Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Technology’ Category

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 »

Article from GigaOm.

“As rumors of a pending Facebook/Spotify deal swirled, Mark Zuckerberg took the stage at the e-G8 Forum in Paris Wednesday and reasserted that he has no plans to become the CEO of an entertainment company.

“We don’t have the DNA to be a music company or a movie company,” Zuckerberg said in an onstage one-on-one with Publicis CEO Maurice Lévy.

The comments come just as Facebook is reported to have deepened its partnership with Sweden-based startup Spotify to roll out a more fully integrated music-streaming service within the social networking site, according to a Forbes report published Wednesday citing anonymous sources. The report claims the feature will be called either “Facebook Music” or “Spotify on Facebook.” The new service will reportedly not be available in the United States, as Spotify has not yet cleared regulations to be used in the US.

However, a source familiar with Spotify denied the deeper integration when reached by GigaOM. The company already has a “Spotify on Facebook” feature that allows Facebook users to share links to Spotify songs on their profile pages. A Facebook spokesperson responded similarly, telling me “there’s nothing new to announce” and pointing to the existing integration between the two companies. “Many of the most popular music services around the world are integrated with Facebook and we’re constantly talking to our partners about ways to improve these integrations,” the spokesperson said. Both Facebook and Spotify have separately raised funding from telecom mogul, Li Ka-Shing.

Whether the Spotify/Facebook rumor du jour is true or not, Facebook is clearly keen to get more immersed in the media and entertainment industries. At e-G8, Zuckerberg noted that while Facebook had no ambitions to move the company from Silicon Valley to Hollywood, entertainment companies could do well to take advantage of all that social networking has to offer. “I hope that we can play a part in enabling… the companies that are out there producing this great content to become more social,” he said. “We’re going to see a lot of the transformation in these industries over the next three, five years.””

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

“Facebook is planning to roll out a new version of its Groupon-style Deals feature over the next few weeks, starting with a number of cities such as Atlanta, Dallas and San Diego, according to the company’s director of local. Not surprisingly, the new version of these digital coupons plays on the social nature of Facebook and its ability to influence a user’s social graph. While the social network may be late to this particular party, doing that is going to focus attention on one big hole in the Groupon model: namely, the fact that it isn’t really social.

Emily White, a former Google ad exec in charge of the effort, describes in an interview with Internet Retailer how the site will highlight in a user’s news feed if they have indicated interest in a particular deal, and also if they have actually purchased one. Presumably, users will also be able to opt out of this feature, given Facebook’s experiences in the past with ventures such as Beacon — which publicized purchases users made at other websites and was eventually shut down after a firestorm of criticism from privacy advocates. According to White:

The fact that every step of the process — from interacting with the deal, booking the deal and experiencing the deal — is tied to friends makes it more likely that you’ll have a positive experience.

Obviously, a lot of that is Facebook’s spin on why its new service is going to be competitive with Groupon, which has become the 800-pound gorilla of email marketing by expanding rapidly over the past two years into more than 500 markets. The company’s revenues are estimated to be in the $2-billion range on an annualized basis, and it’s said to be planning a public share offering that could value the company at more than $25 billion. What Facebook is to social networking, Groupon has become to email discounting.

That clearly poses some challenges for Facebook, as my colleague Ryan noted recently. But Facebook’s view of its strengths compared to Groupon isn’t just spin. It reinforces that deals from Groupon — and even from competitors such as LivingSocial, which is also valued in the billions of dollars on the private market — aren’t that social. I wrote about one of the drivers behind Google’s reported $6-billion offer for Groupon being the fact that advertising is becoming social, and that is true. And when it comes to being social, Facebook is light years ahead of Groupon or LivingSocial.

It’s true that you can see how many other people have signed up for a deal when you go to the website from the email Groupon sends you, and there are some standard web-sharing buttons that let you post to Twitter or say that you “liked” the deal on Facebook. But that’s still not terribly social. What if you could see these deals — and which of your friends signed up for them — right in your Facebook news feed? The immediacy of that, mixed in with the other social signals and activity you are already looking at, could make you more likely to click on a deal, or even to be aware that one is available. Add the ability to comment on a deal, and it becomes something much more social that anything Groupon offers.

