In through the outfield

21 July 2010

Appeal for empty niche brand water bottles

As part of my presentation, during our Practical Market Research workshop, I have a slide showing three very different types of bottled water.

The images nearly always trigger an insightful discussion about branding and niches within markets, and how entrepreneurs need to think very carefully and strategically about their product and service. Are they going to target the top of the market populated with ‘high net worth individuals’, the growing green consumers, or perhaps the ethical demographic?

As you can see from my screen shot, I cover all of the above sectors with my examples.

The first is called bling h20 and costs $40 for the limited edition Paris Pink bottle. They justify its price tag by putting Swarovski crystals on the bottle and making Paris Hilton its patron saint.

The second brand is Tasmanian Rain and claims: This uniquely pure rainwater is captured on the pristine island of Tasmania, Australia where the air is scientifically proven to be the purest in the world. The air currents travel over Antarctica and 10,000 miles of open ocean eventually reaching the western most part of Tasmania, “the edge of the world”. Here, TASMANIAN RAIN is collected before ever touching the ground, therefore never absorbing impurities, and resulting in a water that is ten times more pure than other premium and artesian waters.

Finally, Belu is an ethical brand and claim to produce the UK’s most eco-friendly bottled water.
It is 100% carbon neutral with the UK’s first plastic bottle made from corn not oil. We deliver one month of clean water per bottle we sell and donate all our profits to clean water projects.

All of this is a rather long winded way of getting to my appeal for empty bottles of these (or any other niche filling bottled water brands) as example for me to hand round in my workshop.

If you happen to be passing by The British Library and could drop them off at the front desk for me, I would be very grateful.

6 July 2010

Who owns the rights to the vuvuzela?

The vuvuzela may be the most annoying musical instrument to be manufactured in recent years. Not only does the buzzing sound have the ability to drown out the crowd and commentary in World Cup matches, the sheer 120 decibel volume of noise at close range can lead to permanent hearing loss. In fact a new model has been introduced with a modified mouthpiece the reduces the volume by twenty decibel.

The popularity of the vuvuzela is spreading to the UK, with Sainsbury supermarket stocking 40,000. And I have even heard the distinctive sound of the instrument around my village during warm evenings. With anything selling in the hundreds of thousands the intellectual property is worth protecting.

In this case the ownership of the idea is claimed by Freddie Maake:

Vuvuzela creator blown off?
Popular Kaizer Chiefs supporter Freddie “Saddam” Maake, who claims to have created the instrument, is an angry man and feels sidelined from the lucrative spin-offs of his “hard work”. He vows the rights of the vuvuzela belong to him and went on to put up a convincing argument for why he should receive royalties from all the companies that produce the horn… Maake’s anger about his loss in earnings is directed at Neil van Schalkwyk, the co-owner of Masincedane Sport in Cape Town. He accuses the 36-year-old businessman of “short changing” him after an earlier undertaking to share the proceeds. “He is making a killing out of my hard work while I starve,” says Maake. Masincedane has gone into partnership with a German company to produce the vuvuzela ahead of the 2010 World Cup. “Journalists from as far as England and Mexico have visited me here and say that I should be rich, but look at me.”

Africa: Doubts raised over vuvuzela trade mark
There have been a number of press reports recently on the issue of who owns the rights to the vuvuzela. In reviewing the fuss and bother around this quasi-musical instrument, it is not clear whether these parties are claiming rights to the trade mark vuvuzela, or the rights to the product itself. Be that as it may, it is instructive to look at the history of the vuvuzela.

One Freddie Maake, a fanatical Kaizer Chiefs supporter, claims he was the first person to create a vuvuzela, albeit an aluminium version in the 1970s. Maake claims that in 1999, with the assistance of Peter Rice, he produced a plastic version of the vuvuzela. He claims that until the late 1990s he was the only owner of a vuvuzela and the only user of one at soccer matches. In 1999 he launched an album called “Vuvuzela Cellular” which features this instrument.

Neil van Schalkwyk, a director of Masincedane Sports, a company that has been manufacturing plastic vuvuzelas since 2001, is also claiming rights to the name vuvuzela.

The Nazareth Baptist Church has now also stated that the trade mark Vuvuzela belongs to it. It claims that it has been using the vuvuzela since 1910.

However, no one has done the groundwork required to give effect to ownership of the vuvuzela. There are no valid patents or designs registered in respect of the musical instrument that is now called the vuvuzela.

Even if this instrument could have formed the subject matter of a design or patent registration, the opportunity of doing so has long come and gone. The only question now is who, if anyone, is the owner of the Vuvuzela trade mark.

According to the records of the South African Registrar of Trade Marks, 40 trade mark applications, by numerous persons and entities, have been filed over the past eight years for the registration of trade marks incorporating vuvuzela. These trade mark applications are in relation to a wide variety of goods and services.

One of the applicants for these trade marks is Rory Peter Rice (presumably the same person who assisted Maake with the manufacture of a plastic vuvuzela), who in 2004 applied for registration of the trade mark Vuvuzela in respect of a “plastic trumpet”. Three days before Rice’s application, Masincedane Sports also filed an application for the trade mark Vuvuzela in relation to “musical instruments”, a Mr Mafokate applied for the registration of the trade mark Vuvuzela in 2003 and in 2009 so also did Messrs Urbas, Kehrberg and Bartels, all German citizens.

All of the vuvuzela trade marks are still pending, which means that at this point in time no single party can claim to be the registered owner of the vuvuzela trade mark in South Africa. Masincedane Sports’ application has been accepted by the Registrar but it would appear that this trade mark is under opposition, presumably by one of the other people who claim to own the vuvuzela. Despite the fact that at this point in time no-one can claim to be the registered owner of the Vuvuzela trade mark in South Africa, the question still remains whether any party can claim to be the common law owner of the trade mark. An internet search revealed that there are many entities or persons making use of the vuvuzela as a musical instrument. It would appear that most, if not all, consumers regard the trade mark vuvuzela as not belonging to any single person.

For example, one can buy vuvuzelas on vuvuzela.co.za, which would appear not to be linked to either Rice or Masincedane Sports. The website that can be found at boogieblast.co.za also advertises vuvuzelas. There are other websites, such as southafrica.info, which openly state that the vuvuzela belongs to the people. Even if one looks at the website of Masincedane Sports, which can be found at vuvuzelas.com, there is no claim on the website that the company regards itself as the owner of the vuvuzela trade mark. In fact quite the contrary: on its website Masincedane Sports appears to use vuvuzela in a sense to indicate that no single party can claim a monopoly on the name.

The South African Trade Marks Act provides that a mark that consists exclusively of a sign or indication which has become customary in the current language is not registrable as a trade mark. In short, a word that is used by all and sundry to describe a particular thing cannot be protected as a trade mark as the word has become generic.

It would appear that the trade mark vuvuzela is used by the people of South Africa to describe a type of musical instrument. It can therefore be argued that the trade mark vuvuzela has become generic and that no single party will be able to claim ownership of the name vuvuzela when referring to the musical instrument.

Carl van Rooyen, Spoor & Fisher, Pretoria, South Africa

Vuvuzelas: 10 things you need to know about the fans’ World Cup instrument

1. A vuvuzela is a blowing horn approximately 1 m in length commonly blown by fans at football matches in South Africa.

2. To blow a vuvuzela you need some lip and lung strength to produce a loud monotone sound.

3. Practised players can generate an awesome 127 decibels when blowing the horn.

4. Researchers even claim to have found evidence that vuvuzelas can lead to permanent hearing damage

5. Where the word vuvuzela comes from is hazy with one theory being that it came from the Zulu word for making a vuvu noise. It is also a township slang word for shower.

6. The vuvuzela is unique to South Africa and is an emblem of hope and unity for many.

7. It was originally made from a kudu horn and it’s claimed in South African folklore that in the ancient days, it was used to summon people to gatherings.

8. The sound made by a vuvuzelas has been compared with “a stampede of noisy elephants, “a deafining swarm of locusts,” or a giant hive of angry bees.”

9. Kaizer Chiefs FC fan Freddie “Saddam” Maake claims he invented the vuvuzelas in 1965 by adapting an aluminium version from a bicycle horn after removing the black rubber to blow with his mouth. He later found it to be too short and joined a pipe to make it longer.

10. Ronaldo has hit out at the sound of the vuvuzelas saying: “It is difficult for anyone on the pitch to concentrate.”

15 June 2010

Intellectual Property: A Success Story To Be Extended?

I’ve just been reminded of one of my more scary speaking engagements of recent times. It was back in January 2009 at the invitation of Professor Michael Mainelli, Emeritus Gresham Professor of Commerce at Gresham College.

It was at the Real Time Club. Founded in 1967, the Real Time Club is believed to be the world’s oldest IT dining Club. The Club is dedicated to participative events that provide “rapid responses to the challenges of the information society”.

My fellow speakers were:
Professor Ian Angel, who is Professor of Information Systems at the London School of Economics and also Chairman of Creative Commons (England and Wales).
David Bunting, who is CEO of Trevor Baylis Brands plc (a company which he setup with Trevor Baylis), which provides route-to-market services for inventors and entrepreneurs. David is a Chartered Engineer, a Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, and a Fellow of the CMA,
Richard Overden, who is an Associate Director of Oxford University’s Bodlian Library and Keeper of Special Collections. Prior to that he worked at Durham University Library, the House of Lords Library, and at the University of Edinburgh.
Tony Pluckrose, who is a Partner at Boult Wade Tennant and also a Chartered and European Patent Attorney.

Here is a brief report from the evening:

Some 40 members and guests of the Real Time Club attended the first dinner of 2009 to debate the subject of: “Intellectual Property: A Success Story to be Extended? Just Desserts or Global Gridlock?” The Chairman, Mark Holford welcomed the guests and then handed over to the evening’s host, Professor Michael Mainelli, who is also the club’s Vice President.

The format of the evening was a brief (three minute) statement by each of the panel of speakers, followed by a lively and challenging debate, to which everyone present made a contribution.

The introductory sessions posed a series of challenges. These included:

* “Is Intellectual Property protection being mis-sold?” Inventors often do not understand patent protection – they have a great idea, talk about it in the pub, and don’t realize that by doing so they have already exposed it to the public. Their problem is the extent to which they dare tell people what they are doing. They think that a patent will give them protection, even if the idea has been put into the public domain, and defending a patent is very expensive. What they should do is think like an entrepreneur, by keeping quiet, building a product, and once it is built patent it and sell it to a large corporation.

* The second challenge was the unreasonableness of traditional copyright law: “Is it right that I should be charged $500 in Las Vegas to use 30 seconds of Ella Fitzgerald in a presentation?”

* The third challenge was the fairness of current practice – monopoly rights that are given by governments in the form of patents should be properly categorized and reasonably charged; if they are not, it will stifle inventiveness.

* We then moved into the realm of science fiction and considered the Star Trek replicator, which is fast becoming science fact, since replication costs are negligible. Why shouldn’t we generate an idea, create value, and then make it freely available? Don’t we have a moral imperative to do this? After all, multiple people possess an idea – it is rather arbitrary that the first person who patents the idea owns it. Replication is now also now a major part of the librarian’s job; because of digitization, librarians have progressed from being curators of knowledge within a specific location to providers of digital representation on a global scale. And relationships with companies like Google introduce commercial, as well as engineering, considerations.

* The final contribution to the introductory session was the differences between USA and European IP law. In the past the USA has granted patents relatively freely (as in the case of State Street Bank), whereas Europe has been tougher (as in the case of Symbian). The USA has now resiled, and the high tide has passed and is now receding, But although patents are harder to get, they are still being granted when they shouldn’t be. The issues are cost and complexity, including the expense of challenging patent rights.

11 May 2010

E-courses on intellectual property helping Bonbon Balm

It is always nice to get positive feedback on events and activities we run here in the Business & IP Centre. However, our E-courses on intellectual property sometimes get a bit forgotten with the excitement surrounding big name speakers such as Alan Sugar.

So it was good to get a reminder from Sally who runs the Bonbon Balm website.

I have just started up my new online business (www.bonbonbalm.com) and wanted to say a thank you to the team at the British Library. Your information and support on Intellectual Property has been invaluable during the start-up process. I don’t think I could have understood everything without your online courses.

