Nepean Mix

CRTC has basically handed Canada over to Bell on a...

2011-06-24T22:41:17.242-04:00

CRTC has basically handed Canada over to Bell on a silver platter. So much for just getting Netflix and downloading 10+ GB games!

My original article reference was a jumping off po...

2010-03-12T17:03:18.165-05:00

My original article reference was a jumping off point to talk about the (non-)value of an NDA, not about the relations between large and small entities. Besides, Archos isn't all that large.

Regarding your major point, I think I have bad news for you. Ideas, even patented ideas, have little native value. It's businesses that have value. If you show an idea to a company or VC, with the objective getting them to take on or fund a product and business built up from that idea, they will almost always tell you to get lost (but they do it politely). The message here is that you cannot expect that anyone else will prove the value of an idea if you have not already done so. Life is hard that way.

It isn't just patents. Many times I've tried to form partnerships where the business I was representing had only limited commercial success, sometimes none at all by the time of the discussion. Little gets accomplished, except to build personal relationships. Until you can show an interesting revenue stream or customer portfolio, few will invest their own time or resources to get involved. That is, prove the business worth of what you have *first*, and then we can talk turkey.

This is tough for a lone inventor (I've been there myself). But you asked what you can do, and all I can suggest is the following. Build a business, or at least a committed team of a few people. Come up with a business and product plan and talk to prospective customers and investors to gauge interest. Don't stop and wait! Keep making progress. Build a rudimentary prototype and try it out on people, even if it's just a mock-up. PROVE that you have something of value that is worth the other party's time and money.

There is really no escape from this unless you catch an unnaturally lucky break. You can't count on being lucky, so do something to build up the value that others see in what you have. Businesses have value, products have value, but ideas generally do not. Even if you go the NPE route and litigate, your lawyer "friends" will demand 90% or more of the take (not the 50% you quoted), because the value is primarily in *their* work, not *yours*.

Interesting because I felt we were largely talking...

2010-03-12T12:33:46.430-05:00

Interesting because I felt we were largely talking about the same thing. The link provided in your original post described a small company that attempted a business relationship with a large company (Archos) - hence my pointing out that a smaller company getting an NDA signed seems to be rare nowadays.

As well, from your statement:

"Far better that the inventor build their business (based on the innovation) first before entering any partnership negotiation. That evens the risk."

my belief is that this may not be as easy as it sounds. In today's technological world there are typically many components and technologies involved in bringing a new product to market - and as such, costly to bring a product to market (e.g. size of the team, assembling, distribution channels, etc..). So the small or independent person either needs to find investors, become an NPE, or try to sell or license the technology. The licensing avenue is typically the most interesting to an innovative technologically inclined independent. For one, they don't need to rely on much outside of technological expertise, and secondly it allows them to move on to the next innovation/project. However, back to square one again in dealing with the bigger companies in getting a licensing deal struck.

So, the interesting aspect of this entire thread is how does a small independent best go about making a living from innovating? What should the small company in your link have done instead? What in your experience worked from the small or independent innovator perspective?

If all you have is a patent, I can perfectly belie...

2010-03-10T19:35:37.789-05:00

If all you have is a patent, I can perfectly believe the other party will not sign an NDA since doing so could imperil their business if a deal isn't done. My subject in the post was business to business negotiations, and therefore where one party has innovative technology, it is merely an enabler in a market-proven product or service; I am not talking to the case for small inventors.

Also, please be careful about your assumptions about me. You are not only wrong about my business experience, I am perfectly familiar with the USPTO process. And the legal process for litigation, for that matter.

I don't know that more need be said on this subject since we seem to be talking apples and oranges.

Regardless, in a negotiation where the balance of power is totally on one side and the other side has innovative tech, the holder of the tech would be foolish to disclose anything, except as an act of desperation. Far better that the inventor build their business (based on the innovation) first before entering any partnership negotiation. That evens the risk.

Likely your perspective is that from a large compa...

2010-03-10T14:09:37.648-05:00

Likely your perspective is that from a large company because for a while now most large companies do NOT sign NDA's from individual inventors or small entities. Certainly their public policies on their websites show this.

Given this fact, smaller or individual entities either disclose the information with NO protection or file for a patent. In fact, many of the large companies also will not accept disclosure unless a patent has been issued - so pending applications do not even count.

Lately, the USPTO is not issuing a first office action (e.g. cracking open patent applications) for at least 4 or 5 years (for many software fields), so small entities face further dilemma.

So your discussion of NDA's seems to assume that getting an NDA signed is simple while from my experience it's quite the opposite. IMO, patents are the better route. At least from a small entity perspective, large corporations likely face other factors.

I agree that trickling out the information is useful, but they can put a nice smile on their face and suggest they are going with you and purchase pilot components/projects - but you'll never know until it's too late. When there's money involved you'd be surprised at the amount of stealing that goes on.

Regarding litigation being costly - when a small entity faces their wares having being stolen and that bringing an infringement suit to court will cost a minimum of several $million - let me tell you the ~50% take by the lawyers seems almost a bargain.

"When I walk into that large company, they've got marketing, they've got distribution. If I show them what I've got, the only thing I have on my side of the table is that patent." - Dean Kamen

-SA

Strong counter-argument: http://www.techdirt.com/...

2010-03-10T10:06:39.063-05:00

Strong counter-argument:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1649198451.shtml

Have you ever participated in these sorts of busin...

2010-03-09T22:57:46.883-05:00

Have you ever participated in these sorts of business negotiations? I have done so many times, and there is an art to the disclosure game. And not all intellectual property is patentable; trade secrets covered a lot of ground. Some very reputable companies have tried to walk off with IP I've controlled, and a few times I've tried to wheedle it out of others. It's pretty routine in the tech sector.

Some companies are extremely ethical, others are the opposite, but most are somewhere in between. When business compels you to disclose, you do it carefully and in stages, starting with that which is least valuable. Trust is built in stages; it isn't a binary decision and it isn't done without some due diligence.

Litigation is not as easy or as cost-effective as you claim. Apart from the lawyers' fees, the time and resource allocation to this non-productive activity will harm your business, and in most cases it is very difficult to win the suit. I've watched this happen many times.

I'll say it one last time: do everything you can to avoid the necessity of litigation. It's the wrong solution to almost every problem.

You might also be interested in: Why Ad Blocking ...

2010-03-09T17:19:47.147-05:00

You might also be interested in:
Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

-SA

"If you can't trust someone, don't sh...

2010-03-09T12:15:50.859-05:00

"If you can't trust someone, don't share! "

1) Not sure then how any business ever gets done except possibly between brothers.

2) Infringing a patent is usually more dangerous than an NDA since the claims are laid out for all to see and argue over. Larger corporations take patents very seriously and examine them and their owners closely before making the risk decision whether to move forward.

3) There are contingency law firms, happy to take your 50% to go after the big guys for you. So while the smaller entity does not stand to gain 100%, it's still pretty high.

Just sayin, I'd rather have a patent AND an signed DA/NDA than just an NDA.

"If you can't trust someone, don't sh...

2010-03-09T12:15:50.858-05:00

Sure if you look short term, but long term not so ...

2010-03-09T12:06:03.364-05:00

Sure if you look short term, but long term not so much. Roughly 10 years ago gold traded under $300/oz which given the exchange rate was a litle over $400 Cdn/oz. Selling stocks in 2000 and switching to gold was both a very effective move and predictable. Those who simply held stocks lost, while those who bought gold are now much further ahead. Those who did both, ...well not hard to figure what happened :-)

Overall, the U.S. was/is in a dire situation, while the $dollar could continue dominance and even rise, the probabilities weighed in favour of it's diminishment. If the economy were to tank, interest rates could not be lowered much (from ~2%), employment could not be improved much (<4.5%), and so the dollar would likely be sacrificed along with allowing inflation to happen.

As the U.S. continues to let it's dollar decline in order to facilitate improved exports and implicitly decreasing imports - but other countries will now fall and will face similar decisions. In the end, most will not (or cannot) lower interest rates nor improve employment, and so will sacrifice their own currencies & inflation by printing more. The recursive cycle will continue. I will leave you to consider where commodities such as gold are heading in the long term as more dollars/pesos/euros/yens/yuans are continually printed over the next 10-20 years.

-SA

RIM may not be "competing for infrastructure ...

2010-03-09T12:04:36.780-05:00

RIM may not be "competing for infrastructure business" but they are competing for smartphone market share & revenues. Blocking competitors seems like a viable business strategy.

-SA

With respect to those patents I suspect that RIM i...

2010-03-08T23:31:02.914-05:00

With respect to those patents I suspect that RIM is effectively an NPE since they don't manufacture infrastructure equipment. They are in the business of consumer devices and services. The patents might generate new revenue but they are not competing for infrastructure business.

Canadians wouldn't benefit much from RIM acquiring the portfolio since, as a litigating NPE, the revenue would generate no jobs, except for some US-based lawyers.

You want to avoid litigation of any sort. Doing it...

2010-03-08T23:19:13.716-05:00

You want to avoid litigation of any sort. Doing it over patents rather than violated terms of disclosure is not an improvement. If you can't trust someone, don't share! The party that dares you to litigate knows just how expensive and lengthy it can be. And in the interim, even if granted an injunction, the damage to your business is already done.

By "smoke", I mean that lots of talk is ...

2010-03-08T16:35:33.941-05:00

By "smoke", I mean that lots of talk is no substitute for action! I need to see action before re-evaluating my view. And there sure is a lot of talk.

First, in our free-market economy, any business is free use any pricing and marketing tactics to maximize profit, provided they stay within the law, or they believe they can avoid legal scrutiny. IOW, greed is good.

The cures to this greed are competition or laws & regulation. In the present climate, don't expect new laws or regulation or greater enforcement. Therefore we only have competition to control prices (or you can quit your contract). Competition is capital intensive, so incumbents have the advantage. By revisiting the ownership rules, government may lower the cost of capital, which *may* help new entrants.

Whatever the capital costs for mobile in Canada, it is the same for incumbents and new entrants; it isn't really more expensive since our population is very concentrated, and new entrants are not compelled to deploy everywhere.

That high capital expenditure makes price competition difficult for new entrants. If they do offer low prices, they severely weaken their balance sheets, making them either insolvent or ripe for acquisition by incumbent (this very thing happened last time).

So, unfortunately, there is no certainty of lower prices in Canada in the foreseeable future. There will be competition, but if the prices get too low, don't expect it to last. Sorry, but sometimes life just stinks.

Please don't sell yourself short with "I ...

2010-03-08T15:30:12.221-05:00

Please don't sell yourself short with "I find that most of the headline-making news is mostly smoke with little fire". While you may see through the smoke, some of us do not have the level of experience in this area that is evident that you do! Myself, I would love to hear about the smoke, because the constant jarring I see in the news seems to be fire.

Regarding the Canadian cellphone market - perhaps you can shed some light. Everyone knows we pay much higher rates than our american counterparts - but it seems to me that one reason for this is the higher costs of a much lower population work against the higher land mass. Now, sure we do not have cell coverage over much of that landmass, but is this not one factor into our higher costs?
If true, then how will more competition really help since they will have to essentially duplicate resource expenditures (e.g. cell towers & infrastructures)?

-SA

I notice no mention of patents. A formidable seco...

2010-03-08T15:05:49.500-05:00

I notice no mention of patents. A formidable second layer of defence is to file a patent before speaking with the company and getting an NDA in place. Indeed, in your example, ArchOS may have made their decision based on the fact that the smaller company did not mention any patents.

-SA

I had similar thoughts on the possible RIM's c...

2010-03-08T13:19:59.178-05:00

I had similar thoughts on the possible RIM's competitive move. Why not make competitors products or carriers more expensive - thereby further driving them towards you. Seems they might gain more value then others?

From a selfish Canadian perspective, we would stand to benefit as well from such as move. However, I doubt the govt would see this or be able to move on it.

-SA

I had similar thoughts on the possible RIM's c...

2010-03-08T13:19:59.177-05:00

Thanks beenaround... I was not entirely up to spee...

2009-12-23T18:47:58.204-05:00

Thanks beenaround... I was not entirely up to speed on what the various carriers were doing on radio tech deployment.

Despite this I think my rough analysis can stand as is since it's been reported that Wind has a roaming agreement with Rogers, but not with Bell or Telus.

Just for the record and to facts straight: Rogers...

2009-12-23T15:30:14.522-05:00

Just for the record and to facts straight:

Rogers old network is GSM. There new network rolled out for the last 3-4 years is WCDMA. Bell and Telus recently overlayed their old CDMA2000 networks with WCDMA.

This means new entrants such as DAVE and WIND that use WCDMA can with roaming agreements access the big 3. Public Mobile will be different.

Roaming is all about compatible technologies, frequency bands and agreements.

Ha! I'm glad someone else noticed this. Also...

2009-10-03T11:14:46.416-04:00

Ha! I'm glad someone else noticed this. Also, Country Harvest moved the gram weight from the front of the 'new style' packaging to the back- i wonder why?. No Frills decided to hike the price to $3.19 from $2.99 *at the same time* for a week before bringing it back down to $2.99. I now buy Dempsters 12 grain bagels. It's been a slice, Country Harvest- see ya!

http://www.countryharvest.com/en/contact-us.html .

EPOE: The point is that AT&T has no choice. Th...

2009-09-30T22:04:59.599-04:00

EPOE: The point is that AT&T has no choice. The FCC enforces non-discrimination on common carriers, so AT&T cannot block calls. When AT&T tried this, they got slapped, hard.

Google, for the present, is not a common carrier. If the FCC (following up on the complaint from AT&T) decides that Google Voice is a telecom service, they will force Google to get licensed as a common carrier and require them to not block calls.

It's the law (and politics!), no matter whether Google or AT&T thinks it's fair or not.

Google accepts calls and either bridges another ca...

2009-09-30T18:46:52.609-04:00

Google accepts calls and either bridges another call and connects the two calls.

Google gives out phone numbers for their service.

But whatever their reason is for reserving the right to block calls ATT should use that same reason to block calls to Google

I think ATT should only be required to connect to other carriers or parties that play by the same rules

Excellent Post. It's not MPAC thats the problem bu...

2008-11-29T16:38:00.000-05:00

Excellent Post. It's not MPAC thats the problem but Council spending. The try to defelct the blame onto MPAC and yet, your Assessment could be $10, $100, $100000....they council will still get their money!
Council has a spending problem!