Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Intellectual capital’ Category

Article from Business Insider.

“Douglas Leone of Sequoia Partners just finished on stage at TechCrunchDisrupt, and he had some interesting advice for young founders: stop talking.

On stage with Mike Arrington, he gave the following advice for small startups:

Little companies have really 2 advantages: stealth and speed. You [Arrington] come from the world of speed and no stealth.

The best thing for little companies do is to stay away from the cocktail circuit….We at Sequoia have never released a press release in 35 years….Then run like a son-of-a- gun. Don’t say anything to anybody.

Leone contrasted the startups from when he started in 1988 with the companies he sees today. Back then, startups were building infrastructure — like chips — and that took an older founder with some experience at a big company, then a team 15 or 20 people who would lock themselves in a building and spend 12 and 15 months building “fundamental IP.”

Now, a couple of young smart people can create a beta Web site over a weekend and iterate from there. A lot of younger founders “don’t know what they don’t know,” and that creates the temptation to talk too much.

He’s worth listening to: Leone claims that Sequoia has never lost money on a fund, and has returned between $15 and $20 billion to its limited partners on an estimated total investment of between $5 and $7 billion. The company’s early investments include Yahoo, Google, and YouTube.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from SFGate.

“Google is shutting down Aardvark, the Q&A service it bought last year for about $50 million.

The founders just posted a goodbye letter saying that the project will be shut down in September.

This isn’t a total surprise: Aardvark was part of Google Labs, which new CEO Larry Page put on his hit list in July. The company is planning on putting similar Q&A features into Google+, and has reassigned most of the Aardvark team to that project.

Page has taken a sharp knife to a lot of Google appendages lately — last week, the company shut down Slide, the social-gaming company it bought for close to $200 million last year.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

By Tony Fish, AMF Ventures and member of Gerbsman Partners Board Of Intellectual Partners.

The changing face of mobile

Image001

Surprised at the latest Google deal to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5Bn, you should not be; Eric Schmidt was very clear back at MWC in FEB 2007 “Mobile Mobile Mobile” and since then Google has focussed both time and effort to deliver andriod (which was itself acquired).  When Schmidt stepped down in saying “ adult supervision no longer required” this left open the matured Larry Page to step up from being great at maths and a world leading entrepreneur, to take on the mantel of “world leading strategist and deal doer.”

This deal will be the discussion point for the next 3 months and already there are a lot of views circulating about what it means but there is no doubt that depending on your stance you can argue for change. However at Mobile 2 on 1st Sept in SFO – we get the first bite, why not join in

The Deal

Google purchased Motorola’s mobile business for $12.5 billion. In doing so, Google brought patents, hardware design, manufacturing and a seat at the patent table. However the context is… Oracle suing, Apple winning, eco-system struggling, Samsung annoyed and Microsoft attacking

Worthy of Note

Google has bought in cash and not shares.  This commitment will reduce their cash balance to $22bn from the mid thirties, but it is cash.  Given the issues that cash purchases delivered to telecoms in 2000/2001 this is an important fact as many ran into immediate issues and sold off key assets.  However, I expect the reason that this is cash is that Google are not expecting to hold the operational assets for long.  An equity purchase could have caused them problems from shareholders when they flip it assuming it completes in Q1 2012

Why now?

Porter 5 forces model is helpful here as it highlights the dynamic nature of the mobile market that Google faces.  Their power is low, their service fragmented and  they are being attacked.

Implications

This deal will be the discussion point for the next 3 months and already there are a lot of views circulating about what it means but there is no doubt that depending on your stance you can argue for change. However at Mobile 2 on 1st Sept in SFO – we get the first bite, why not join in.

Starting from the view of the world formed by ….

  • Operators – Deal does not change anything as we are the controllers of mobile – we keep all manufacturers below 30% market share and make sure it is a competitive supply market.  However, we are still worried about becoming bit pipe….
  • Oracle/ Sun/ Java – Defence needed as android has been beset with legal challenges from all sides, including a multibillion dollar lawsuit filed by Oracle, but Motorola patents are about wireless tech and unlikely to help.
  • Apple – By purchasing a manufacturer, Google has admitted it needs more than just a free operating system and loads of partners to compete with Apple: they need to duplicate Apple’s successes by totally controlling both the hardware and software of their devices.
  • OEM ‘s –  “Google has gone from partner to competitor.”
  • Media/ Content owners – According to Infonetics, Motorola Mobility was the leader in set-top box revenues last year, and was also tops in hybrid IP/QAM set-top boxes — that is, the boxes used by operators like Verizon that combine broadcast TV and over-the-top applications. By leveraging Motorola’s position with carriers, Google can better solidify its bid to expand Google TV and Android into the living room.”
  • Developers – At least there is one less system to deal with.