Many thanks!
Sally

E-courses on intellectual property

A brilliant idea can take you a long way, but the road to protection and development can be challenging.

To help you, we have launched a series of free online courses on intellectual property.

Course 1: This will help you get to grips with IP, including patents, trade marks, registered designs and copyright.

Course 2: The second course will teach you how to search intellectual property databases to see if your idea is original.

Course 3: The third course will help you find out if there is a market for your idea.

29 March 2010

It’s official – trade marks with swearing are now ok

I have to admit to not being a fan of marketing shock tactics. And I suppose the French Connection FCUK brand must be amongst the most well known example.

According to a BBC report from 2001, the FCUK logo was created by legendary adman Trevor Beattie, and is widely credited with turning the fashion retailer’s fortunes around. The British Advertising Standards Authority received 27 complaints about the logo on its launch. And a British judge branded the campaign “tasteless and obnoxious” during a court case involving the company.

Just this week I spotted a story in Springwise for a new brand of gadget friendly jeans that go by the name wtfjeans. My feeling is this is somewhat less offensive, as only ‘hip young things’ would know what the three letters stand for in this context. Having said that, a quick Google search reveals over 35 million hits for the term.

However, one of my Intellectual Property expert colleagues Philip Eagle has discovered that in January the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) approved a German trade mark, F***ing Hell.

Apparently swearing is ok as long as the offensive word is used in the abstract and not used to insult an identifiable person or group of people.

R 0538/2008-4 – F***ing Hell [Fig. mark] – The applicant sought to register a figurative trade mark for ‘clothing, footwear, headgear’ in Class 25, ‘beers and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks’ in Class 32 and ‘alcoholic beverages (except beers)’ in Class 33.

Update:

Philip has just informed me that the UKIPO may have a different view on the matter as in June 2005 they refused an application for FOOK.

The Hearing Officer found that the trade mark was excluded from acceptance by reason of section 3(3)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 on the basis that it consisted exclusively of the word FOOK which is phonetically very similar or, in some regional dialects, identical to the offensive word F***. As such it was contrary to accepted principles of morality.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/o18205.pdf

On a related topic I note that my old University, Keele has recently published a study showing that swearing can lessen pain.

21 November 2009

He stole my idea – what can I do about it? – Workshop

I’m still catching up on my notes from some of the events I attended during a manic Global Entrepreneurship Week (GEW) at The British Library.

Although somewhat sexist in tone, He stole my idea – what can I do about it? really caught my attention. It was presented by Denise Nurse, the co-founder of Halebury one of our partners providing legal advice. They aim to make law more accessible to everyone, in particular start-ups and medium sized companies.

Here are my notes from the workshop:

1. What is Intellectual Property?

Ideas are not protected until you do something with it. It has to turned into something tangible.
Often compared to physical property. You wouldn’t buy a house without research and professional advice. Once purchased you need to maintain and develop it in order to protect or increase its value.
You need to identify the various aspects of IP in the manifestation of your idea:

– Copyright – automatically covers any creative output, but you need to prove you did it first.

– Trademarks – your unique identifier for you business. Can be registered for ten years with the Intellectual Property Office or the EU for a Community Mark. Start with business name, might want to include your strap line. Need to develop a strategy, but budgetary restrictions are often a factor. If you have an established brand which can not be registered as it is descriptive you can use the ‘passing off’ laws to gain some protection.

– Patents – a long, complicated and expensive process. Covers an inventive process. Must be completely new and secret, but if successful gives you a monopoly for 20 years. Can be licensed to others.

– Designs – often overlooked, but relatively cheap and easy to register. Covers the shape of something and how it fits with something else. Does not have to be registered, but this gives more protection.

– Database rights – relate to the organisation of information. Protection from staff walking away with customer lists etc.

– Confidential information – take time to ensure you have the correct confidentiality agreement. How long will it need to last? Who does it cover? Be careful using standard agreements found on the internet.

2. How is IP Infringed?

Copy, publish, distribute
Sell, rent, lend
Produce, manufacture
Perform, broadcast
Adapt

3. What is the Damage?

Music industry claims 20% lost income due to piracy.
Your reputation can be damaged – e.g. counterfeit goods which are poor quality
Money – loss of IP eats into your income.
Dilution of rights – e.g. by allowing its use to become generic you lose the value of your rights such as a trade mark.
Weakened commercial position – will have an impact on potential partners, licence agreements.

