Symbiosis in open biotech constructs

In Marcus’s last posting he discusses the need for a new type of market rather than trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. I couldn’t agree more, and there are some clear examples in the biotech industry where there is a lot of talk about how new biomarkers will revolutionize the market and make the proprietors rich through licensing structures, while in reality there still is a lack of IP infrastructure to value, price and leverage these intangibles with the same effectiveness as tangible goods are handled in the material value chain. It seems distant to imagine that this will ever be the case, but history tells us that the future usually has a tendency to surprise us.

My hypothesis is that effective valuation and pricing to a large extent relies on a detailed understanding of how value propositions are packaged and how the underlying assets are discovered, developed and combined. Hence, I find it very interesting to follow how technology platforms are developing in the biotechnology field as these hopefully will provide a greater understanding of how assets may be transformed into property and capital. Many of the currently existing platforms that are claiming to be ‘open’ (e.g. ‘open source’, ‘open standards’, ‘open platforms’, etc.) still seem to be more in a visionary stage than actively managed structures and systems enabling collaborative value to be created. The biotech industry has seen a whole spectrum of these as of lately, e.g. Open Wetware, Biological Open Source (BiOS), Predictive Safety Testing Consortium, SNP consortium, Human Genome Project, etc.

Open platform: IMI
Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI) is one of the more advanced examples that I have found among the existing open platforms. The initiative, as I brought up in one of my earlier blog posts, focuses on targeting the biggest bottlenecks in the drug development process. IMI is interesting from a number of perspectives as it is driven by the founding members, EU Commission and EFPIA, to create a competitive edge for the EU industry while making the drug development market work more efficiently. The beauty, in my opinion, of the constructed platform concept is the so-called “Research Use” in their IPR Policy. At a quick glance the Research Use clause appears to be just an alternative way of using the Foreground which excludes Direct Exploitation. However, the footnoted example describes application of the generated results “as a tool for research and clinical research in the discovery, development or commercialisation of pharmaceutical products by for-profit institutions and organizations”, which I interpret as a form of intellectual creation of an ‘open standard’ for the pharmaceutical industry. The result seem to be that innovations that fall within this definition can be accessed and utilized under fair and reasonable terms on a non-exclusive basis, for both platform participants and third parties.

However, it should be mentioned, that this is made possible partly on the expense of the long-term value visions of the participating biotech firms as these, from the build-up of this construct, will not be able to offer pharmaceutical products nor diagnostic tools as value propositions. The businesses of the biotech firms therefore will have to rely on the commercialization of earlier-stage technologies such as screening- and research tools instead. Hence, biotech SMEs will need to ask themselves where they see the highest probability that the highest value will be attained (research tool versus diagnostic tool) before deciding to join as there is a huge difference in developing something risky of high value on your own as opposed to share the risk in IMI at the cost of a lower return-on-investment in the end. Moreover, the two alternatives require completely different capabilities and tools to be successfully achieved.
It is simple to be critical to created constructs such as the IMI platform, but it is extremely difficult to creatively innovate sustainable solutions that both provide incentives for the small inventive actors while keeping up attractive incentives for the large financially secure actors. So, the question remains; is it possible to create efficient biotech open innovation models where all parts work symbiotically?

Tobias Thornblad

The IP Store?

During the recent weeks there has been heavy posting in the blogosphere regarding new breeds of IP companies, where RPX (covered here and here) perhaps have gotten most attention, with their interesting business model of being an anti-NPE. Also seeing much attention is two even more interesting breeds; Article One Partners ( covered here) and its open source cousin Open Invention Network (again covered by Securing Innovaton, here).
There is however more commotion in related fields like patent valuation, where the search for the golden standards still goes on (e.g. here ) and another conceptual thought on the subject here.
Yet another interesting new breed of service is launched by Stanford (discussed here) where IP related data will be public. Last but not least, the FTC hearings some time ago, both parties (Intellectual Ventures vs. "rest of the world") agreed that more data is something they all would like to see.
These recent postings have lead me into thinking what an IP marketplace could look like.

What is an efficient IP market?
I would believe that many people want to look at the IP market the way we have looked at every other marketplace the last half century or so. Now pursuing a thesis within Patent Valuation I can also conclude that academics sometime try and fit a square peg in a round hole with applying classical financial theories to an IP setting. The most striking being that not even all authors are clear on what a patent actually is and many also dive head into the logic of patents=products. Whether you are pro or con NPEs they at least crush that myth with their business model. Looking at a (IP) market with the view that it is a means of generating revenue elsewhere (i.e. products or services), then it is not difficult to see how people are working hard to closing the NPEs "loophole".

This has me thinking, how would this be handled, would you have to be a producing company to be able to litigate or perhaps wider use of cross licenses as damages or perhaps just less damages could be solutions. Anyhow - these are all complex and strive towards "fixing" an existing loophole. Arguments are often that litigation intensity and cost have people running away from patents and keeping things secret instead. I sometimes wonder if perhaps more effort should be put into building a new marketplace suited for IP rather than trying to jam IP into the existing product market.

What if all would change and instead of buying and selling patents, companies get more savvy and leverage licensing schemes instead and remaining the owner of the patent, thus not giving NPEs enforcement options. Now I know there are inherent flaws with this, where the biggest perhaps is the difficulties to match two parties. This is why I am so glad that the "big fish" seem united in thinking that more data is needed and I am also really exited about the new Stanford service. A part from those progresses I still believe that much can be done by just trying to build such a (or any other) marketplace from scratch and having legislators set the norms proactively rather than obtaining a large backlog and reacting to whatever loopholes people find. Just look at the way Apple constantly set the norms by setting up marketplaces like Itunesstore and Appstore.
So question is - is there a Steve Jobs in any PTO?

Obama message is shared under Creative Commons

The president-elect of the US, Barack Obama, has released the office of the president-elect webpage change.gov under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License. Meaning that you are free to copy, distribute and remix the work, as long as you mention the source.

It is of course so, as IPKat writes, that politicians have an inherent interest to have their views spread to as large audience as possible. But, one really important thing is, to keep some level of control over the message you communicate. I do not think that this license issue of the website content will affect his presidency in any major way. It can and could very well be so that the collaborative nature of this has made him more popular.

There is however an interesting difference in the copyright statements on the official campaign site barackobama.com since it there is not explicit if you are allowed to remix the content. That you can print and distribute is ok, as long as you mention the source.

As I see it, there can both be good and less good aspects of giving away the possibility to use elements from websites and campaigns as the ones mentioned. Since all communication interfaces are part of the overall brand I believe that there needs to be a consistency when it comes to the message communicated. But in the age of access where the masses can, and probably will, do what they like anyway, it might be hard to control all uses.

So, it might instead be more beneficial to limit the access to some parts and use openness in other areas. Just as Mr Obama has done.

Johan Örneblad

Nextopia in practice on iTunes

Nextopia has proven itself through a new feature on iTunes, where you can see the top content in the store for this year. It is unfortunately not available in Sweden, so I have not been able to verify it. But anyhow, even though the movie The Dark Knight has not yet been released it has outsold all other movies this year on iTunes.

The value of the movie is more likely to be higher when it is out of reach but still at your fingertips. Following the same rational, it will probably sell less and for a lower price just after it has been released. Since we constantly are looking forward to the next big thing, the movie will not anymore be as satisfying if it is accessible for all.

That the pre-order outsells other similar products released in the more common way has been proven several times with the Radiohead album In rainbows released last year. Even though the pre-ordered albums were at a pay-what-you-like-price they outsold the band’s previous album.

In a time when we literally have everything at our fingertips, the things that are the most valuable are the things we cannot get. At least what we cannot get right away.

What we do not have can be imagined to be whatever we want. That is the life in Nextopia.

Johan Örneblad

Patent disclosure and SSO

The court has agreed that failure to disclose essential patents required by the standard setting organization is considered to be a waiver of the patent rights in relation to the standard.

It is interesting to read that the court in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp (Fed. Cir., Dec. 1, 2008) has taken the issue of patent disclosures in standard setting organizations to a new level. There is a separation between organizations where you are required to license your essential patents by default when entering in to the organization and the cases where you explicitly have to disclose the ones you have knowledge about. It sounds reasonable to agree with the court that even if there were no explicit obligaton to disclose, the members of JVT understood it as if they were to disclose. By not disclosing, Qualcomm put the other members in a false understanding of the position when they were deciding upon the new standard.