Scenarios and outcomes

  • The production shop – In this scenario Google keeps Motorola as is and starts to manufacture it owns handsets.  In reality this could provide short term stability to the fragmented andriod market place and show case devices and move into other screen based markets, but in the long run looks like a new Apple and being open is probably not a true option. Probability in long run 10% as this would not elevate Page to world class strategist who is just following Jobs view of the world.
  • The negotiator tactic –This is the company official line that the acquisition brings 17,000 patents (but are they relevant) to Google and enables them to robustly defend their mobile position and also expand.  It is a $12.5bn investment to get a seat at the table.  Strategically there is a lot of truth in this as mobile will dominate long term strategy and value. Probability in long run 25% as patents only last for a period….

Power to disrupt

Imagine Google takes the patents, yes they are useful to defend/ negotiate but also to empower others if free and open. This would reduce the power of others in the market and change the dynamics

Imagine Google keeps the patents and sells on production to Samsung to create a global partner across all screens

Imagine Google Wallet becomes the model – forget small transaction fees – lets go for user data in every model

Probability in long run 65% and Larry Page is now the best strategist in the world and did it without adult supervision.

Read Full Post »

Based on the strategic growth and access to the Brazilian market, Gerbsman Partners has established a “strategic relationship” with a Brazilian medical device manufacturing and distribution company.   This 24 year old wholly owned family company, is seeking additional product opportunities in the medical device, technology and low tech areas, for manufacturing, licensing and/or distribution.

With the significant growth in Brazil (190 million people) and South American and with The World Cup and The Olympics coming to Brazil, this BRIC country is growing at a significant pace and can offer US, Israeli and European companies “access” to a a highly desirable market.

The company presently is profitable, has no debt, complies with all local regulatory aspects, has international quality manufacturing certification for medical devices, a direct sales and distribution network in place, access to other European and Asian markets and strategic alliances with other Brazilian high and low tech Brazilian companies.

History

The company was founded in 1988 by a leading Doctor and Lawyer/Business Person and was the first company to manufacture and commercialize the Women’s Health Products (Disposable Vaginal Specula (instrument used by the Gynecologists to examine their patients) in Brazil.  Encouraged by the success of its first product, the company launched other disposable medical devices to substitute the reusable ones, i.e. Anuscopes, Sigmoidoscopes, Forceps, etc. For over 22 years the company has been the absolute leader in all the markets in which it competes.

The company is presently divided into 2 business units. The first one, the core of the company, manufactures and commercializes disposable medical products. The company has its own production plant and a solid distribution network throughout the country composed of its own sales team, distributors and sales reps. (5 sales reps and over 400 distributors).

The other unit was created in 2004 and distributes medical products from an American company focused on Women’s Health. This unit is seeking to identify additional products through licensing or manufacturing.

The company also exports to France, England, Poland, Chile, India and Portugal.

The company is building a new production facility to increase its capacity and also to be open and ready to opportunities of manufacturing new products in Brazil. The new facility will have 50.000 square feet divided as follow:

  • 7.000 square feet for plastic Injection
  • 6.000 square feet for packaging
  • 6.000 square feet for assembling
  • 15.000 square feet still open for new products/projects

The company has high quality and well preserved machines for plastic injection, extrusion, cervical brush manufacture, gloves and packaging.

The company has all the international quality certificates to manufacture and distribute medical products, i.e. GMP, ISO 9001:2008, ISO 13485:2004 and CE Mark and it is also in compliance with all rules and regulations of the local health agency called ANVISA. The company has no debt, is profitable and has sales revenues in excess of $ 16 million US dollars.  Along with the founders, the company has added their son to the executive team.  He is a recent MBA graduate in the US and has domain expertise in finance and engineering with major Fortune 500 companies.

As indicated above, Gerbsman Partners is seeking to identify interested companies seeking to access the Brazilian market in the medical device, technology and/or low tech areas.  This access would be through licensing, joint venture, distribution and/or manufacturing.

Please call me to discuss your interest and I will set up a dialog directly with the company.

Best regards

Steve Gerbsman

Read Full Post »

By:  Andrew J. Sherman, Jones Day & Member of Gerbsman Partners Board of Intellectual Capital

CEO’s and business leaders of growing companies inside and outside the Beltway are guilty of committing a very serious strategic sin:  the failure to properly protect, mine and harvest the company’s intellectual property.

From 1997 to 2001, billions of dollars went into the venture capital and private equity markets and the primary use of these proceeds by entrepreneurs was the creation of intellectual property and other intangible assets.  In many cases, five years later, however, emerging growth and middle market companies have failed to leverage this intellectual capital into new revenue streams, profit centers and market opportunities because of a singular focus on the company’s core business or a lack of strategic vision or expertise to uncover or identify other applications or distribution channels.  Investors and tech executives may also lack the proper tools to understand and analyze the value of the company’s intellectual assets.  In a recent study by Professor Baruch Lev at NYU, only 15 % of the “true value” of the S&P 500 was found to be captured in their financial statements.  This gap in capturing and reflecting points out the critical need for a legal and strategic analysis of on emerging company’s intellectual property portfolio.