The news feed — the same thing that made Beacon so appealing, but at the same time so disturbing to some — is Facebook’s not-so-secret weapon, and the new version of Deals is clearly going to take advantage of that in a way it hasn’t before. Competing with a $2-billion monster is not going to be easy, even for Facebook, and signing deals with retailers is one area where the size and scale of Groupon represents a fairly compelling competitive advantage. But Facebook has the news feed and the social graph, and if advertising really is becoming social, that is a very powerful force indeed.”

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

Article from Fenwick and West.

“In 2002, Fenwick & West began publishing its Silicon Valley Venture Capital Survey. The survey was published in response to dramatic changes in the venture capital financing environment resulting from the bursting of the “dot-com bubble”, and our belief that there was a need for an objective analysis of how the venture capital environment had changed. The survey was well received and we have continued to publish it – a copy of the most recent survey is available here.
We believe that in recent years there has been a significant change in the angel/seed financing environment primarily in the internet/digital media and software industries. We believe these changes are due to the following factors:

The nature of these industries is such that products can be developed and introduced to the market quicker and with less resources than other industries. The development of new technologies has further accelerated the speed, and reduced the resources needed, to introduce new products in these industries.

These industries have now been around for at least a decade, if not longer, and as such a generation of successful entrepreneurs having the expertise, financial resources and interest is now available to assist and finance the current generation of entrepreneurs.
Venture capital has become harder to obtain, with venture capital investment in the U.S. overall declining from $29.9 billion in 2007 to $26.2 billion in 2010, and with investment in venture funds by limited partners declining even more precipitously, with $11.6 billion invested in 2010, the lowest amount since 2003, according to Dow Jones VentureSource.

As a result of these factors we believe that there have been the following changes in the angel/seed financing environment:

  • There has been a shift in the composition of investors, from largely friends and family, wealthy individuals and a few organized groups, to a larger percentage of professional angels, seed funds and venture capital funds willing to invest smaller amounts of capital.
  • The amounts raised in angel/seed financings have increased, and can exceed $1 million. Investors in these financings also have deeper pockets with the ability to participate in later rounds.
  • The terms of these financings have become more sophisticated and arms length, as investors are more likely to be true third parties investing larger sums, with an interest in being more active in the oversight of their investment.

In light of the increasing importance of angel/seed financings, and a desire to make objective information about such financings available to the community at large, we undertook a survey of 52 internet/digital media and software industry companies that obtained angel/seed financing[1] in 2010 in the Silicon Valley and Seattle markets.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from TechCrunch.

“$41 million. From Sequoia Capital, Bain Capital, and Silicon Valley Bank. Pre-launch.

That’s how much a brand new startup called Color has to work with. Your eyebrows should already be raised, and here’s something to keep them fixed there: this is the most money Sequoia has ever invested in a pre-launch startup. Or, as the Color team put it, “That’s more than they gave Google.”

But the founding team goes a long way toward explaining it. Headed by Bill Nguyen — who sold Lala to Apple in late 2009 — the company has attracted a wealth of talent. It has seven founders including Nguyen and company president Peter Pham, who previously founded BillShrink. And its chief of product is DJ Patil, who was previously LinkedIn’s chief scientist.

So what exactly is Color?

Update: The application is now available for the iPhone at Color.com. Android is coming.

At first glance, it looks like another mobile photo app, like Path, Instagram, or PicPlz. You take snapshots with your mobile phone (the app supports both Android and iOS at launch) and they appear in a stream of photos. And there aren’t even any of those trendy lenses to spruce up your images. Sounds pretty basic, right?