Since standards are as important as they are, especially in the ICT sector, they also have to be treated as if they are. The economic impact of setting a standard, although a RF one in this case, could be enormous and the investments huge. Therefore we need more understanding of this impact, both in the legal system but more importantly in the SSOs themselves.

I know that there is a rising interest from the actors to look in to the patent policies which I think is good. One could of course ague if it should be constructed to be RF or FRAND, but most importantly is that it is clear to the actors in the organization to have a common understanding. This is where the decision in this Qualcomm case might be a pointer in the direction of more clarity.

Johan Örneblad

Life goes Google, but what can you do?

Life Magazine has together with Google put a large amount of their image catalog online. But what can one use them for? And what will they use them for?

The initiative is really good, to be able to search through the 10 million images in the archive where only 3 % have been published previously. It has been applauded by the photo community as well as other actors. But the main question still remains to be explored; what are you allowed to use the images for?

Time Inc. EVP, John Squires says in the press release from 18^th of November:

"We're delighted Google recognized the rich value of our photo archive and worked with us to bring it to millions of consumers. Consistent with the launch of the TIME Archive, PEOPLE Archive and the SI Vault, this initiative continues our efforts to build valuable new revenue opportunities from our rich heritage."

As of today, the only revenue streaming from the new online archive is the possibility to buy a framed copy of the image. That merchandize opportunity is of course one good way, but most certainly not the only one.

Usage rights

The key passage in the information which I have found on the topic of usage rights is from the above press release:

LIFE's Photo Archive will be scanned and available on Google Image Search free for personal and research purposes. Copyright and ownership of all images will remain with Time Inc.

This is well in line with Google’s ambition to provide information to the public and enhance their importance as the hub of all the information on the web. But as Greg Sterling writes on the subject on Search Engine Land, why do they not state this explicitly on the search page. When you look at any image, the only information on how to use the images are that they are watermarked with © Times.

If you look at the Q&A on the Life archive there are some information on the usage rights, but it is not in line with what is provided in the press release since it states that:

What can I do with the images I find from the LIFE photo archive?

You can browse and view the images you find, rate them, and see detailed information about the photographs. There is also a link to buy image merchandise provided by LIFE.

Information is good

Since the meaning with the archive drastically is limited without explicit information on the usage rights I would like to see more clear information in relation to the images. To be able to buy them framed is good, but what if I would like to use them in some other setting. For me, it is especially the research option which needs to be specified since use for private purposes are allowed within most jurisdictions.

Further monetizing

The other information piece missing is who to contact or how to act if you would like to use some of the images in a commercial setting. Imagine too be able to go through Google to license some of the pictures for any specific use. There are of course many image agencies online already, but why not at least link to the one to contact?

Johan Örneblad

[Through fotosidan.se] [More on the topic here, here and here.]

Biotechnological determinism

TED recently posted a talk which I think was incredibly interesting from an intellectual capital perspective. The talk is given by Bill Joy, one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems, who now is one of the partners of KPMG where he reviews business plans. Bill talks about the dangers of future technologies in education, environmental improvement and pandemic defense, which relates quite a lot to his article “Why the future doesn’t need us”.

The "dangers" of technology
Bill talks about incredible scientific discoveries, such as the carbon nano tube, before moving on to his take on what the future technologies may hold for mankind. Bill states in his cover story (as well as in the TED talk video) that “Given the incredible power of these new technologies, shouldn't we be asking how we can best coexist with them? And if our own extinction is a likely, or even possible, outcome of our technological development, shouldn't we proceed with great caution?”. His suggested solution and recommendations are focused on restricting the free flow of information, in particular those technologies which can be leveraged to create many to one ratios of cost to damage. Bill seems to have a mindset of a social deterministic nature, believing that technology always is developed with a particular societal purpose or objective to benefit those that are capable of funding its development. This stands in contrast to the technological deterministic perspective, which says that social changes come about as a result of the new capabilities that the new technologies enable.