To begin uncovering hidden value, entrepreneurs and senior executives of growing companies should go through the process of an intellectual property audit.  The intellectual property audit will examine the company’s intellectual asset management (IAM) system (if any), ensure that the intangible assets of the company have been properly protected and most importantly, will serve as the starting point for the strategic planning exercise which will be focused on identifying ancillary applications and markets for the company’s intangible assets, which could create new income streams and profit centers for the company via licensing, joint ventures, strategic alliances and even business format franchising.  The intellectual property audit and strategic planning process based upon the audit results will increase shareholder value by ensuring that the highest and best uses of the company’s intangible assets are pursued – which could also be part of the turnaround or restructuring plan of a troubled portfolio company or which could serve at the core of the value proposition in positioning a growing company for sale.

Understanding The Various Types of Intellectual Property

Intellectual Capital consists of human capital, intellectual property and relationship capital and are the key assets for driving business growth in all types of economic conditions.  As an entry point into the strategy of leveraging IP assets, an appreciation of the different types of assets and their licensing characteristics is useful.  The corporate intangible asset inventory may include trade secrets and know-how, trademarks and trade names, patents and patent applications, and copyrights.

Trade Secrets and Know-How

While trade secrets, considered collectively, often comprise the primary intangible asset a company owns, the protection regime for trade secrets, unlike patents, trademarks or copyrights, trade secret protection is not based on a federal statute.  Trade secrets are unpatented bodies of information that lay outside the public domain.  Formulations, such as the concentrate for Coca-Cola, may be immensely valuable trade secrets. The processes used by an enterprise to make products or to manage itself may qualify as trade secrets. For example, material sources, marketing plans, distribution techniques, customer information, product specification/tolerances, best methods and practices, franchise management protocols, all qualify as trade secrets.  Tweaks and modifications to improve equipment, even off-the-shelf equipment purchased on the open market, may qualify; as do the fruits of the R&D operations: blue prints, test results (even unsuccessful test results are protectable), designs, data bases. etc.  Know-how is a first cousin of trade secrets but far more difficult to inventory as a discrete intangible asset; it is an accumulation of information, knowledge and experience (some of which may qualify as trade secrets, some not) that enables its possessor to achieve practical results which can not be obtained by one not possessing it. Know-how is the essence of what make a company’s most valuable employees valuable.

Patents

A patent grants an inventor the right to exclude third parties from making, using or selling the subject matter of his or her invention throughout the United States for a defined period of time. Utility patents, which are the most common type of patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), protect new, useful and non-obvious processes, machines, compositions of matter and articles of manufacture for a period of 17 years. Design patents, which stay in effect for 14 years, cover new, original, ornamental and non-obvious designs for articles of manufacture. And plant patents, which USPTO issues for certain new varieties of plants that have been asexually reproduced, are in effect for 17 years.

Trademarks, Servicemarks, and Tradenames

The Lanham Act of 1946 defines a trademark as any word, name, symbol, or device adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify and distinguish its goods from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods. A servicemark serves similar purposes, but it protects the advertising and marketing of services rather than products. A tradename is the name a business or other organization selects to identify itself as a distinct entity. While it’s true that some companies do use their tradenames as trademarks or servicemarks, it’s important to treat the two varieties of intellectual property differently. A company cannot assume that its name has automatically acquired trademark or servicemark rights simply because it has been offering its goods or services under its particular company name. Tradename protection, which lasts 10 years, is granted by the USPTO.

Copyrights
Copyright protection is available to authors of original literary, dramatic, musical, artistic and certain other intellectual works that are fixed in any tangible medium of expression. In most cases, the owner of a copyright from the USPTO has the exclusive right to or authorize others to reproduce and/or prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform or display the copyrighted work, during the author’s lifetime, plus 50 years.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andrew J. Sherman is a Partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Jones Day, with over 2,500 attorneys worldwide.  Mr. Sherman is a recognized international authority on the legal and strategic issues affecting small and growing companies.  Mr. Sherman is an Adjunct Professor in the Masters of Business Administration (MBA) program at the University of Maryland and Georgetown University where he has taught courses on business growth, capital formation and entrepreneurship for over twenty-three (23) years.  Mr. Sherman is the author of nineteen (19) books on the legal and strategic aspects of business growth and capital formation.  His eighteenth (18th) book, Road Rules Be the Truck.  Not the Squirrel. (http://www.bethetruck.com) is an inspirational book which was published in the Fall of 2008.  Mr. Sherman can be reached at  202-879-3686 or e-mail ajsherman@jonesday.com.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »