This year has been excellent. So far I have closed patent deals in the US, the UK and in Finland. But it is not only the deals, but it's the way the deals have been done. There has been much more win-win discussions than before. More business discussions replacing legal threat. I also started cooperation discussions with one license taker.
Licensing today is just a part of business, nothing so special any more. And this way it's more fun=)
2011-03-12
2010-09-24
Patent valuations in M&A - theses done
Congratulations Antti for a great job!!
Antti Saari has finalized his theses: The Price of Patents, Liquidity, and information: Evidence from Acquisitions of Unlisted European High-Tech Targets.
I posted the theses on my linkedin - profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/anttikosunen
Antti Saari has finalized his theses: The Price of Patents, Liquidity, and information: Evidence from Acquisitions of Unlisted European High-Tech Targets.
I posted the theses on my linkedin - profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/anttikosunen
2010-05-17
Patent valuations in M&A
IPEG Consultancy BV seem to have a professional touch in IPR. Most of them have quite strong background working for Philips and IPR. They also seem to have an active network of IPR professionals outside their own organization.
I met them recently and I am praise them because they seem to be very professional, but also help Antti Saari in his theses.
Take a look IPEG Consulting
But more than that, please answer to patent valuations in M&A questionnaire if you have not yet done it: Patent valuations in M&A
I met them recently and I am praise them because they seem to be very professional, but also help Antti Saari in his theses.
Take a look IPEG Consulting
But more than that, please answer to patent valuations in M&A questionnaire if you have not yet done it: Patent valuations in M&A
2010-05-13
We need more answers!
Antti Saari a student at Aalto university in Helsinki, Finland, is doing his MSc. theses on patent valuations in M&A context. We are sponsoring him on his theses, because it is such an interesting topic.
We now have about 30 answers, but we need clearly more. Please if you have been involved with IPR intensive M&A transactions, please spare 5 minutes and answer the questions at
http://bit.ly/patentvaluation
My believe is that only true value is the price of a closed deal and to estimate that in advance is always challenging. Real value of a patent can of course be estimated only with a specific target in mind... at certain time/situation. To estimate a patent value for the purpose of accounting is either a joke or a very expensive and time consuming project. Usually the first one. Patents are worth something to a operating company in M&A and usually something very different to a patent licensing company or to a company trying to exclude others, just to name a few examples. Understanding the fact that the patents are worth something only in context, we are trying to learn more about patent valuations by sponsoring a student studying patent valuations in M&A context.
We now have about 30 answers, but we need clearly more. Please if you have been involved with IPR intensive M&A transactions, please spare 5 minutes and answer the questions at
http://bit.ly/patentvaluation
My believe is that only true value is the price of a closed deal and to estimate that in advance is always challenging. Real value of a patent can of course be estimated only with a specific target in mind... at certain time/situation. To estimate a patent value for the purpose of accounting is either a joke or a very expensive and time consuming project. Usually the first one. Patents are worth something to a operating company in M&A and usually something very different to a patent licensing company or to a company trying to exclude others, just to name a few examples. Understanding the fact that the patents are worth something only in context, we are trying to learn more about patent valuations by sponsoring a student studying patent valuations in M&A context.
2010-05-10
Patent valuations in M&A - questionnaire
We are sponsoring a MSc. student with his theses related to PATENT VALUATIONS IN M&A. I posted this on linkedin earlier and we have received over 100 comments, thank you very much for them.
IP professionals should be used much more when companies are acquired, sold or merged, but often IP professionals are not being involved enough. Please participate or utilize your network and recommend your contacts - VC/corporate investors - to participate.
The questionnaire is online at: http://bit.ly/patentvaluation
The questionnaire will be online for one month and results will first be delivered to parties being involved with the questionnaire and sometime later published.
Your help is truly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Antti
IP professionals should be used much more when companies are acquired, sold or merged, but often IP professionals are not being involved enough. Please participate or utilize your network and recommend your contacts - VC/corporate investors - to participate.
The questionnaire is online at: http://bit.ly/patentvaluation
The questionnaire will be online for one month and results will first be delivered to parties being involved with the questionnaire and sometime later published.
Your help is truly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Antti
2010-04-25
You can't see it, it does not exist
How civilized is Finland?
I was asked by a reporter a few days if Nokia or Apple is more like a troll? And then I started thinking how civilized we are?
We discuss moral justification of the patent litigation, but not the moral justification of litigation of stolen physical items. If somebody steals a bike or a car, he is a criminal. It is not long time ago, when very large number of people accepted unpaid use of software. Nowadays most of us understand, that it also is unethical. But how about patents? And if you sue somebody for stealing a car nobody claims your act unethical. We can see the physical car and understand the fact that someone has the exclusive right (“he has the key”) to use it.
I was selling management consulting/training to one of the biggest Finnish companies 20-years ago. They were expanding in Russia and I suggested them to train the Russians how to run their business. The answer was “We first need to teach them what is business and who owns what”. In his opinion the Russians at the time were not educated, not civilized.
Not educted, not civilized?
Now we do more business with something we can’t see… so it does not exist?
Today Finland, as well as many other western countries are like Russia just after the collapse of Soviet Union. Before we can understand how to do business utilizing patents, we first have to understand what is a patent / intellectual property.
The truthfulness or intelligence of patent conversation is very often almost non existing; “ad hominem” – argumentation, used against companies trying to license their patents is in most cases the only argument against patent enforcement or licensing. They are called “patent trolls”. The sad part of the story is, that because we are not civilized, we accept the ad hominem argumentation and forget the substance.
The patent system needs to be changed to better serve the society. First step to make it better, is to start to argument truthfully.
I was asked by a reporter a few days if Nokia or Apple is more like a troll? And then I started thinking how civilized we are?
We discuss moral justification of the patent litigation, but not the moral justification of litigation of stolen physical items. If somebody steals a bike or a car, he is a criminal. It is not long time ago, when very large number of people accepted unpaid use of software. Nowadays most of us understand, that it also is unethical. But how about patents? And if you sue somebody for stealing a car nobody claims your act unethical. We can see the physical car and understand the fact that someone has the exclusive right (“he has the key”) to use it.
I was selling management consulting/training to one of the biggest Finnish companies 20-years ago. They were expanding in Russia and I suggested them to train the Russians how to run their business. The answer was “We first need to teach them what is business and who owns what”. In his opinion the Russians at the time were not educated, not civilized.
Not educted, not civilized?
Now we do more business with something we can’t see… so it does not exist?
Today Finland, as well as many other western countries are like Russia just after the collapse of Soviet Union. Before we can understand how to do business utilizing patents, we first have to understand what is a patent / intellectual property.
The truthfulness or intelligence of patent conversation is very often almost non existing; “ad hominem” – argumentation, used against companies trying to license their patents is in most cases the only argument against patent enforcement or licensing. They are called “patent trolls”. The sad part of the story is, that because we are not civilized, we accept the ad hominem argumentation and forget the substance.
The patent system needs to be changed to better serve the society. First step to make it better, is to start to argument truthfully.
2010-04-05
Patent worth 1.64 billion US
New record was done last year. (at least the highest number I have heard)
Johnson & Johnson $1.64 billion ... for a patent award verdict. I guess patents are worth money after all=). Last year Microsoft lost a patent case and had to pay $290 million to i41. SAP also lost a case against a pair of patents of Versata Software and ended up paying $138 million.
These are the biggest numbers I know from last year. I don't have the European numbers from 2009, but it seems that there has been a change in licensing activities in Europe.
Companies are paying more in Europe than before, but my impression has been that it is nowadays more difficult to get the above mentioned amounts in the US. And since the IP/business cultures are becoming more alike in the US and in Europe, maybe we'll see the same amounts also in Europe....
Johnson & Johnson $1.64 billion ... for a patent award verdict. I guess patents are worth money after all=). Last year Microsoft lost a patent case and had to pay $290 million to i41. SAP also lost a case against a pair of patents of Versata Software and ended up paying $138 million.
These are the biggest numbers I know from last year. I don't have the European numbers from 2009, but it seems that there has been a change in licensing activities in Europe.
Companies are paying more in Europe than before, but my impression has been that it is nowadays more difficult to get the above mentioned amounts in the US. And since the IP/business cultures are becoming more alike in the US and in Europe, maybe we'll see the same amounts also in Europe....
Patent Licensing - group
I just opened a new group at Linkedin. A dozen of patent brokers / licensing experts have signed in almost immediately. We now have 2 projects on the table + several of my own cases. My plan is to keep the group exclusive and it is for active patent monetizing professionals. It is a forum for agreeing licensing / sale co-operations between patent brokers, patent lawyers and other patent professionals.
We welcome buy/sell-side patent brokers, contingency fee lawyers, patent lawyers and other licensing and transaction professionals.
Patents can be offered for sale or for licensing, but this is not a marketplace for patent holders. The new group is a forum for intermediates only.
http://bit.ly/9SeaRg
We welcome buy/sell-side patent brokers, contingency fee lawyers, patent lawyers and other licensing and transaction professionals.
Patents can be offered for sale or for licensing, but this is not a marketplace for patent holders. The new group is a forum for intermediates only.
http://bit.ly/9SeaRg
2010-03-28
Decrease customers’ risks ... and survive
I recently had lunch with an executive of Fortune 500 company. He is in business of providing large technology companies services and technologies. He said that there is no room for medium size companies in his business. Large corporations don’t buy form them, because nowadays there are almost unlimited liabilities with technology projects. If a project goes south, say with 30 million, none of the Finnish SME’s could cover it.
Small ones may have very low costs and agile way to operate, but how can a Finnish medium size companies compete? I believe that we still have some very promising medium size companies like Basware, but also their niche will become mainstream and unless they grow fast, they will be one of the risky companies (still… on the Finnish landscape, one of the best).
Companies need to decrease the risk for their potential customers to get more deals done. Technology projects are risky for many reasons. Indemnifying clauses for patent infringement claims are not convincing, when the promise is done by a company making a profit of a few millions a year. … with an end result that the big ones get the deals and the medium size companies disappear.
My network has a very large number of patents available for securing growth. I am hoping that in the near future I can connect some Finnish companies with the large patent holders. Medium size companies need to secure their own growth as well as give reliable promise of security to their customers. Patents make the companies also much more lucrative to investors or companies thinking about M&A targets.
I am still optimistic, but there has to be more smart consolidation.
Small ones may have very low costs and agile way to operate, but how can a Finnish medium size companies compete? I believe that we still have some very promising medium size companies like Basware, but also their niche will become mainstream and unless they grow fast, they will be one of the risky companies (still… on the Finnish landscape, one of the best).
Companies need to decrease the risk for their potential customers to get more deals done. Technology projects are risky for many reasons. Indemnifying clauses for patent infringement claims are not convincing, when the promise is done by a company making a profit of a few millions a year. … with an end result that the big ones get the deals and the medium size companies disappear.
My network has a very large number of patents available for securing growth. I am hoping that in the near future I can connect some Finnish companies with the large patent holders. Medium size companies need to secure their own growth as well as give reliable promise of security to their customers. Patents make the companies also much more lucrative to investors or companies thinking about M&A targets.
I am still optimistic, but there has to be more smart consolidation.
2010-03-20
Patent value in M&A questionnaire ONLINE
Now the questionnaire is pretty good, but please comment to make it better for us to get. Antti Saari (HSE student) and myself appreciate highly any comments on this blog or preferably to the form. Anybody can edit it!
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASziU-aqe5x2ZHBoOWp4Nl81MmQ0bXFwNWQy&hl=en_GB&pli=1
This is really interesting. Patent valuation in M&A is often legal stuff, not business issue like it should be. The MSc thesis is touching an issue, which understanding can can strongly effect negotiations power dramatically.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASziU-aqe5x2ZHBoOWp4Nl81MmQ0bXFwNWQy&hl=en_GB&pli=1
This is really interesting. Patent valuation in M&A is often legal stuff, not business issue like it should be. The MSc thesis is touching an issue, which understanding can can strongly effect negotiations power dramatically.
2010-03-18
HTC aggressiiviseen puolustukseen Applea vastaan - Tietoviikko
HTC aggressiiviseen puolustukseen Applea vastaan
- Tietoviikko
Mielenkiintoinen tilanne. Peloitevaikutus on hyvin todellinen. Googlen puhelimet tekee HTC ja se hämärtää patenttisuojaa sovelluskehittäjien silmissä.
Sitäkin tutkimusta meidän firma voisi sponsoroida; eli paljonko markkinaosuudet muuttuvat Applen tyyppisellä peloittelulla.
Microsoft voittaa, koska he sanovat niin voimakkaasti osallistuvansa mahdollisiin oikeudenkäynteihin arvoketjun missä tahansa kohdassa, jos se liittyy Microsoftin tuotteisiin. Nokia ei sitä sano, mutta todennäköisesti osallistuisivat. HTC on vielä uudenmpi peluri sovelluskehittäjien näkökulmasta ja siten epävarmempi... siis vähemmän sovelluksia tietyille puhelimille=>niiden myynti laskee ja vaikka Apple ei saisi rahaa tämän shown järjestämisellä, niin se saattaa kannattaa markkinaosuustaistossa... paitsi jos HTC lyö takaisin riittävän kovaa. Patentteja on ostettavissa joilla sotia...
- Tietoviikko
Mielenkiintoinen tilanne. Peloitevaikutus on hyvin todellinen. Googlen puhelimet tekee HTC ja se hämärtää patenttisuojaa sovelluskehittäjien silmissä.
Sitäkin tutkimusta meidän firma voisi sponsoroida; eli paljonko markkinaosuudet muuttuvat Applen tyyppisellä peloittelulla.
Microsoft voittaa, koska he sanovat niin voimakkaasti osallistuvansa mahdollisiin oikeudenkäynteihin arvoketjun missä tahansa kohdassa, jos se liittyy Microsoftin tuotteisiin. Nokia ei sitä sano, mutta todennäköisesti osallistuisivat. HTC on vielä uudenmpi peluri sovelluskehittäjien näkökulmasta ja siten epävarmempi... siis vähemmän sovelluksia tietyille puhelimille=>niiden myynti laskee ja vaikka Apple ei saisi rahaa tämän shown järjestämisellä, niin se saattaa kannattaa markkinaosuustaistossa... paitsi jos HTC lyö takaisin riittävän kovaa. Patentteja on ostettavissa joilla sotia...
2010-03-17
Innovation capitalist and patent valuations
Now when we already have some companies acting as "innovation capitalists" like for example Intellectual Ventures, when will there be a system for making patents liquid instruments?
There has been many interesting tries on the issue, Ocean Tomo activities being one of the best ones. But still information asymmetries in patent valuations/transactions as well as imperfect information makes it very difficult, and of course the patent values being "right" only in their context. There is totally different value on patents in M&A situation or litigation threat or using them as differentiation tools.
I am assisting Antti Saari MSc student at HSE in researching patent valuations in M&A situations. Let's see what we learn.... I would now be interested in sponsoring a research on liquidity of patents as well as companies plans/ways of monetizing their patents.
...And almost off the topic, listen to the CEO of IV on the link. Their new innovations are exciting.
There has been many interesting tries on the issue, Ocean Tomo activities being one of the best ones. But still information asymmetries in patent valuations/transactions as well as imperfect information makes it very difficult, and of course the patent values being "right" only in their context. There is totally different value on patents in M&A situation or litigation threat or using them as differentiation tools.
I am assisting Antti Saari MSc student at HSE in researching patent valuations in M&A situations. Let's see what we learn.... I would now be interested in sponsoring a research on liquidity of patents as well as companies plans/ways of monetizing their patents.
...And almost off the topic, listen to the CEO of IV on the link. Their new innovations are exciting.
2010-03-02
M&A Patent valuations
I made a good decision when promising to help the student, because I’ll learn myself by reading comments on linkedin on the project and helping the student. The study is very interesting, because patent valuations are “real” only in context. Based on my experience the patent valuations in M&A context in most cases have been very… very far from science or any kind of understanding of meaning of patents in business. I have been involved with M&A deals motivating the other party in high share price because of the patent portfolio as well as I have been on the other side of the table negotiation the price down because of lack of freedom to operate, but such approach takes place very seldom unless there are experienced IP business professionals. Surprisingly often patents in M&A context are seen as legal issue item at DD, not an asset really effecting company valuaton.
I am eager to learn more about the subject.
I just received the research problem with some additional material. These clearly are his first drafts on the issue, but at this stage he is the most interested in your comments.
Reseach problem:
1. What is the value of a patent?
– Answered with a dataset gathered from VentureXpert and esp@cenet
2. How do patent values differ with respect to:
– The strategic use of a patent (licensing, ability to exclude, freedom to operate)
– The state of the products the patent protects (current products, products in R&D, potential future products in the same industry, products in unrelated industries)
– Answered with the questionnaire
I am eager to learn more about the subject.
I just received the research problem with some additional material. These clearly are his first drafts on the issue, but at this stage he is the most interested in your comments.
Reseach problem:
1. What is the value of a patent?
– Answered with a dataset gathered from VentureXpert and esp@cenet
2. How do patent values differ with respect to:
– The strategic use of a patent (licensing, ability to exclude, freedom to operate)
– The state of the products the patent protects (current products, products in R&D, potential future products in the same industry, products in unrelated industries)
– Answered with the questionnaire
2010-01-29
Quality or quantity – Currency of negotiations
IBM won the race for the largest number of patents granted in the US by a mile, for the seventeenth year in a row. With a total of 4,914, the company got more grants than Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Apple, Accenture, and Google put together. Now the firm’s patent portfolio stands at a total of 40,000 inventions.
However, as a recent study by Ocean Tomo suggests, quantity does not always outperform quality, particularly in the market for innovation. Utilizing a combination of metrics for assessing patent value (including e.g. the number of citations to previous patents, litigation, and the renewal payments) the consulting company found that in fact the portfolio of Microsoft is 3.3 times as valuable as IBM’s. That being the case, MS only has a little fewer than 13,000 patents in its portfolio. That makes up an astounding value ratio of 10:1 in favor of an MS invention.
Nonetheless, IBM is still making a lot of money on licensing and custom-developing IP with revenues on track to top $1.1 billion from those operations alone through September 30. IBM states that "The ultimate value is not some rating. It's the leverage we are able to get from the patent negotiations."
These companies are very powerful in any negotiations, like Microsoft Chief intellectual property officer says patents are “currency”of negotiations,
However, as a recent study by Ocean Tomo suggests, quantity does not always outperform quality, particularly in the market for innovation. Utilizing a combination of metrics for assessing patent value (including e.g. the number of citations to previous patents, litigation, and the renewal payments) the consulting company found that in fact the portfolio of Microsoft is 3.3 times as valuable as IBM’s. That being the case, MS only has a little fewer than 13,000 patents in its portfolio. That makes up an astounding value ratio of 10:1 in favor of an MS invention.
Nonetheless, IBM is still making a lot of money on licensing and custom-developing IP with revenues on track to top $1.1 billion from those operations alone through September 30. IBM states that "The ultimate value is not some rating. It's the leverage we are able to get from the patent negotiations."
These companies are very powerful in any negotiations, like Microsoft Chief intellectual property officer says patents are “currency”of negotiations,
2010-01-28
To troll or not to troll
Defensive patent aggregation the RPX way: 29 members, and a patent portfolio of $125 million in 14 months.
RPX has just announced signing up three new members: Microsoft Corp, McAfee Inc and Symantec Corp. The sign-ups follow those of Sharp Corporation, and the US subsidiary of Enea a few weeks earlier.
With and increasing membership-base, the defensive patent aggregation company has already acquired over 1,100 patents totaling over $125 million in value to help protect the foreseeable interests of its members against NPEs. The company acquired 20% of all patents in the market during its first year of operation, and plans to increase that ratio to 50% by 2012.
The firm maintains that the annual membership fee is often lower than the cost of a single patent assertion defense. With an increasing membership base and a growing patent portfolio, the benefits of joining will, at least eventually, far outweigh the fees. That is, of course, if they can keep the momentum going.
Was this really the purpose of patent system when it was created? Probably not, but still it makes sense for many companies to join and ... still one could question if this is NPE or...
RPX has just announced signing up three new members: Microsoft Corp, McAfee Inc and Symantec Corp. The sign-ups follow those of Sharp Corporation, and the US subsidiary of Enea a few weeks earlier.
With and increasing membership-base, the defensive patent aggregation company has already acquired over 1,100 patents totaling over $125 million in value to help protect the foreseeable interests of its members against NPEs. The company acquired 20% of all patents in the market during its first year of operation, and plans to increase that ratio to 50% by 2012.
The firm maintains that the annual membership fee is often lower than the cost of a single patent assertion defense. With an increasing membership base and a growing patent portfolio, the benefits of joining will, at least eventually, far outweigh the fees. That is, of course, if they can keep the momentum going.
Was this really the purpose of patent system when it was created? Probably not, but still it makes sense for many companies to join and ... still one could question if this is NPE or...
2009-12-17
Cleantech patents to Europeans
Why don’t we (meaning Europeans) accelerate Cleantech patents like recent US patent office pilot program.
They announced a few days ago an initiative to accelerate the examination of certain green technology patent applications.
It is easier to get funding with patents than with pending patents. Governmental bodies should support Cleantech businesses, it is not only good for the globe, but for economy also. We have made the globe so dirty, that somebody will pay big bucks to make it cleaner... and of course somebody then gets the business. And since this is a race between different parts of the world...when the US takes such initiative, we should do the same. More well funded Cleantech companies means less unemployment and cleaner globe.
This would also be a signal for Cleantech companies to patent more actively. I have seen Cleantech companies starting new businesses with support of something they invented, but not patented. Just to notice that somebody else did... and doing business on this small ball, we should own our business; or end up paying rent for it.
They announced a few days ago an initiative to accelerate the examination of certain green technology patent applications.
It is easier to get funding with patents than with pending patents. Governmental bodies should support Cleantech businesses, it is not only good for the globe, but for economy also. We have made the globe so dirty, that somebody will pay big bucks to make it cleaner... and of course somebody then gets the business. And since this is a race between different parts of the world...when the US takes such initiative, we should do the same. More well funded Cleantech companies means less unemployment and cleaner globe.
This would also be a signal for Cleantech companies to patent more actively. I have seen Cleantech companies starting new businesses with support of something they invented, but not patented. Just to notice that somebody else did... and doing business on this small ball, we should own our business; or end up paying rent for it.
2009-12-14
Apple vs. Nokia
Nokia haastoi Applen käräjille omien patenttiensa rikkomuksista pari kuukautta sitten. USA:ssa Yhdysvalloissa nostettu kanne koskee kymmentä Nokian patentoimaa gsm-, umts- ja wlan-teknologiaa, joita on Nokian mukaan käytetty luvatta Applen älypuhelimissa.
Nyt Apple haastoi Nokian 13 patentin rikkomuksesta.
Samat argumentit informaatiosodankäynnissä
”Muiden yhtiöiden täytyy kilpailla kanssamme keksimällä omia teknologioita, ei vain varastamalla meiltä” Applen varapääjohtaja Bruce Sewell sanoo tiedotteessa.
Nokian IPR johtaja Ilkka Rahnasto sanoi omassa tiedotteessaan, "Perusperiaate matkapuhelintoimialalla on, että yhtiöt, jotka osallistuvat teknologioiden kehittämiseen niiden standardoinnissa luovat immateriaalioikeuksia, joiden käytöstä pitää maksaa” Apple yrittää Nokian mukaan hyöydyntää ilmaiseksi Nokian tuotekehityspanostuksia.
Patenttisalkku oltava puolustautumista varten
Tämä on taas hyvä esimerkki patenttien tärkeydestä. Ilman omia Nokian rikkomia patentteja Applella olisi vaikea tilanne. Patentteja täytyy olla, jotta voi tehdä vastahaasteen kun toinen haastaa yrityksen. Ja jos vastapuoli ei haasta, jos oma patenttisalkku on vahvempi. Tässä tapauksessa Nokia on todennäköisesti arvioinut omat patenttinsa arvokkaammiksi. Heidän myöskin kannattaa haastaa Apple osoittaakseen olevansa valmis pitämään puolensa, jotta myös muut maksavat. Nokialle maksaa ainakin 40 muuta yritystä heidän patenteistaan.
Tämän taistelun lopputulos
Ja lopputulos näissä taisteluissa on sopiminen. Jossain vaiheessa asia sovitaan kokonaisuutena ja rahaa siirtyy ja business jatkuu.
Kenen etujen mukainen patenttijärjestelmä on?
Kun patenttijärjestelmä on olemassa, niin isoon liiketoimintaan kuuluu patentit ja se tarkoittaa tässäkin tapauksessa molemmista oikeudenkäynneistä vähintäänkin miljoonien maksuja juristeille. Ja patenttien tekeminen ja ylläpito maksa molemmille osapuolille niin suuria summia, ettei pienillä tai keskisuurilla yrityksillä ole mitään mahdollisuuksia olla tosissaan mukana kisassa. Patentit tukevat suurten yritysten liiketoimintaa ja estävät pienten. Tästä syystä minä myyn paljon pienten yritysten patentteja niitä lisenssoiville tahoille, koska pienet eivät itse voi haastaa ketään.
Nyt Apple haastoi Nokian 13 patentin rikkomuksesta.
Samat argumentit informaatiosodankäynnissä
”Muiden yhtiöiden täytyy kilpailla kanssamme keksimällä omia teknologioita, ei vain varastamalla meiltä” Applen varapääjohtaja Bruce Sewell sanoo tiedotteessa.
Nokian IPR johtaja Ilkka Rahnasto sanoi omassa tiedotteessaan, "Perusperiaate matkapuhelintoimialalla on, että yhtiöt, jotka osallistuvat teknologioiden kehittämiseen niiden standardoinnissa luovat immateriaalioikeuksia, joiden käytöstä pitää maksaa” Apple yrittää Nokian mukaan hyöydyntää ilmaiseksi Nokian tuotekehityspanostuksia.
Patenttisalkku oltava puolustautumista varten
Tämä on taas hyvä esimerkki patenttien tärkeydestä. Ilman omia Nokian rikkomia patentteja Applella olisi vaikea tilanne. Patentteja täytyy olla, jotta voi tehdä vastahaasteen kun toinen haastaa yrityksen. Ja jos vastapuoli ei haasta, jos oma patenttisalkku on vahvempi. Tässä tapauksessa Nokia on todennäköisesti arvioinut omat patenttinsa arvokkaammiksi. Heidän myöskin kannattaa haastaa Apple osoittaakseen olevansa valmis pitämään puolensa, jotta myös muut maksavat. Nokialle maksaa ainakin 40 muuta yritystä heidän patenteistaan.
Tämän taistelun lopputulos
Ja lopputulos näissä taisteluissa on sopiminen. Jossain vaiheessa asia sovitaan kokonaisuutena ja rahaa siirtyy ja business jatkuu.
Kenen etujen mukainen patenttijärjestelmä on?
Kun patenttijärjestelmä on olemassa, niin isoon liiketoimintaan kuuluu patentit ja se tarkoittaa tässäkin tapauksessa molemmista oikeudenkäynneistä vähintäänkin miljoonien maksuja juristeille. Ja patenttien tekeminen ja ylläpito maksa molemmille osapuolille niin suuria summia, ettei pienillä tai keskisuurilla yrityksillä ole mitään mahdollisuuksia olla tosissaan mukana kisassa. Patentit tukevat suurten yritysten liiketoimintaa ja estävät pienten. Tästä syystä minä myyn paljon pienten yritysten patentteja niitä lisenssoiville tahoille, koska pienet eivät itse voi haastaa ketään.
2009-12-13
HY:n innovaatiojärjestelmä
Helsingin Yliopiston innoavaatijärjestelmä parani viime vuonna päätöksellä lähteä Food Process Innovations Oy:n osakkaaksi.
HY Food Process Innovations Oy:n osakkaksi.
Yliopistokeksinnöt kaupallistuvat vain tiiviissä yhteistyössä liike-elämän kanssa. Food Process Innovations Oy voi toimia hyvänä sillanrakentajana tutkijoiden ja yritysten välillä. Mutta yhteistyö toimii huonosti. Viimeistään nyt pitäisi saada Viikin kanssa hyvä yhteistyö, joka automaattisesti toisi tutkimustuloksia Food Process Innovationsin katsottavaksi.
Tiede kuuluu kaikille
Nyt Food Process Innovations Oy:n työstetävänä on pari maailmanluokan keksintöä, jotka voivat nostaa Suomalaisen tieteen isossa mittakaavassa maailman tietoisuuteen. Mutta yhteistyö ei saisi loppua siihen. HY:n tutkijat tekevät jatkuvasti huippuhyvää työtä, mutta innovaatiojärjestelmän huonosta toiminnasta johtuen HY:n huippuosaaminen jää liian kapeasti vain tiedemaailman tietoisuuteen. Kaikille tarkoitettu sovellettu tiede pitää saada markkinoille tai se ei hyödynnä ihmiskuntaa kuten sen pitäisi.
Onko innovaatioasiamiesten toiminta tutkijoiden edun mukaista?
Nyt minua huolettaa, HY:n innovaatiojärjestelmän toimivuus. Viikin uusista keksinnöstä pitäis aina keskustella Food Process Innovaations Oy:n kanssa, mikäli ne halutaan kaupallistaa. Tai muiden kaupallistajien, aina kaikkein sopivimpien tahojen kanssa, tai useamman, jotta saadaan kilpailua aikaan. Miksi yliopisto pitää yllä organisaatiota, joka ei tuota haluttuja tuloksia? Nykyisellä tavalla HY:n erittäin hyvä investointipäätös voi muuttua huonoksi, mikäli keksinnöistä ei tieto kulje. Tiedon huonon kulun ei pitäisi johtua haluttomuudesta, koska etu on yhteinen. Mistä ihmeestä se sitten johtuu?
HY Food Process Innovations Oy:n osakkaksi.
Yliopistokeksinnöt kaupallistuvat vain tiiviissä yhteistyössä liike-elämän kanssa. Food Process Innovations Oy voi toimia hyvänä sillanrakentajana tutkijoiden ja yritysten välillä. Mutta yhteistyö toimii huonosti. Viimeistään nyt pitäisi saada Viikin kanssa hyvä yhteistyö, joka automaattisesti toisi tutkimustuloksia Food Process Innovationsin katsottavaksi.
Tiede kuuluu kaikille
Nyt Food Process Innovations Oy:n työstetävänä on pari maailmanluokan keksintöä, jotka voivat nostaa Suomalaisen tieteen isossa mittakaavassa maailman tietoisuuteen. Mutta yhteistyö ei saisi loppua siihen. HY:n tutkijat tekevät jatkuvasti huippuhyvää työtä, mutta innovaatiojärjestelmän huonosta toiminnasta johtuen HY:n huippuosaaminen jää liian kapeasti vain tiedemaailman tietoisuuteen. Kaikille tarkoitettu sovellettu tiede pitää saada markkinoille tai se ei hyödynnä ihmiskuntaa kuten sen pitäisi.
Onko innovaatioasiamiesten toiminta tutkijoiden edun mukaista?
Nyt minua huolettaa, HY:n innovaatiojärjestelmän toimivuus. Viikin uusista keksinnöstä pitäis aina keskustella Food Process Innovaations Oy:n kanssa, mikäli ne halutaan kaupallistaa. Tai muiden kaupallistajien, aina kaikkein sopivimpien tahojen kanssa, tai useamman, jotta saadaan kilpailua aikaan. Miksi yliopisto pitää yllä organisaatiota, joka ei tuota haluttuja tuloksia? Nykyisellä tavalla HY:n erittäin hyvä investointipäätös voi muuttua huonoksi, mikäli keksinnöistä ei tieto kulje. Tiedon huonon kulun ei pitäisi johtua haluttomuudesta, koska etu on yhteinen. Mistä ihmeestä se sitten johtuu?
2009-12-12
Buy the business before you buy the company.
"Buy the business before you buy the company" was our recommendation to one CEO of a very large corporation. Our recommendation means to acquire patents infringed by the company to be acquired, or some patents they need in the near future.
Who owns your business?
That similar question to the title, we often ask our customers. You might own your core business (or might not), but still your products and/or operations are owned by somebody else. In most cases you just don't know it. And when the owner of your business finds out, you'll end up paying. Or selling your company.
Who owns your business?
That similar question to the title, we often ask our customers. You might own your core business (or might not), but still your products and/or operations are owned by somebody else. In most cases you just don't know it. And when the owner of your business finds out, you'll end up paying. Or selling your company.
2009-12-11
Patenttiloukkaukset oikeutettuja jos et itse valmista tuotteita?
Tapasin pari sijoittajaa jokunen päivä sitten. Päädyimme pohtimaan eri asioiden yhteiskunnallista vaikutusta. Pohdimme mikä tukee eniten suomalaisten liiketoimintaa ja työllisyyttä. Suomessa on huippuosaamista tietyillä alueilla, mutta koska sarjatuotanto toimii täällä vain automatisoituna ja silloinkin yleensä vain kun asiakkaat ovat lähellä. Mutta kun nekin yleensä ovat Suomen ulkopuolella. Meille siis jää vain sen huippuosaamisen hyödyntäminen ja sillä pitäisi tuoda suomalaisille leipä. No, kunhan saadaan siitä osaamisesta riittävä hinta, niin voidaan palvella toisiamme ja jakaa rahaa jotenkin reilusti. Hyvä vaihtoehto sekin. Tunnen jo nyt aika vähän ihmisiä, ketkä tekevät jotain muuta kuin palvelevat toisiaan, sitähän me kaikki nykyisin...
Puhuimme todellisesta casesta, jossa patentoidaan suomalaisten osaamista Suomen ulkopulella ja lisensoidaan niitä siellä. Sen lisäksi patentteja tulisi hankkia ostamalla ja sopimusteitse eri maista. Eli haetaan lisenssisopimuksilla rahaa ei-suomalaisilta. Olimme siis samaa mieltä perusajatuksen toimivuudesta, mutta toinen oli sitä mieltä, ettei heidän hallituksensa hyväksy sitä ilman erillistä selvitystä. Toisella oli siis heti halua ja kykyä lähteä mukaan, toisella taas halu, mutta ei kykyä koska se oli aineettoimien oikeuksin kauppaa ja sellaisten myynnin vanhat teollisuusmiehet mieltävät riskialttiimmiksi kuin tehtaan rakentamisen ja vielä vähemmän suotavaa on jos patenttioikeuksia joudutaan vaatiminen oikeusteitse. Heidän hallituksessa oli sanottu, että Nokian haaste Applea vastaan patenttiloukkauksesta oli oikeutettu, koska hehän valmistavat teknologiaa!!! Siis patenttiloukkauksista saa haastaa oikeuteen kunhan valmistaa itse tuotteita. Saman ajatuksen olen kuullut muulloinkin.
Milloin meiltä suomalaisilta katosi järki?
Milloin meiltä suomalaisilta katosi järki?
Company valuations
I looked back and realized a dramatic change in importance of patents in the eyes of investors. I did IPO 7-years ago for my company. I met investors from Finland, the UK and some other countries. I floated the technology company, but still very few investors were interested in our IP.
Yesterday we agreed a financing deal with a Finnish investor for a technology company. Half of the time we discussed patents and IP strategy.
And when some time ago we arranged a 8 digits financing for a Cleantech company, the first question from the investor who put most of the money, was: “what is your patent portfolio like?”.
Patents play crucial role in M&A, companies have more than doubled their valuations by only patenting their knowledge. And I don’t mean that they would have invented something, but just filed patents.
I have been lecturing on the importance of patents in valuing companies. Now it is really true also in Finland.
VIGO
Aika innossani...Pekkariselta hyvä päätös, TEM:min alaisen yrityskiihdyttämön manageeraus sopii Food Process Innovatins:ille erinomaisesti. Päästään tekemään yhdessä julkisten rahoittajien kanssa suomalaisia menestystarinoita elintarviketeollisuuteen ja hyvinvointisektorille. marko.saapunki@foodprocessinnovations.com kantaa hankkeista vastuun ja minä aion osallistua hankkeiden IPR strategioiden luomiseen. Aivan mahtavia mahdollisuuksia kun elintarviketollisuuden ja biomaailman konvergenssi tekee myös elintarviketeollisuudesta enemmän IPR intensiivistä. Hankkeessa mukana myös Seppo Paatelainen, Reijo Vihko, Heikki Järvensivu ja Harry Salonaho. Voisi väittää entisten Atrian ja Valion toimitusjohtajien osaavan elintarviketeollisuutta ja Suomen akatemian pääjohtajana Reijolle lienee tarttunut jotain tieteestä. Aika mahtava porukka, toivottavasti vielä oma patenttiosaamiseni tuo siihen lisää voimaa.
VIGO auttaa alkavia yrityksiä saamaan paketin kasaan sekä rahoituksellisesti, että strategiaan ja operaatiohin osallistuen. Hanke on Työ ja elinkeinomisterimme Pekkarisen käsistä lähtöisin ja julkista rahaa näihin hyvin saatavilla.
Muutama hyvinvointiin ja elintarvikkeisiin liittyviä alkuvaiheessa olevia yrityksiä katsottu ja toivottavsti paljon lisää katsotaan pian.
VIGO auttaa alkavia yrityksiä saamaan paketin kasaan sekä rahoituksellisesti, että strategiaan ja operaatiohin osallistuen. Hanke on Työ ja elinkeinomisterimme Pekkarisen käsistä lähtöisin ja julkista rahaa näihin hyvin saatavilla.
Muutama hyvinvointiin ja elintarvikkeisiin liittyviä alkuvaiheessa olevia yrityksiä katsottu ja toivottavsti paljon lisää katsotaan pian.
Patentoinnin tukeminen julkisin varoin
Kun tarkoitus on lisätä työllisyyttä, niin kannattaisiko kaikki julkisin varoin tehtävän patentoinnin ehdoksi laittaa kielto Suomen patenteista?
Patentit eivät anna oikeutta tehdä mitään, toisin kuin usein virheellisesti ajatellaan, vaan patenti on ainostaan kielto-oikeus. Kielto-oikeus vähentää työllisyyttä. Kun yhteiskunnan näkökulmasta tärkein syy tukea patentointia on juuri työllisyys ja Suomeen syntyvä liiketoiminta, niin nykyisin tuemme työllisyyden vähenemistä.
Myös liiketaloudelliset perusteet yleensä tukevat sitä, ettei Suomeen tehtäisi patentteja, vaan patentit tehtäisiin isommille markkinoille, koska eurooppalainen systeemi edelleen vaatii jokaiseen maahan oman patenttinsa... tämä tietenkin vain kansainvälisessä liiketoiminnassa ja markkinoiden ollessa ko. alueilla. Liiketaloudelliset perusteet myös tekisivät tämän myös EU - lainsäädännön kannalta mahdolliseksi.
Eikä tämä itse asiassa koske vain julkisin varoin tehtävää patentointia, vaan myös patentointia yleensä.
Patentit eivät anna oikeutta tehdä mitään, toisin kuin usein virheellisesti ajatellaan, vaan patenti on ainostaan kielto-oikeus. Kielto-oikeus vähentää työllisyyttä. Kun yhteiskunnan näkökulmasta tärkein syy tukea patentointia on juuri työllisyys ja Suomeen syntyvä liiketoiminta, niin nykyisin tuemme työllisyyden vähenemistä.
Myös liiketaloudelliset perusteet yleensä tukevat sitä, ettei Suomeen tehtäisi patentteja, vaan patentit tehtäisiin isommille markkinoille, koska eurooppalainen systeemi edelleen vaatii jokaiseen maahan oman patenttinsa... tämä tietenkin vain kansainvälisessä liiketoiminnassa ja markkinoiden ollessa ko. alueilla. Liiketaloudelliset perusteet myös tekisivät tämän myös EU - lainsäädännön kannalta mahdolliseksi.
Eikä tämä itse asiassa koske vain julkisin varoin tehtävää patentointia, vaan myös patentointia yleensä.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)