Creating societal ethics
It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine which of these views that is the true way of seeing things. My viewpoint however, is that predicting the capabilities, utilities, opportunities and threats of new technology is close to impossible in an early stage and restriction at this stage could potentially stifle our societal development. That is also why I experience it as worrisome when Bill mentions that we should have policies in place to govern the innovation process.
Legislating to create ‘societal ethics’ is a phenomenon that biotech has a long history of and is still experiencing. An example of this is the national laws around stem cells allowing for artificial fertilization for research purposes in some countries, e.g. Sweden, Belgium and the UK, whereas it is illegal within the countries to extract stem cells from human embryonal cells in Germany and Italy (... but which are both allowed to import these from the formerly mentioned countries). Another example are genetically modified plant varieties which are patentable in the US, but which are to be protected by plant variety protection governed by UPOV, within the EU, to enable a more open approach to proprietary genetic information.

All in all, I think that ethical considerations are governed by so many other aspects than the law, such as education, so my hope is that there will be other ways than stronger legislation to make this happen in the future.

Tobias Thornblad

Virtual Property and Capital

For some this might come as old news, for others this might be as intriguing as it is for me. As Venturebeat reported twice there are some serious working attempts att selling entirely virtual products. This idea of selling virtual swords, and one mans convincing presentation, always has a special meaning to me as it was what actually opened up my eyes to the knowledge economy. Below, I'll try to highlight, on a conceptual level, why I think this is so extraordinary

Ownership - what is owned and who owns it?
The first thing that comes to mind is whether something generated in a proprietary game becomes property of the player or the game (i.e. game developer). I have not dwelwed into this subject so I am not to decide, however instinctively I could argue for both. There is some legislation in the field however that is related to SecondLife which is much more elaborate than e.g. WOW. Linden Lab who dictate SecondLife (and have every right to) could potentially create any kind of property law they want which users must adhere do once accepting the license (to my knowledge this has not been developed to such extent by Blizzard and others). But what happens when marketplaces are set up IRL, that are under conventional law (e.g. not giving players rights to their created characters) , we could end up with a lot of "dead capital" to cite DeSoto.
I must finish my thoughts on ownership by directing you all to a very interesting and award winning thesis, discussing in depth what I just touched upon.

The transaction - money in the bank or the beginning of a fall
As with ownership the object that is transacted upon might be hard for some people to comprehend, i.e. how people can pay for a digital sword. In my mind it is not anything different than a branded shirt or mobile ringtones. People spend money on things that delivers much connotations and a feeling of belonging / showing off / standing out. Being an ecnomist I love the fact of a new and evolving marketplace and an increase in liquidy caused by purely virtual products. I think the concept of being an intermediary and taking on some (in my oppinion modest) risk and taking a cut from each transaction - simple and effective way of generating win-win and revenue.
But there is also a part of me who can be sceptical and take the view of hardcore gamers who live for the game and would likely be slightly pissed of if lazy fair-weather players could buy level 11 characters - and in an instance we would have money killing all those long nights of creating an "invincible" palladin.
And should the hard-core gamers "die" (i.e. their characters) they would have "no" switching costs and would perhaps wonder off to other games more in their infancy and without established exchanges.

Marcus Malek

Tough times spur innovation

The current financial crisis has hardly slipped past anyone’s life unnoticed, and the life science sector is certainly no exception. Bloomberg’s article about recent biotech bankruptcies has been a major discussion topic in the biotech blog world lately (e.g. California Biotech Law Blog, The In Vivo Blog, etc). It is probably close to impossible to see any positive effect for those affected by the crisis, but I thought that I would elaborate on the competition question lifted in relation to my last blog post in the context of the current crisis.

Competition over financial resources forces strategizing
Scarcity of financial resources leads to strategy restructuring to gain competitive advantage in an increasingly fierce competitive environment. It seems as innovation becomes the major vehicle for differentiation when the economy goes down while cost-cutting becomes more of a simultaneous norm for the whole industry. Some recent examples include;
Astrazeneca announced, 20 Nov, that it as part of its company strategy, to focus on drugs available on prescription only, will sell a drug portfolio to Glaxosmithkline comprising prescription free drugs such as Alvedon and Reliv. This monetization, providing Astrazeneca with USD 253 million according to the agreement, takes place while the company is announcing closures of plants in Sweden, Belgium and Spain affecting 1400 employees.

A great example of how innovation does not only have to relate to products and portfolios is Infinity Pharmaceuticals Inc., which recently entered into an innovative strategic alliance agreement with Mundipharma International Corporation Limited. Mundipharma gains access to Infinity’s entire oncology-focused discovery and development pipeline for an initial (with options to extend for two additional one-year periods) term of three years. Infinity will retain US commercialization rights for all oncology products developed under these programs and is obliged to pay a (double-digit) royalty on US sales of these products to Mundipharma. Commercialization rights outside of the US are held by Mundipharma, which are also required to pay a (double-digit) royalty to Infinity for the sales of these products. As part of the deal, Mundipharma will pay all of Infinity’s R&D expenses until at least the end of 2013.
These are just two examples of how tougher times may spur innovation, it will be interesting to see what strategies other biotech firms will come up with to stay afloat.

Tobias Thornblad

Monty Python goes YouTube, is it enough?

Monty Python have now entered YouTube with some sort of official aim to stop the unauthorized clips of the group on the site. But is it enough?

YouTube has had problems with copyrighted material for a long time. The model which they have chosen consists of an active identification tool where they search the content against a reference library with copyrighted material proved by the rights holders. You can also file a complaint on one of the videos stating that it is unauthorized material. The rights holders can then decide on either to block the content, track the content or monetize from the content.

Monty Python have chosen to start uploading their own content to YouTube, they have so far uploaded 24 videos in their channel. A rather small number if they are serious with wanting to give access to good quality content. But I believe that their aim is more related towards getting attention than anything else. At least since 24 clips won’t stop the flow of Monty Python content, as now there are around 30 000 videos relating to the group.

Interactive advertizing and privacy

An interesting follow-up on the digital fingerprinting technology used by YouTube, to identify copyrighted content, is to start using directed advertizing in relation to the content shown in other programs and other places than the original one.

We still see the rise of video content on the web being monetized in a good way as something which is to come. Google are watching YouTube closely to find out how and where to make money from the service. One way can be to continue with the watermarking and ad based revenue streams, both on and off the platform.

Privacy

I do however see problems in following the users too closely in their use of video content both on and off YouTube.com since it brings up privacy issues. I do especially see those issues arising when it comes to video since it is more disclosing of private issues than for instance music.

Although this can be somewhat solved with opt in or opt out alternatives for the users. It still is a problem since they are likely to get more and more used to the Big Brother like monitoring.

Where to go?

I think we are still in the emerging stage where the content providers are trying out different business models and different rights solutions to their content. Some, like Monty Python, are still in the setting where they think they will sell DVDs and use YouTube as an advertisement channel for the physical products.

My hope is however that the rights holders are going to see the potential in spreading the content, using the digital highways to expand their cake.

Some issues has to be solved, and they are in the emerging of being solved. The first one is to find good models to take in revenue. Ad based or subscription, or some other innovative way.

The second one is to go global on the rights. We live in a globalized world where it makes no or little sense to have diversified rights to digital content. There could be diversified rights to the revenues, but the access has to be global. More on that in a later post.

So, Monty Python might be funny. This is why 24 clips will not be anywhere near enough to stop the unauthorized content of them on the web.

When will I be able to watch “the dead parrot” with complements from Cleese and the boys?

Johan Örneblad

[Via DN]

RE: Abbreviated Pathways to drug development

I would just like to add some thoughts, on the money side of things, regarding Tobias' interesting thougts. As pharma is a huge ecosystem changes wont come suddenly and definately not without a noticable fight! Below I put down my thoughts on the situation, although perhaps not entirely correlated.

Sharing is caring - also in pharma ?
Almost everyone is writing about pharma collaborations with academia and how that will generate openness, speed and lower costs. Just having researchers work together and streamlining NDA's and disclosure policies lowers transaction costs for development. My question is if (when?) some BigPharmas will take it one step further and come togehter and own entire universities, paying for tuition in exhange for all research results.

I'm envisioning special purpose, e.g. gastrointestinal, (PhD) universities. These would paid for entirely by e.g. 4 bigPharma companies and would give scholars a PhD degree and the companies lots of input. My idea is that BigPharmas would focusing on getting more brainpower rather than the a selected few. Also that they would start sharing the most valuable substances that are discovered. Simple maths show that a blockbuster is needed to make up R&D costs of all non-profitable drugs, especially now when "only" the western world is buying drugs.
But what if the hit/miss ratio of drugs get's improved, by sharing knowledge and goals in the universities I envision, maybe sharing expense/income on blockbusters would be enough. And also - costs need to be cut when India and China catch on.
The natural concern for this would be on the competition-law side, as I can envision a good 'ol gentlemans agreement when dividing the markets.

Generica deteriorating Pharma innovation ?
A recent ruling in California (well commented here and here) basically says that Pharma companies are liable for side effects etc. caused by generica using the same substance.
To me the situation becomes quite perverse as generica companies would operate on a totally risk free basis if they would also be excluded from litigation. In relation to Tobias' post even shorter times before generica becomes available could turn into an interesting pricing situation.
Firstly - shorter times mean shorter times for ROI on drugs. As R&D costs likely won't drop substantially, by all laws of finance a price increase is to be expected.
Secondly - if big Pharma are liable for damages caused by the substance as such rather than the drug, this would either result in an increase of litigation costs or large insurance policies (if someone is willing to write one in these days). It would likely impose a cost on BigPharma.

Bottom line - costs go up for patients/consumers. That could create a very interesting marketplace for drugs. The high price means makes it analogous to drilling for oil in remote locations. If the price is high enough it would mean that more players could find the market feasible. I see that this could have any of the following implicatons:

1) A surge in pharma R&D as a blockbuster with the new high price could mean even higher revenues. Perhaps smaller VC-funded labs could be the way to go as splitting that large revenue could be enough to see ear-marked VC funding for drugs.
2) A more dismal scenario would be a standstill in the innovation and patenting pipeline as fewer actors would see the financial benefit.
3) Forum shopping for lower R&D costs, i.e. pharma development follows the path of heavy industry and moves production and research to remote locations.

The big question is really - when will pharma markets as we know them change?

Marcus Malek

Abbreviated pathways to drug development

Recently a study was published by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., where Alex Brill analyzes the article recently written by Duke University economist Henry Grabowski’s which explores the number of years that a biologic drug should enjoy exclusivity before a generic equivalent is introduced. The basis for this analysis is the fact that the US Congress is considering to legislate an abbreviated pathway for the FDA to approve biogeneric therapies, much like the Hatch-Waxman Act in relation to chemical equivalents (ANDA).

Biogenerics
Generic alternative drugs (a.k.a biogenerics, biosimilars) to innovative approved drugs, in the US, are generally not required to include preclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data to establish safety and effectiveness when submitted to the FDA. Hence, the term ‘abbreviated’ pathway. The approval instead relies on data that can prove that the drug is bioequivalent, e.g. by demonstrating that the rate of absorption and the amount delivered of the active ingredients are the same as the innovator drug.

Abbreviated Pathway as Technology Platform
Conclusions suggesting an earlier introduction of competing drugs could certainly be debated when the study is sponsored by the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world (as also indicated in Patent Baristas). Generating productivity and market efficiency through competition is hardly a revolutionizing thought though, albeit an important one. However, I wonder how the concept of an ‘abbreviated pathway’ could be used as a platform for accelerating the innovative drug development process instead of ensuring that market competition is maximized.
An ‘abbreviated pathway’ for generic approval versus a new innovative drug would obviously be different than an accelerated pathway for developing completely new drugs. For instance, there exists reliable reference data for the former but no standardized reference points at all for the latter. This means that the standardization would have to be located in another layer, where in my perspective the actual methodologies and tools used would be a more relevant focus of interest, e.g. by commercializing biomarkers in different ways.

