listed happens to have expired a few months ago (oops, clerical error!), you could be sued and face up to $500 billion in penalties. Even if reduced to a mere, say, $50 million, it’s extremely dangerous for a corporation. Naturally, this has drawn in swarms of lawyers and looks like it could create a whole new cottage industry based on sucking capital out of the veins of those who actually use the patents they obtain. Patent holders are rushing to check their patent markings more carefully and to redo packaging (an expensive process, unfortunately) to ensure that expired patents are taken off.

The social harm of listing an expired patent on a product seems virtually negligible. A competitor interested in copying the product will naturally look up the patent and determine if the claims might be a barrier, and in this process can readily see whether it has expired. Yes, it’s a form of false advertising, but not because a real patent wasn’t obtained, only because it eventually expired and the marking wasn’t updated yet. Not as serious as making up a bogus patent number and listing that for honor never earned. $500 for a continuous act of false marking may seem too light a punishment (the law was written back when $500 was worth something), but up to $500 per product strikes me as ridiculous and threatens to only further penalize and discourage producers and innovators.

Here’s hoping that Congress will correct the abusive application of the law by the Federal Circuit and make owning a used patent less dangerous.

Related story from the Wall Street Journal: “New Breed of Patent Claim Bedevils Product Makers” by Dionne Searcey. This story discusses a more recent ruling that overturned a decision saying an attorney suing Brooks Brothers for expired patents had no legal standing to sue. Now lawyers everywhere can join in the feeding frenzy.

Update, Sept. 3: One of my favorite IP strategists asked what constructive steps we could be taking to help clients deal with this threat, apart from diligently checking every marking. Tough question. What if products were marked with codes—could be simple six-character strings that you plug into tinyrul.com or some other website–to bring up a page with the current patents applicable to a product? The page could be automated so it is tied in to patent databases so that only current patents are displayed, and/or status information was displayed for the patent. Thus, if a product does have a patent associated with it when packaging is designed, instead of listing the patent number(s), why not list something like: “For related patents, see PatentMarking.com/14Zq2”.

Could this indirect approach fully meet the demands of patent marking and provide sufficient notice? Perhaps not without a tweak of the law, but I’d be happy to see an electronic solution.

When I gave the example with PatentMarking.com, I hadn’t yet checked out that URL and was just throwing out what sounded like a good domain name for such a tool. Turns out that OceanTomo owns it and is using it for a related purpose. Cool! Glad to see that they are advocating online marking of patents.

So why not print each product or its packaging with a code that links the product to a website for automatically updated information, with disclaimers and means for flagging corrections to reduce corporate liability if something goes wrong with the automated process? Could this help reduce the future threat of patent marking sharks trying to shake down companies for millions of dollars for innocent and hard-to-eliminate marking errors?

Another update: Greg Aharonian‘s latest PATNEWS newsletter mentions the WSJ article, rejects the outrageous notion that false marking of patents is a serious evil, and contends that Congress should make these lawsuits illegal that seek to shake down companies for millions due to a marking mistake. May that happen swiftly! Thanks, Greg.

Comments (5)
Sep
02

Innovation Around Business Models: Building Blocks for Easy Tinkering

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Innovation Around Business Models: Building Blocks for Easy Tinkering

So much of innovation these days involves creative new business models rather than improved tangible products or manufacturing processes. Netflix, Dell Computer, Quirky, and McDonalds, for example, have innovation in their business models at the core of their success. The sharp folks at the Board of Innovation in Belgium Sweden have developed a cool free tool that can help you in exploring business models and their implications. It’s a free PowerPoint template with a good mix of icons that can be moved around and used to describe the basics of a business model. Excellent tool for brainstorming and pondering. Thanks, BOI!

See their page about the template and its use, or just download the PowerPoint file directly. Enjoy!

Categories : business models, tools
Comments Comments Off on Innovation Around Business Models: Building Blocks for Easy Tinkering

Our Mission

InnovationFatigue.com is the official blog for the new book, Conquering Innovation Fatigue. Here we provide supplementary innovation, news, tips, updates, and, when needed, a correction or two, to keep those who are using the big on the inside edge for innovation success.