This article is overdue.
For at least two reasons:
- I started preparing an issue of BusinessFitnessMagazine.Com on IPR management few years ago… and I kept “improving it”- a purely engineering approach (i.e. trying to have something perfect before going on the market)
- I attended recently more and more events and conferences where managing IPR was part of the issue
Therefore, bear with me: this article is a collection of ideas, material, and so on- but more a “leads library” than a full article.
And, probably, it will require few revisions: but, anyway, I will add more material to each section during the next weeks, as separate articles.
Anyway- as this site looks like a blog but it is not a blog- always use the “bubble” on the front page when you want to find articles.
What will I talk about in this post?
Well, let’s make a not-so-short list:
…
Creative commons, “Free”, GPL, patents
Digital paper and mobile internet, Paris 2009-01-28
The Future of Publishing, Leuven 2009-02-19
IEEE Milestone for the 30 years of CD to Philips, Eindhoven 2009-03-06
PLUGG prize to Mendeley and Myngle, Brussels 2009-03-12
Creative commons, “Free”, GPL
If you ever worked with me, you know that I enjoy thinking- but I am quite pragmatic when managing activities.
My basic rules: personal time is the only resource that you cannot buy – and your personal time is worth as much as mine.
I used the GPL licensing approach (the idea: you can use it, but if you use it to produce something new, apply the same rule to what you produce with it).
Few years ago, we had a funny (and “liquid”) night at the IBTS in Milan, and Joichi Ito (I did not know who he was before meeting him) introduced me to Creative Commons and ExtremeDemocracy, two of his favourite projects built around the net.
Creative commons is in the same line of GPL, but, after following for some time the Italian mailing list (I was supporting few startups in the communication/entertainment/media at the time, and I had been asked to be the CEO of a startup on convergence in Italy, whose business prospectus I was preparing)…
… I dropped off the list.
Why? If you see the link to wikipedia that refers to GPL, you will get one simple, straightforward page.
I do not know in other countries- but the Italian Creative Commons mailing list seemed to be overtaken by lawyers with plenty of spare time.
But go on wikipedia searching for creative commons: you get a list that sounds like “a thousand ways to skin a squirrel” (actually, in my printing of today, 1329), not an explanation.
So, probably it is common.
And there are other more futuristic approaches, as the one presented by Chris Anderson, Free.
I wish he had written that article long ago- whenever I tried to explain to new entrepreneurs on the web that trying to close, protect, inhibit content was a self-defeating option, I always had to end up saying something simple.
You have to give something free (content, ideas) to get something free (the “viral” part of marketing).
I am a kind of guy who dislikes clothes with a logo: why should I pay to advertise a product?
But I suggest to any new media entrepreneur to read and study that article: maybe you can disagree with this or that- but still, it makes you think and rethink your business model.
For example: yesterday I was at Plugg in Brussels, where startups presented themselves and were evaluated by a panel.
Some people were excited about few startups (no names- I think that they are rethinking their business plan now), who offered a service based on information not under their control, by either building a layer over information supplied by a single company, or re-creating a database of information already available, from scratch (few thousand items so far, from what they said), because they assume that their technology is better, while a database with millions of items, descriptions, etc is already available.
These startups where presenting themselves as businesses: but, actually, they were assuming that whoever provides the information will be stupid enough not to create their own version of the service (Google and Microsoft both did the same in the past, expanding their offer with services and products that originally had been introduced by tiny startups, but based only on Microsoft or Google offer).
As I wrote somewhere else, some people seems to ignore that the patenting rules have been changed since late 2008.
Considering that most startups have technological skills, I suggest that they spend few dollars and have one of their engineers become a member of IEEE: reading their monthly magazine (aptly names Spectrum) is enough to avoid re-inventing wheels (including patents), and keep up-to-date on what is coming in technology and regulations that impact on technology.
In the current issue: The Death of Business-Method Patents
Digital paper and mobile internet, Paris 2009-01-28
There are few conferences that I attend: usually, every two years Infosecurity Europe in London (this year is from the 28th until the 30th of April).
And once a year the e-marketing conference in Paris, along with another couple of web- and marketing-related conferences in Paris
And few IEEE-sponsored events (in the past, also e-government related events organized in Brussels, see ePractice.eu).
There is a constant stream of stimulating ideas (see, for example, some ideas that I reported and developed on PartnershipIncubator.Com, in the section “Going online”).
But this year everybody was betting on over 50% of the Internet traffic coming from mobile Internet, also because in less developed countries they are moving directly to UMTS, bypassing the land-based infrastructure (cables, etc): and the Connect the world initiative from the ITU International Telecommunication Union was last held in Kigali, Rwanda, in 2007 (next: CIS in 2009).
Nokia presented in Paris (see on their marketing website the presentation) an interesting assessment, positioning themselves as somebody selling a commodity (the mobile phone terminal) and focusing on services and creating a community between the customers.
But the most interesting conference came from a small company, presenting an eye-tracking software (see the articles in PartnershipIncubator.Com I referred to above) that gave a different perspective on how to manage your online advertising.
As for digital paper: yes, some application will eventually come- but for the time being I think that the main limitation is that most of the companies that could use it have over-invested in the previous version of the technology.
Therefore, as it happened before, wait a couple of years for real paradigm-shift applications.
For the time being, you will start seeing more and more advertisement that is smart, or digital paper inserts used to “enhance” a magazine or book, with content updated à la kindle.
A joint paper+electronic publication.
The Future of Publishing, Leuven 2009-02-19
Why did I attend this conference hosted by the Leuven university, organized by < a href="http://www.theiet.eu/index.html">The IET?
