CDR: Internet bearer cryptography patent trusts (was Re: Chaumian cash redux)
This idea below of a "patent pool" is similar to the bearer cryptography patent trust idea I was kicking around with a couple of investment bankers here in Boston a few years ago... It seems that these guys were sitting on a public shell, and were noticing that both Millicent and DigiCash were both up for sale at the time, and were trying, like every one does, :-), to figure how to make money with them. I suggested that, while the code for Millicent at least might be valuable, that the patents were the most valuable thing about *either* of those businesses. I talked to these gentlemen about the model I had for internet bearer underwriting and how it could pay royalties right off the top to certain global holders of patents like blind signatures, allowing their use even for open source software, and that it might be possible to create something like a publicly held trust to hold those kinds of patents. Just like if someone like when Warren Buffet buys a company, the patent holders would get a liquid publicly traded asset, and the trust would collect royalties as revenues of the corporation, and the stock would go up accordingly. :-). Don't know if it would work, though, and not just for purely financial reasons, either. It seems to me at the outset that unless Chaum has a way to completely kill the usefulness of the blind signature patent and replace it with something better -- and to withstand the inevitable charge from Ecash Technologies that he knew about it at the time of the DigiCash liquidation, which would be a pretty serious legal cat-fight whether the charge were true or not -- that Ecash Technologies has enough funding from Deutchebank and others to make it a long time before the original Chaumian patent portfolio will be on the market again, if ever. The patents expire, speaking of such things, in 2007, after all. Cheers, RAH --- begin forwarded text
This idea below of a "patent pool" is similar to the bearer cryptography patent trust idea...
Bob, An actual discussion of the value of patents would be, at once, fascinating, maddening, and pointless. However, I will risk an anecdote. I attended one of Guy Kawasaki's "Boot Camp for Startups" and registered as "inventor." Guy's events are two days and almost entirely panel discussions, with some motivational speakers thrown in. Guy is superb, I should say, at stocking the panels with people who know something. Wearing my "inventor" badge, I asked nearly every member of nearly every panel what they they had to say about intellectual property protection. This means that I asked the same question to samples of size 4 of each of lawyers, accountants, entrepreneurs, noveau riche cash-outs, venture capitalists, business strategy folk and assorted greybeards. Unanimously, the answer was "Intellectual property protection is vital. Do it right, do it early, don't scrimp. In a dog eat dog world, it is all you've really got." With one exception. Every single one of the VCs there, and similarly every single one of the VCs I've talked to corroboratingly since, said that IP protection is so pointless they don't even value it when sizing a deal. Why? Because in the Internet sector, it is winner take all. Win it all, and your IP position does not matter. Die quick or slow, you're still dead and your IP position does not matter. Go for patents and you'll get something in 24-36 months that is (1) almost surely overlapping somebody else's patent, the USPTO being what it is, and (2) totally irrelevant because the live or die, the win it all or lose it all, point is circa 18 months. The game is over before your pizza boy comes. Unconvinced? Cost out patenting something on a global basis... --dan
Dan Geer wrote:
Wearing my "inventor" badge, I asked nearly every member of nearly every panel what they they had to say about intellectual property protection. This means that I asked the same question to samples of size 4 of each of lawyers, accountants, entrepreneurs, noveau riche cash-outs, venture capitalists, business strategy folk and assorted greybeards. Unanimously, the answer was "Intellectual property protection is vital. Do it right, do it early, don't scrimp. In a dog eat dog world, it is all you've really got."
With one exception.
Every single one of the VCs there, and similarly every single one of the VCs I've talked to corroboratingly since, said that IP protection is so pointless they don't even value it when sizing a deal. Why? Because in the Internet sector, it is winner take all. Win it all, and your IP position does not matter.
Might that not just be because the VCs have a different interest than the inventors? Also, for the VC, the inventors & patent holders are (in a sense) sitting tenants. They would prefer to get hold of the property unencumbered. OTOH, the inventor (who may well be distrustful or ignorant of business) wants to be sure that whoever ends up running the show remembers to pay them Of course the lawyers will go for patenting because they get paid more the more paperwork there is. Ken
Crossposted without permission from cyber-rights-UK@mail.cyber-rights.org (originally posted by Yaman Akdeniz) Web inventor denounces net censorship The Observer, John Arlidge, media correspondent Sunday October 8, 2000 On the tenth anniversary of the creation of the internet, the British scientist who invented the world wide web has called for the abolition of censorship online. As parents' groups and politicians press for new ways to police websites, Tim Berners-Lee rejects censorship as 'horrific'. In an exclusive interview with The Observer , Berners-Lee dismisses the recent outcry over paedophiles targeting youngsters in web chatrooms, child pornography and fraud, and rejects calls for a 'net regulator'. 'I know there are some very strong feelings but you can not banish technology or regulate content. 'Regulation is censorship - one grown-up telling another what they can and cannot do or see. For me, the idea is horrific. Universality is the key. You must be able to represent anything on the web.' Illegal material - child pornography, 'video nasties' - should remain illegal, but he insists 'the world is a diverse place and we should trust people, not try to police them... There are many cultures and they are continually changing. What somebody in Tennessee might think of as reasonable when it comes to nudity is very different from what someone in Finland might think. 'Two neighbours next door to each-other might have very different ideas. So any attempt to make a global centralised standard is going to be unbelievably contentious. You can't do that.' Instead of regulation it is up to parents to 'catch up' with the new e- generation and teach youngsters how to use the web safely. Children are at risk because they are 'technologically ahead of most grown-ups, who have to ask the younger generation how to turn the thing on and get it working. Adults are slower than children. They need to catch up so they can teach their children what to see and what to avoid.' Ten years ago Berners-Lee wrote the electronic code that enables computers across the world to 'talk' to each-other down a telephone line. The internet was born and has grown from a single website to more than 800,000,000 , with e-commerce, chatrooms and email transforming the way we work, shop, do business, socialise and relax. The Manchester-born scientist has been hailed as 'the man who invented the future'. A decade on he says we are still 'just scratching the surface' of what the internet can do. 'The web is far from done. Just imagine you were back in the Middle Ages and somebody asked "Given the full impact that paper is going to have, where will we be?" That's where we are.' He describes the future as 'the semantic web... a new, more powerful interactive network that will really enable e-commerce and industry to hum. But I don't want to say more or everyone will jump on the bandwagon and that will wreck it.' He says his creation is 'progressing remarkably well... it's neat. It is an achievement of a group of people who had a twinkle in their eye about a possible future. We should celebrate the fact that we can change the world by creating a new social tool. It gives a great feeling of hope that we can do it again.' Patrolling the internet Alan Travis, 18 September, 2000, The Guardian Extract from Bound and Gagged, published by Profile The British government is preparing a legal framework to control what is available on the web. In an exclusive extract from his new book Bound and Gagged, the Guardian's home affairs editor Alan Travis argues that the trend is towards censorship rather than a libertarian approach. Britain is on the verge of a new censorship debate, this time over how to regulate the content of the web. A communications white paper will be published this autumn which will set the legal framework for delivery of net to every home in Britain within the next four years through the domestic digital television as well as the home computer. Tony Blair has already said he worries about the kind of information that his three 'very computer-literate' children, Euan, Nicky and Kathryn, can find on the net. "We try to keep a careful watch on what our children are getting access to on the internet. There are organisations that give advice to people, but it's very difficult if the parents aren't around watching what is going on. There are dangers. In the end I think it is more a matter for parents than for governments. We can do what we can, but it is down to parents," Blair has said. For a politician this represents a very liberal stance compared with America and Australia where attempts to impose state regulation of the net have criminalised not only porn sites but also those which talk about safe sex and abortion as they curb offensive as well as obscene sites. The Home Office insists that it is possible to enforce the current obscenity laws and ensure that "what is illegal offline is illegal online". So far ministers have been content to leave it to the British internet industry to develop its own self-regulation through the Internet Watch Foundation - a body similar to the British Board of Film Classification. The IWF is at the centre of a government-backed effort to make sure that what is illegal is not available through the main servers, such as AOL, Demon, BT internet and the others, and that includes race hate material as well as hardcore porn. Those who back the development of the rating and filtering systems that are used argue that for the first time it will give each family - rather than the state - the power to decide what kind of material should enter their home. But critics fear that the "wish of the lazy parent to allow unsupervised access to their children will reduce adult browsing to the level of suitability of a five year old." So far American and Australian politicians have not been able to resist the temptation. Will British ministers be any different?
participants (3)
-
Dan Geer -
Ken Brown -
R. A. Hettinga