Idea Lawyer Blog

In his 1986 comedy flick, Back To School, Rodney Dangerfield plays a tough, up-from-the streets entrepreneur who winds up in the classroom of a snooty, hopelessly academic business professor. The professor blathers on about the theoretical costs of a business start-up until Rodney interrupts to tell him he’s forgotten a few things—like paying off the building inspectors and kick backs to corrupt union officials.

Humor thus makes a sharp point about the difference between academic theory and the realities of business life. For idea people thinking about turning ideas into profitable realities, it can indeed be challenging to get the right blend of practical and academic training.

If your goal is to start a traditional sort of business—a bakery or a bookstore—many trade associations run courses that cover the practical in a classroom-like setting. Later this month, for example, the American Bookseller Association will be holding a multi-day training session for aspiring bookstore owners at its annual BookExpo America in Los Angeles. (Los Angeles Convention Center, May 29th – June 1st).

Quality practical training is available from generally from trade associations. But what if your "Great Idea" is for a less traditional business—the kind of business where you’re inventing most of it as you go along?

A recent New York Times article Classroom as Incubator profiled a creative approach. Business schools blend the academic and the practical by sending their students out to work with entrepreneurs early in their (meaning both the students,' and the entrepreneurs’) careers—and the results look promising.
One example: three years ago a New Jersey chef with a great sauce recipe soon found himself with 35 students from a local college working on everything from marketing to R & D. Today, his company's thriving, with its sauces sold in some 400 stores. Not bad for an "academic" approach. . The students get “real world” training—and the entrepreneurs get the help of a lot of bright young students who are willing to tackle all the problems.

If you’re turning your idea into a business, hooking up with one of these new-style business school programs might be a way to obtain smart, energetic contributors without breaking your budget.

The Nose Knows!
Patented Scent!?

A light hearted article in the Boston Globe about Shame virally spread on the Internet as a creative punishment for intellectual property theft. Sadly, even though the article is aimed at new attorneys and law students, it could be a bit more definite about US history. It is a nice bit of US law to note the US Consitution was the first to provide any protection - limited monopolies- for intellectual property. I suppose a link or two would make me happy, instead of a sort of glib skimming around of celebrity IP problems, like Madonna leaving Warner.
Thanks to some Bookgroup Another Saturday afternoon on the Internet (with Access to some terrific libraries) in 2004, here is a nice arrangement of the correspondance between Jefferson and Madison. Madison penned the Constitution while Jefferson was in France.
Jefferson to Madison dated July 31, 1788 (before the Constitution was fully Ratified and during the drafting of the Bill of Rights)
"I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine states. It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from North to South, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modification of these suited to the habits of all the states. But if such cannot be found then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."

Madison's response to Jefferson dated October 17, 1788 :

"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our governments than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, Monticello, August 13, 1813: even land requires governmental monopoly protection to secure to the land owner.

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."

As my blog cred grows, I get more requests to publicize and endorse...so far no perks, other than "moral happiness" (see my Feb 2008 book review column on Stumbling on Happiness)
In any event, thanks to John Tsai of UC Berkeley who asked so very nicely that I publicize the following:

IP & Entrepreneurship Symposium

March 7 & 8, 2008 ~ UC Berkeley Law School

Co-sponsored by the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology (BCLT) and the Berkeley Technology Law Journal (BTLJ).

BCLT's 12th Annual Symposium will explore the role of intellectual property -- and patent law in particular -- in promoting entrepreneurship and in providing incentives to entrepreneurs, bringing together speakers from a broad range of disciplines, including economics, law, business, and other fields. The panelists include distinguished professors, attorneys, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists who have been actively involved in the information technology, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and green technology sectors.

At the Symposium, BCLT will introduce its project on intellectual property and entrepreneurship, launched this year with the generous support of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. We will discuss the current state of knowledge about the field of intellectual property and entrepreneurship, as well as our plans for empirical and theoretical research.

To that end, we will explore such questions as whether, when, and why entrepreneurs obtain patents, focusing on the role that patent rights play in decisions to invest in start-ups and how investors and entrepreneurs assess the scope and value of their own and other firms’ patent rights in the course of deciding which business opportunities to pursue. Furthermore, we will explore the challenges that entrepreneurs face when licensing or enforcing patents, looking at issues such as the effects of “patent trolls” on entrepreneurs and how patent thickets, standards, and the need to cross-license may present strong barriers to entry for entrepreneurs.

We plan to discuss the role patents play in an increasingly open and collaborative innovation environment, exploring the effects of patent rights on issues such as open source software, open standards, interoperability and employee mobility. Lastly, we will explore the timely question of whether entrepreneurs should care about patent reform initiatives.

Registration discounts are available for BCLT Sponsors and Entrepreneurs. Details are here:
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/bclt/entrepreneurship/registration.html

You can also contact David Grady at or call 510-642-3702.

10.5 units of MCLE credit will be available for attendees of the symposium.

Symposium Website:
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/bclt/entrepreneurship/

Register Now:
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/bclt/entrepreneurship/registration.html

About BCLT:
http://bclt.berkeley.edu

About BTLJ:
http://www.btlj.org/

http://www.booksinmyphone.com/

Today's New York Times has an article on stem cells, and an interesting issue concerning whether or not state research facilities will be liable for patent infringement on work that is close to cosmetic application (read: cash generating applications!). So look for a posting on this here soon.
Also coming soon: a parent of teenage son weighs in on Facebook, its use by teens, and observes how parents need to teach their daughters and sons about Internet safety.

Here is my slideset from Jan 20, 2007 presentation
Executive Primer on Software Patents

See the NYT coverage of the Supreme Court justices discussing the nature of the inventive act. You can read for yourself the age old discussion of "how much creativity is enough" to qualify for the limited 20 year monopoly- a "patent right." Should the standard of what qualifies as an invention be changed? A reader wrote to me about the article, and pointed out at least one legal voice predicting business chaos from any change in the current test for what is "obvious" versus what is "invention", where "business" means "patent holders" and presumably "big business". Now Dear Readers: Should this discussion - or decision- affect those entrepreneurs or venture funded companies as they pursue the time-honored tradition of bolstering their chances of economic viability by applying for intellectual property rights? Absolutely not. Neglecting to allocate some resources for identifing company-created patent prospects is tantmount to instructing your CPA to stop seeking tax advantages because its not clear what the IRS may do. Stay bold! Keep creating; keep applying for proprietary rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/business/29bizcourt.html?ex=1165899600&en=8a9d5bd559b34ac8&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Obviously, there's much to be learned from Peter Norton's approach. But we were particularly drawn to three more general ideas:

Continue reading "Peter Norton Part VIII: The Take Home Points" »

Here's an important point: Even before he was self-employed, Peter allowed himself plenty of time to savor his own achievements. He'd reread his own work for the pure pleasure of it: whenever he came upon a particularly elegant bit, he felt a sensation akin to "taking the creamy top frosting off the cake."

Continue reading "Peter Norton Part IV: "Enjoyment" Paves a Path to Success" »

His first summer after college, Peter Norton took a job with a firm that prepared statistical data for insurance companies. In those years the work was done on adding machines--until one day his supervisor took him to a room filled with whirring electronic gear, pointed to it, and said: "Kid, we bought a computer and we don't know how to use it. There's the manual; see if you can figure it out."

Continue reading "Peter Norton Part III: Summer of Elegance" »

Peter Norton describes his growing up in Seattle in the 1950s and early 1960s as an "Ozzie and Harriet" existence, white picket fence and all. Yet he felt himself a classic outsider, who kept to himself and, without ever really breaking out, never really fit in.

Continue reading "Peter Norton Part II: What is Math?" »

An inauspicious beginning....

Trek bike's Burke
tells INC magazine the story of how he parlayed mediocre grades, the 1973 oil embargo, and a bike frame operation in a red barn (with $25,000 to invest in manufacturing) into the largest US bicycle manufacture.
Today, most folks know of Lance Armstrong, and the Trek name.

We first backed a team in the Tour de France in 1998. In 1998 if you asked 10 people on the street they wouldn't have heard of the Tour. If you wanted to watch it you couldn't find coverage.

No one had any idea in 1999 that Lance or the team would do so well.

We commend our readers to the article, and invite you to send us pointers to other business success stories.

Voluntary - and fun!- ubiquitous monitoring: new uses for that cell phone.

Last night I attended Connected Healthcare: The $34 Billion Dollar Market, an event sponsored by SmartSilvers Alliance (Leveraging technology to foster active aging TM") The evening ended too soon: speaker and panelists could easily have presented much more on this compelling topic to the packed room.

The intro by moderator Richard Adler effectively framed the evening, harkening back to the 3 pound, $3999.00 "first mobile phone" created in 1983 by Martin Cooper, and citing present day penetration of cell phones in Italy at 108% (see my earlier blog entry on cell phones as a fashion accessory).
The sharpest dividing line between the generations is the proclivity to use one's mobile phone to receive or send "text messages."
Who besides me is wondering why in heavens name the advances in voice recognition are being ignored in favor of keyboards for those with tiny fingers and stacatto prose??

Continue reading "Boomers:Healthcare Technology " »

Chocolate chocolate chocolate
(imagine these immortal words intoned by Cary Grant rather than the ho hum Grant inflected "judy, Judy Judy).....

I love chocolate ----- what sort of patents apply to chocolate?
stay tuned as we bring several blogs on food and technology this month.
meanwhile see
http://www.cocoavia.com

Senate Hearings on High Performance Computing
NEVILLE's NOTE: Read section in S2802 (link in Irving's post) on National Math and Science Day in Schools- there's a merchandizing oppotunity here -!

Last month, the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held hearings on high-performance computing.

See the July posting and the comments of Irving Wladawsky-Berger
http://irvingwb.typepad.com
intro:
"I had the honor to be one of the witnesses that testified before the Subcommittee and its chairman Senator John Ensign. I submitted my written testimony in advance, which I then summarized during the actual hearings and answered questions along with the other panelists.

I said that supercomputing was essential for innovation in the worlds of science and commerce, most of all because of its applications, including defense, energy, health care, science and engineering. It is thus very important that the Federal Government support basic research in supercomputing, especially pilots to develop working systems in applications that are key to national security, competitiveness and innovation.

Continue reading "Super Computers - Senate testimony: High Performance Computing" »

The US Supreme Court's denial of review the LabCorp v Metabolite dispute leaves so-called "business method" patents a gray area.
At issue was whether a method for testing vitamin deficiencies was patentable.
Quoting Schossler, in part:
Both the District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with Metabolite that its patent was infringed every time a doctor made the association between an elevated homocysteine level and vitamin deficiency.

LabCorp filed for a writ of certiorari in November 2004, seeking to overturn the infringement ruling. The company maintained that the patent claim is invalid on the grounds that it seeks to claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship.

In an era of one click two click "methods" , diagnostics as a "method" subject to monopoly raises concerns deeper than those cudgeling it out in the arena of e commerce.

As a FAQ on "What is patentable?" the interpretation .."of the statute by the courts define the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patentable."

Practitioners and business folk ought to consider what this confusion in the US augurs in term of global licensing and enforcement.....
To be continued.....