But the beauty of Color stems from what it’s doing differently. Unlike Instagram and Path, there isn’t an explicit friend or following system — you don’t browse through lists of contacts and start following their photo stream. Instead, all social connections in the application are dynamic and established on-the-fly depending on whom you’re hanging out with. And your photos are shared with everyone in the vicinity. In some senses this is the Twitter of photo apps — it’s all public, all the time (I’m ignoring Twitter’s protected tweets, since most people don’t use them). Another way to look at it: it’s almost the complete opposite of Path, which is built around sharing photos with an intimate group of friends.

It’s difficult to explain what Color does with a bullet list of features, so I’ll try painting an example that hopefully demonstrates how it works.

Say you walk into a restaurant with twenty people in it. You sit down at a table with four friends, and start chatting. Then one of your friends pulls out their phone, fires up Color, and takes a snapshot of you and your buddies.

That photo is now public to anyone within around 100 feet of the place it was taken. So if anyone else in the restaurant fires up Color, they’ll see the photograph listed in a stream alongside other photos that have recently been taken in the vicinity.

In a crowded area these streams of photos will get noisy, so Color also has some grouping features. Tell it which four people you’re eating with, and Color will create a temporal group with a stream of just the photos you and your buddies have taken. But here’s the twist: because everything on the service is public, you can also swipe to view other groups, to see what the tables next to you are snapping photos of. And you can always jump to the main stream, which shows a mishmash of photos taken by everyone.

It takes some time to wrap your head around, and my time with the app was limited, so I can’t really vouch for how well it works. But there’s some very interesting technology that’s working behind the scenes to make Color more than just a simple group photo app.

First are the social connections, called your Elastic Network. All of your contacts are presented in a list of thumbnails ordered by how strong your connection is to that user. Whenever Color detects that you’re physically near another user (in other words, that you’re hanging out), your bond on the app gets a little stronger. So when you fire up the app and jump to your list of contacts, you’ll probably see your close friends and family members listed first. But if you don’t see a friend for a long time, they’ll gradually flow down the list, and eventually their photos will fade from color to black-and-white.

These social connections are important because they’re the only way to view a stream of photos beyond those have been taken near you. If you fired up Color in that restaurant example from earlier, you’d only be able to see photos that had been taken by friends and strangers within 100 feet of that restaurant. That is, unless you jump to your social connections. Tap on your best friend’s profile photo, and you’ll then be able to see all of the photos that have recently been taken within 100 feet of them. In other words, Color is trying to give you a way to see everything that’s going on around you, and everything that’s going on around the people you care about.

The Groups feature also makes use of this elastic network. In the restaurant example above, the application would likely already know who your friends were based on your previous interactions and would automatically place them in the same group — you wouldn’t have to manually do it yourself.

Color is also making use of every phone sensor it can access. The application was demoed to me in the basement of Color’s office — where there was no cell signal or GPS reception. But the app still managed to work normally, automatically placing the people who were sitting around me in the same group. It does this using a variety of tricks: it uses the camera to check for lighting conditions, and even uses the phone’s microphone to ‘listen’ to the ambient surroundings. If two phones are capturing similar audio, then they’re probably close to each other.

So far I’ve described a compelling and unique photo app with some neat tricks. But how exactly is Color going to make “wheelbarrows of cash”, as Nguyen says?

At this point the company is still very early on, but it eventually plans to offer businesses a self-serve platform for running deals and ads as part of the Color experience (you fire up the app to see the photos being taken around you, and you also see the special of the day, for example).

But that’s just the start. Nguyen has visions of fundamentally changing some aspects of social interaction and local discovery with the app, which he considers part of the so-called Post-PC movement. Using all of the data being collected (remember, the app is taking advantage of all of your phone’s sensors), Color hopes to eventually start recommending nearby points of interest, and maybe even interesting people.

There are still plenty of questions, even about the existing service. This kind of voyeurism — you’re sharing photos with the world and looking at photos from strangers — could take a while to get used to. People may reject it entirely. Or it may be completely addictive. There’s really no way to tell until people start using the app in the wild.

The future is unclear, but promising. And with this much money in the bank and a staff of 27, Color has plenty of time to hone in on what works.”

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »