Royal Courts of Justice - a night to remember at the Filemot table. Going to court on Monday evening for dinner is not exactly a commonplace event. The awe inspiring hall had been transformed to fete the winners of the MIT and Cambridge University business competitions. I have already discussed the winners from the UK so who were the transatlantic victors.? They were suave, confident and enthusiastic and their business plans looked promising and hopefully this year will track through to full commercialisation. Runner up team member, Jeff Sabados of Avanti was sporting the mess kit of a us navy seal. Next year perhaps some of the English teams should encourage members who are also members of the uotc in order to encourage variation from the array of ill-fitting and dull black dinner jackets. At least one member of the Filemot table was sporting a multi-coloured bow-tie.
There were also guests from Imperial College, Manchester, and Oxford with their own budding technology ventures. The Imperial team presented the most audibly and succinctly of all but their idea seemed more a product than a business. We hope that we were present at the start of some serious innovation but it is clear that ideas are not often in short supply, the challenge is to present those with true potential appropriately. The team is as important as the technology and team building is still pretty much a random process. Still initiating the process over champagne, fine food and great surroundings was a fun way to start.
The following day in Cambridge there was a conference at which we heard speakers provide encouragement and inspiration. Ray Anderson of Bango told his story of involvement in the early days of the English computer industry. The young audience were not captured by this. This apparently young man was showing pictures of what seemed like prehistoric monsters of the computer world. He seemed to be describing a time so unsophisticated it was impossible for these mobile gadget addicts to envisage it. His philosophical advice was Be a second mover as the first mover is doomed to fail - very English.
Next journalist, Carl Franklin told us how to spot a failure but also warned us that some ideas were just too interesting they had to be written about. Most inventors treat the publicity and flattery of journalist's attention as an indicator of success. Not so - it should more likely be seen as a sign of impending doom. This rings true as many patent attorneys will speak of appearances on the now defunct tomorrow's world program as being the kiss of death. He discussed why some entrepreneurs could not see their own inevitable lack of success and concluded that this was because they had at least one of the essential attribute of the successful entrepreneur in their own confidence and self-belief - just the wrong idea or an incomplete understanding of their market.
The panel session after lunch discussed innovation support, but no-one from the Patent Office consultation group was there so they will have to read this instead. One issue debated was what makes an entrepreneur. Jack Lang, author, angel, foodie and entrepreneur in residence at Cambridge's Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning says that the biggest predictor is what your parents did. Others emphasised the need to have all the talents within the team if not in each person. The panel were frightened of saying that certain people did not have the entrepreneurial spirit because that usually eliminates the scientist and the audience included many of those.
Government support and ownership came up and there were mixed feelings as to whether Cambridge's new policy of ownership. I got the impression that it had been regarded as a good thing that industry could go straight to scientists without the intervention of a transfer office. Teri Willey, Cambridge Enterprise's new director (who was there) will have bridges to build and value to show. Regional investment support did not get a good press. There's a feeling that Scotland has a government to match and does it better.
There was also the perennial favourite of what investors look for but with a new twist. The panel thought that the source of an idea and the credentials of the team affected its appraisal by investors. opinions were mixed as to whether a VC would review a proposal that had not been brought to him by a sponsor. The panel agreed that a seasoned entrepreneur on the team made it much much easier. Of course they could have just been looking for jobs for the boys but they are probably right.
The finale was the fascinating story of the building of Astex Therapeutics given by Chris Abell, fresh from a meeting of the Chemistry examining board - a point he made to emphasise his academic credentials. We got a survey of the science but best of all of how a true scientist copes in the entrepreneurial world. When this business comes to the market, one suspects its going to be at full value but even so if they time it right it will still climb if their drug candidates are promising gambles. The stock market will love it but choosing your exit will be fun. A nice point on patent strategy here too. The methods employed were not novel but nevertheless they had initially aimed to get discovery method patents. Now their strategy Chris says is focused on patents for novel compositions.
The Old Bank of England, 194 Fleet Street, London EC4 was the venue for a good supper and a fascinating discussion session of independent IP consultants. While a name eluded us there was commitment to evaluate the relative benefits of a buying club or a CPD club or a forum that would help with business development. Interestingly there is an ethos common to many of us that included a willingness to share and a desire to change the playing field. We debated about a number of possible dreams for an organisation that would help us achieve our objectives.
Click here to take a survey about your dream
The glittering prizes at the Prize Giving of the CU Entrepreneurs business competitions, announced in October, seemed to turn to ashes. The biggest money winner was told by the panel of angel investors that his presentation was shambolic and they didn't feel like helping any more. If you can't be arrogant when young you'd be scared so lets hope mclic come through this rather bruising experience as a real winner. The panel could have listened more sympathetically to their request for a mentor, instead of compelling them into an on-stage apology.
Last year this was a £50k competition but this year's top prize was an alleged £5k with no cheques in evidence. The sponsors couldn't be found to raise a better unconditional prize fund. The named sponsors were CMI, 3i, ARM, HLBBShaw and Cambridge Science Park. Last year's prize winners have not seen their cheques either. Cambfix gave an entertaining presentation on the potential of their business, but the founders now have full time day jobs and there's one thing that a young business needs its clearly time and commitment. Enval has hopes that the year long due-diligence on the promised investment will materialise.
Star of the show was incoming President Rahul Vohra, who did a superb job compering the event and will hopefully be snapped up by a TV production company if Bioscioence Business does not beckon.
Nevertheless one can't help feeling that there's a far more interesting story here. Why did the President resign? Why did the members of teams change so much after the qualifying stage? Why did three qualifying teams pull out of the competition? and most of all where did the prize money go? All is not the peaceful idyll that it seemed as the Spring sunshine bathes the punters on the Cam on my route to the venue. Perhaps more will be revealed at the Gala on 12 June at the Royal Courts of Justice.
The launch of Filemot as a dynamic and expanding business requires a plan and a better understanding of the wider market. I have been helped along the way by attending the Enterprise Tuesday lectures promoted by Cambridge University's Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning. As a reward for writing up my notebook, I received a nice certificate at a reception at the Judge Business School today.
The lectures were well attended so it was interesting to see which of us had felt it worthwhile to complete the course. Perhaps it is not surprising that a high proportion of finishers were female and/or overseas students. The star prize went to David Moir from Cambridge Enterprise Agency not to be confused with the University's Technology Transfer Office known as Cambridge Enterprise too. There's even a picture of me on the website of the Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning.
Brighton in the sunshine, a brisk breeze, a lively sea and seagulls wheeling overhead- marvellous. So I spent two days in an underground lecture theatre trying to attune to a whole new jargon to describe the activities and interests of the members of AURIL.
The dominant influence on the delegates from Higher Education Institutions (HEI) was funding. Knowledge Transfer or KT is the third stream of activity within HE and the NHS (after education and research I think). The government bodies responsible for producing the funds, HEFCE and OST were well represented and genuinely interested in making the current HEIF 3 competition work well. Nonetheless the symptoms of competitive and short term funding were everywhere to be seen. High staff mobility and loss of know how within small offices hits morale and produces a confused vision. The strength of the regional groupings was beginning to show through and more permanent merged Enterprise offices might work well. Clearly many Institutions combine the administration of their research funding with their entrepreneurial activities and for that funding, competition prevents cooperation.
There was some interesting debate in favour of responsible partnering, open access publishing and similar initiatives based on the theory that patent protection deprives the tax payer of knowledge that is rightfully his. Melanie Barwick of SickKids Research Institute was the most convincing and passionate advocate, but her thesis was more convincing on the importance of KT itself. Her example of how knowledge first gained in 1601 by James Lancaster that a citrus diet could prevent scurvy in mariners did not get transferred to Navy until 1795 could hardly be blamed on any patent system. The strange terminal talk by PBAS Ltd about how business could rape and pillage knowledge from the HE sector without payment because IP was not mentioned left me bewildered. There seemed general agreement that research staff did not perceive any obligation to transfer knowledge effectively. The focus on published papers is they say merely for enhancing the CV.
Nobody was interested in IP protection as such (three delegates registered for the talk on Patent Office Opinions and only one was from an HEI) and the Gowers review or Community Patent issues were not in the vocabulary for activating knowledge. The government has a mindset to change before the vast amount of NHS and HE created knowledge can be used in order to produce an economic impact.
This evening was organised by frustrated Scots corporate lawyers to discuss the issues of expert reports in prospectuses. Apparently some patent agents will not opine on the likely validity of a company's IP and are even less willing to comment on the company's freedom to operate in the face of third party IP.
It was an interesting meeting with agents from several firms contributing their experiences. The consensus view of agents was clearly that their insurance policies did not exist for the protection of investors seeking to become minted on high risk floats of technology companies. The S&W lawyers performed a valuable service in explaining the background to the requests for these opinions. It is doubtful that a patent agent ever needs to confirm patentability for the UK. The Patent office letter of grant can be expedited if there is a patentable invention. The patent agent's expertise on freedom to operate issues is not exactly convincing. If you opine there is freedom to operate, you are signing an insurance policy. If you opine there is some risk, you would have waived privilege and put the company in a worse position and made yourself liable for some serious bullying.
You can't get more creative than the Chairman of listed ad agent M&C Saatchi and Jeremy was a brave man to stand in a Cambridge University lecture theatre and ask the audience if they were following him quite so often. Still the lecture theatre was accustomed to something more complex than Simple Universally Recognised Truths and the Brutal Simplicity of Thought. Entrepreneurial technology companies don't usually have the marketing budgets to blow on massive poster campaigns or TV ads. Still its interesting get some insight into the relationship between client and creative. This is one business where trust is all and results difficult to evaluate.
The most significant lesson he put over was the painful necessity of thought. Whether you are honing a marketing proposition or your business plan, your vision or USP, the painful necessity looms large and unavoidable.
The BL launched its revamped Business & IP Centre with an event promoting information services for small businesses and entrepreneurs on Wednesday evening with some very indifferent sparkling wine (I should have had the COBRA). The ministerial tot that was served up on the night could not stay for the opening as he thought the events at Highbury might be more interesting. He was served a lively 0-0 score sheet, but Arsenal are still in Europe. We got Sir Digby's excellent speech writer.
There was also a panel discussion with planted questions. The contributions were variable. Tim Waterstone got his message across well and explained his vision of the WATERSTONE'S original formula with admirable clarity- more stock, more space and committed booksellers with a desire to show W H SMITH that he could do it better. It was a great story to hear how Barclay's had used his business plan as an example of a project in which not to invest. Its a pity that HMV have forgotten the bit about the knowledgeable booksellers and of course, a few other bookshops have realised that the book is a medium with a future. As to the rest, the minority focus was a bit heavy. However it appears that women are part of the great minority too.
A big thank you to the IPKat OUP CPA and ITMA for hosting a good opportunity for many sole practitioners to get together and earn two ITMA CPD points to boot. There was a degree of support for setting up a networking group that could serve as a virtual library. If you would like to follow this up Contact me or you can Skype™ (I know that's dreadful abuse of a trademark in classical theory, but they are encouraging it) me if I am online which you can tell from the logo in the margin. A Skype™ group would be quite a useful way forward since we all agreed it should cost us nothing but goodwill, yet sometimes a little conversation is what's needed.
Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute's Seminar programme may not be approved as CLE/CPD or what you will by The Law Society but its organisers spend their energy more usefully by organising short, free and thought provoking sessions. Lior Zemer, Lecturer in Law at the University of Leicester spoke on "A Riposte to Lockean Copyright Theorists". Now be honest, most practising IP lawyers find the underlying philosophical justification for IP something of a closed book. We usually got some basic explanation in our student days and then you have to explain some of the public policy issues to clients later, but applying the law to the facts at hand is enough for most practitioners. Nevertheless IP is academic now and if its not economics (18 January below) then philosophy is an adjacent and more proper academic discipline. Hopefully the Gowers review will not be compelled to read and understand the proper or improper interpretation of Lockes' Chapter on Property from his Second Treatise of Government published in 1690. If they are its a no brainer that Gower will conclude that businesses are unable to negotiate the complexity and expense of the copyright system if they are to derive it from first principals like this:
"He that gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples, had thereby a property in them, they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only to look, that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others. And indeed it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of."
Nevertheless there is a good if inadvertent lesson there for inventors who take out patents without any intention to innovate and transfer the technology to the public benefit.
This Enterprise Tuesday there was bad news. A lecture by a lawyer and there was less beer and some of it alcohol free or low carb. We obviously need to include an advert for the good people at COBRA® who are doing their bit to support the Government's Innovation Agenda by fuelling the after lecture networking session. The lady from Bidwell's advocated instructing a chartered surveyor to negotiate any property deals you were contemplating unless you could find a serviced office or incubator that included coffee as part of the deal.
Icy cold as only Cambridge knows how and the Beermat Entrepreneur starts throwing beer mats across the auditorium. Chris West has published some well selling books but he won't be retiring on the proceeds. His used books are more expensive on Amazon. Maybe that's because you get to see where the good bits are. The lecture offered plenty of live contributions but is entrepreneurship a philosophy or a disposition that one can acquire from books?
The IP Institute organised a presentation to enable Dr Christine Greenhalgh and Mark Rogers of the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre to present their latest research. After spending so much time in Cambridge, its only fair to give the other place some attention. Using a lot of economics and statistics, they demonstrated that firms that filed trademark applications were more creative.
Ending up with trite and obvious conclusions seems to be one of the risks of social sciences research or perhaps its how I tell it. Sorry.
The wonderful thing about a University is that it seems to go into a dormant state in the vacations between short but frenetic terms. CU Entrepreneurs had set the date for the announcement of their first round winners to just before the beginning of term in Kings College. A group of enthusiastic budding entrepreneurs, judges and prospective investors and other voyeurs, such as myself, sipped warm champagne in a battered room just off the student bar before eating the last Christmas Dinner menu that Kings College kitchen would probably offer until next December.
Despite the tawdry surroundings, it was an opportunity to learn the feedback of the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research, Professor Ian Leslie to the vote approving Cambridge's new IP Policy which you can see here and which was approved in a ballot that closed on 12 December. Cambridge Enterprise now has control over the technology transfer process for patented technology but academics retain their own copyright. The debate was quite active and many flyers were published demonstrating a broad spectrum of concerns. We wait with interest to see who the new Director of Cambridge Enterprise will be and how he will make the difficult choices of which technology to support through the patent process and how. Applications closed in November but we understand head hunters have been appointed.
Filemot Technology Law Ltd
25 Southampton Buildings
London, WC2A 1AL, United Kingdom
Direct +44 (0)20 3043 8550
Fax +44 (0)20 3043 8551
Email
info@filemot.com
Copyright
09 June 2007