A very interesting approach is taken by the Innovative Medicine Initiative, which focuses on speeding up the principle causes of delays and bottlenecks such as; predicting safety, predicting efficacy, bridging gaps in knowledge management and bridging gaps in education and training. This not only opens up opportunities for big pharma (which optimally would increase the drug/invested R&D ratio), but also provides new markets and business models for biotech actors, small as well as larger ones, based on tools, data, and knowledge management. More exploration of this to come.

Tobias Thornblad

McCartney and Guns N' Roses songs for free

More and more artists are starting to understand the power of free and that you can with much more on spreading your music than trying to stop the crowd from listening.

The latest in this is Paul McCartney and Guns N' Roses which will launch music on MySpace for exclusive previews. It is for Guns N' Roses the album Chinese Democracy which they will release in the US on November 23 and for the ex-Beatle an album from one of his side projects.

The fact that McCartney is in on this, raises the hopes that the whole catalog of Beatles music will be available digitally in a not too distant future.

But, in line with the development in general when it comes to content on internet, it is access which is important. Not to actually own the music. Keeping the use of the content on a access level will also ease up the rights issues since there will not be any rights handed over to the end licensee. Only a limited time access right which do not imply any more use.

So, we will probably see more of access. Either as free in some aspect or as a paid for service. But access is here to stay.

Ip in search

The issue might seem easy but the following video from UC Berkeley show interesting issues which can arise when regulations of the past meet new ways of expressing information.

I know, the video is starting to feel a bit old. I find myself thinking that “is that really a problem still”. Because, some of the issues brought up by Jason Schultz in his lecture are settled or best practices has developed over the three years since it was recorded.

The most recent one is the one on Google books project. The Association of American Publishers and Google have settled on how to compensate the alleged copyright infringement of the authors of which books are provided mostly in snippets through the search engine.

The lecture also discusses the difference in trademark infringement between buying a search term on Google and using a trademark in the ad text itself. This is an issue which now has ended up in a quite easy to understand policy. But the problems brought up in the video show the difficulty in applying an old economy thinking on to the new world of information. We see lots of confusion and protective measures, instead of embracing the future which is already here and start to use it.

I will continue to look in to the issue of IP and search engines with the next stop at Google books. Stay tuned.

Johan Örneblad

Credit Crunch IP

I have a hard time to trying to hide my obsession regarding the financial situation and the worldwide economic downturn. Here are some IP-related thoughts I have absorbed during the last months from various sources.

Venture Capital
Many start ups get funded on the promise and vision of turning their intellectual assets into valuable intellectual property to enable value extraction or be acquired by bigger fish. The current economic climate seems to restrict the flow of new capital to the VC funds. Moreover the model of VC funding is, according to some, about to change. This will probably change the innovation ecosystem and have an effect on IP generating possibilities for start-ups relying on venture capital. According to Bob Kagle and VentureBeat, about half of all VCs going out of business.

IP (patent) liquidation
The strategic focus of the usage of IP will be to generate money to support the operations. The companies have to turn their intellectual capital management to become a profit center instead of a cost center. This includes increased IP transactions and more focus on alternative costs since money in the bank is more attractive then IP assets with no clear purpose except a potential FTO function. To tie on to Marcus' blog post some while ago, perhaps a increased number of transactions can be a driver for a common market place for IP to reduce transaction costs.

Technology transactions
Is this the time where open source and open platforms gets the formal recognition in the corporate world? I am not completely sure that open source solutions, when speaking of software, is less expensive. However, the cost is distributed in another way to reduce upfront costs.

Moreover, open collaborations or outsourcing could be measures to lower costs in development activities or in day-to-day operations. To what extent this will actually happen is yet to see. To manage relationship and results in open platforms are demanding. My view is that not many firms have developed capabilities in relation to this, but I am too inexperienced and lack some insight to do a proper prediction regarding the adoption level dependent on corporate capabilities.

Strategic research
Less capital and commitment to strategic research. Cost cutting means lay-offs. Lay off could implicate loss of knowledge and research momentum . The impact of this will be hard to predict. Some claims that the societal value of having companies doing strategic research will decline vastly during the downturn period. The


That's all for now. Given the media buzz regarding the economic downturn and the effect on our lifestyle and future this topic will be revised in the future.

Mathias Hellman