4. Protection = Preparation and Perception

Mark and / or register – e.g. use copyright symbol.
Insure – a growing field, especially in the field of products and patenting. Can cover legal fees to attack or defend from attack. Can help when going for investment.
Monitor use – the IPO do not act as IP police. You have to check. Not difficult these days with the internet and search engines. Some trade mark attorneys offer this service.
Take swift action – very important not to hang about, but don’t act rashly, get legal advice.
Follow through – do you have the resources to follow up on original letter? Nine times out ten the initial letter and demands within it will work. In some cases your trade association can provide support.
Make an example of someone who is blatantly abusing your IP.
Get warranties from third parties you are working with.

5. What if someone is infringing your IP?

Identify
Gather evidence – such as witness statements.
Get insurance – can be bought after the event.
Call a lawyer – better if you already have a relationship and they know you IP situation.
Contact the infringer
Make a claim
Notify the authorities – some acts are illegal in addition to civil. E.g. counterfeiting goods.
Settlement agreement – you may be able to work out a licensing deal.

6. Defences – anticipating

Dispute ownership or title – prove the IP is yours. E.g. in the film world need to ensure all aspects are covered.
License to use – check the small print of original documentation.
Lack of knowledge – if your work is not widely available it is possible the infringers have not copied your work, although they will still be in breach of your IP.
Rights have expired or have been exhausted – can be a geographical factor.
Jurisdiction – disputes may be taking place in other locations.
Acquiescence – you haven’t used your registered trade mark for too long.

7. What will you win?

Stop infringement
Seize copies
Account for profits – example of Brats dolls dispute with Matel – $100 damages.
Damages
Criminal sanctions – e.g. Pirate Bay founders

8. Practical steps

Set up processes
Keep an up to date record of your IP – don’t forget to renew trademarks
Document your agreements
Monitor the market place – be aware of IP use and trends in your market area.
Build an aggressive reputation – lessons learnt from working for Rupert Murdoch.
Publicising your success – e.g. when you make an example of an infringer.
Research and take advice – sometimes you will need professional advice, build this into your plan.
Have a strategy – always worth going through your IP assets even at a late stage.

Audience comment: “For most companies ethics is a small county in the south east of England.”

18 November 20096 March 2013

My podcast on the Guardian’s Small is Beautiful website

An interview I recorded a couple of weeks ago has now made it onto the Guardian’s Small is Beautiful website.

The aim of the recently launched section is to show why growing firms are the economy’s best hope. And to highlight the potential for small business to lead Britain out of recession, by focussing on the issues facing small and medium sized companies.

They have used a comment I picked up from one of our earliest supporters Mandy Haberman, who believes that the Business & IP Centre is a ‘safe haven’ for inventors and entrepreneurs.

16 November 2009

Information Law with Charles Oppenheim

A late night last Thursday due to attending an excellent talk by Professor Charles Oppenheim on information law. The event was the second in a series of talks organised by the wonderfully entrepreneurial information professional Jennifer Smith and sponsored by her OneIS company. Charles generously agreed to make his slides available on the One IS website

For his talk Charles cantered through a range of important and controversial topics, which was described as a chocolate box taster approach rather than an in depth analysis due to time constraints.

Having known Charles for many years I was already aware of his amazing ability – not only to bring what could be quite dry topics to life with amusing examples, but to explain really quite difficult subjects with clarity and brevity.

The topics covered were data protection, personal data, cloud computing, protecting your reputation online, disability discrimination, contracts and last, but by no means least, copyright.

Data protection

This is a notoriously difficult and worrying topic for information professionals, and in fact anyone whole collects data about people in the United Kingdom. It all stems from the Data Protection Act of 1998, and covers information about individuals ranging from the innocuous to highly sensitive. One curious exception to its provenance is financial information, and we spent some time during the lengthy questions and answers session at the end pondering why this might be the case. My theory is that the UK banks recognised the law would have a disruptive impact on their activities, and used their considerable influence to ring-fence this area.