Beside the title, and the catchy logo (a manual printing press- I am an unrepented bookworm), it was the mix of academic producers and managers of content, with publishers, that sounded attractive.
And certainly it was.
You can find all most of the slides presented at their website, or by contacting the organizers.
My idea? Well: the publishers invested in technology, services- generally, control (I shared the Q&A part of the conference, where I discussed the idea with some contacts).
But they are still stuck in the pre-Internet era.
Their idea of control is closing down channels.
As I heard often: you write a paper or research using public funds, and then give it for free to the publishers, who entitle you to pay again with public money to have access to your own material.
For good measure, they use the “bundle” contracts that were common in the TV rights industry in my country, Italy, when the State TV and the main private player fought for rights.
Their idea? If you want something of interest, you have to take everything else, and sign a long-term contract.
So, universities are unable to subscribe to independent magazines, as most of their budgets are locked.
And this further reduces choice: you do not simply publish on “reputable” magazines- they become reputable because they remove to any new entrant in the market the opportunity to offer a different or better product.
My proposal? Disintermediation. Unbundling. Open the market up.
Otherwise: we will keep having public funds funding private publishers to keep an oligopoly on the distribution of academic knowledge.
Look the section on the PLUGG prize: it seems that somebody has something.
IEEE Milestone for the 30 years of CD to Philips, Eindhoven 2009-03-06
The CD is an interesting story on how you need few items to force companies work together- and created a new market.
- But you need some ingredients:
- Ingredient number one
- companies are more willing to collaborate with competitors if they are coming from a defeat (at the time: the VCR format had just ended)
- Ingredient number two
- all the parties bring something to the table- it is not an engineering or strictly business choice, but a negotiation to share costs and benefits, by interlocking the former competitors, so that there is no way back: either a shared success, or a shared failure
- Ingredient number three
- a common cultural background
The last item requires a visual explanation: look at the map; yes, The Netherlands has a small population, while the Japanese number over 100 millions.
But: both are surrounded by much larger countries, and both are basically a linguistic oasis, and both have an history of expanding commercially and militarily.
Well, one of the speakers made a remark- that in the IEEE region 8 map UK and The Netherlands are together, and therefore UK is still part of The Netherlands 
And it was interesting to see how Sony and Philips, 30 years ago, joined forces to create a standard that sustained the test of time so well, that any successive variation (DVD, etc) was built upon that- keeping the same ease of use, form, shape.
And Sony presentations showed the same lingering rivalry, that becomes a a healthy catalyst for the long-term cooperation between two former and again competitors.
And if you are curious- the size of the center of the CD is a 10c coin size.
Another trivia: as the head of Sony was in friendly terms with Von Karajan, he was asked to test the new product.
Von Karajan’s choice? Mussorgsky’s pictures at an exhibition. Why it is funny? Listen to it- also on a standard analog turnplayer, it can be difficult to hear it properly, as it covers all the audible spectrum, with sudden changes.
So, an artist made an engineering choice.
IEEE awarded to Philips electronics the “Milestone in Electrical Engineering and Computing” for the Compact Disc Audio Player, presented on 8 March 1979.
PLUGG prize to Mendeley and Myngle, Brussels 2009-03-12
20 entrepreneurs presented their companies, and three were selected as finalist.
first two minutes each, then 10 minutes each for the three finalists.
out of those three, the winner according to the panel was mendeley, a company that has been supported by founders of last.fm and skype and uses an approach and platform similar to last.fm.
their concept is to integrate the publishing of papers with the review approach that is contained in last.fm, and to allow to know how the community considers research papers.
this covers a market (see The Future of Publishing, Leuven 2009-02-19) that is looking for something beyond the proprietary platform of publishers, and integrates sound software practices and interfaces.
so, they have a market, a technology, and willing customers. good luck!
the winner of the prize of the audience was myngle, a Dutch startup created a team including former eBay employees.
their service? using existing remote technologies (whiteboarding, etc) to allow students find the right teacher- and have customized language learning experiences.
they already added some interesting partnerships- and language learning is if anything a growth industry.
another company, that wasn’t a finalist and did not win any prize deserves, in my humble opinion, a mention.
Bubok.Es presents itself as an on-demand publishing company, with an interesting model for authors (i.e. allowing them to receive a larger share of the revenue).
I mention this company for at least three reasons: it is already generating real revenue, it is trying a different approach to publishing, and, as many startups related to culture, it is focused only on it is own linguistic community (Spanish).
Pity- as other culture-related startups, they create some innovative processes and approaches, with really limited funds, but never reach the visibility that they deserve.
Few lessons that I derived from the panel to the entrepreneurs:
- who are you talking to? talk business, not technology; you can always answer questions on the technology
- open your eyes you have competitors- if you don’t, either you are a real innovation (and who pays for that?), or you are delusional
- know who you are: engineering-based companies show that you have the right team, and the pack of slides will be enough to get you through the door
- know who you are: service-based companies (including social network) show that you have traction- for social networks, millions of users
- dont’ be just cool you are asking for money, not for an invitation to a party; if you talk vaporware, you are targeting the wrong audience
- paradigm shift companies yes, you want to create a new market; then, do it with your own money, and come back when you will be past the “evangelist” phase; in this climate, nobody finances a dream- unless you already have a solid past as serial entrepreneur
Tags: cd, century, copyright, idea, ieee, iet, in, intellectual, ipr, karajan, lawyer, leuven, management, mendeley, myngle, patent, philips, plagiarism, plugg, property, publisher, right, sony, startup, the, trademark, wga, xxi