The Data Protection Act is based on the following eight principles, all of which have legal status (either civil or criminal), and is regulated by an Information Commissioner:

Personal data must be obtained fairly, and for a bona fide purpose.
It can only be used for one or more purpose, which must be clearly specified.
The data obtained must be adequate, relevant and not excessive. Charles gave a wonderful example of a town council who included a question on chest size on their form for all new employees. The reason they asked the question was to help them keep their stocks of overalls correct for those staff who did ‘dirty jobs’, such as dustmen and women. However, when a secretary complained about the question the council (and the vast majority elsewhere in the country) were forced to change their policy.
The data must be accurate and up to date (where relevant).
It should not be kept for longer than necessary. (This led to a discussion of the recent news story about the UK police being forced to delete their DNA records of innocent civilians after six years, instead of keeping them forever).
The data should be processed in accordance of the rights of individuals, who retain the right to sue for inaccurate information.
It must be protected from loss, damage or destruction.
It must not be transferred outside the European Economic Area. (This led to a discussion of Google and Amazon data servers which are based in the United States).

Charles then went on to give brief overviews of five more information law topics:

1. Cloud Computing – In particular the risks of exporting or storing data outside of the European Economic Area. Many organisations are not aware that by using Google or Amazon S3 servers their data is being stored in the United States, and so in breach of UK law.

2. Protecting your reputation online:

– This topic was about slander (temporary) and libel (published) where the reputation of an individual is harmed by false statements, to more than one ‘third’ party.

– It only applies if there is a reputation to be harmed. So saying Jeffrey Archer is a crook would not be libellous.

– An email to an individual is not libellous, but if it leaks out to others, then it becomes so.

– This is a particularly thorny topic due to the big differences in libel law between countries, in particular between the United States and the UK. We currently have the strictest libel laws in the world.

– Charles recommended regularly ‘Googling’ yourself to see what has been written about you online.

3. Disability discrimination – How you must make reasonable adjustments to cater for those with disabilities.

4. Contract law – This consists of five key elements. Offer and acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, legal capacity and formalities. Charles reviewed the three levels of formality. 1. A verbal or email agreement (unlikely to accepted in court). 2. An email with a digital signature (generally accepted as binding). 3. An email with a signature and full encryption (full legal strength).

5. Copyright – Charles ended on this most complicated and controversial topic which led on to a lengthy question and answer session. He wanted to ensure we were all aware of the fact that just because content was freely available on the Internet, this did not mean it was not covered by copyright law. He recommended using sites such as Flickr which are covered under Creative Commons licences.

4 November 2009

Free vs Fee – the Future of News – SLA Europe meeting 3 November

Another successful SLA Europe event this evening, this time at the swanky venue of the Crowne Plaza Hotel, five minutes away from Blackfriars station.

The hot topic was Free vs Fee – the Future of News. And stemmed from the fact that most newspapers have offered their content via the Internet for free with the expectation that display advertising would create enough revenue to cover the cost of creating and distributing their content. However, with the continuing decline in physical newspaper sales and the softening of the display advertising market, news organisations are exploring new ways to charge for their digital content.

On the panel were Jeremy Lawson VP Sales, EMEA, Dow Jones & Company, Andrew Hughes – Commercial Director for the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA), Laurence C. Rafsky Ph.D. – CEO of Acquire Media and Laurence Kaye – Principal at Laurence Kay Solicitors. The panel was excellently moderated by Donald Roll – Managing Director, Europe for Alacra.

Here are my notes from the evening:

Don Roll introduced the evening by talking about the steep decline in newspaper circulation, the recent arrival of the first free quality newspaper in the form of the London Evening Standard, and how the NLA wants to ensure newspaper publishers receive payment for web content.

Andrew Hughes – NLA initiatives

NLA are moving towards creating a set of licences for commercial use of newspaper websites.

UK newspapers spend £1b a year in creating this content, which is quite different from paper published information. For example 31% of newspaper websites has never appeared in print.

The plan is that for those who charge for access to newspaper content will be charged by the NLA, who will also charge end user clients for access to content.

Existing licences will be extended and new ones created where necessary

e-Clips Web – Working to improve access to content by using newspaper CMS systems.

Laurence Kay – The legal view – 10 key points

1. Professional journalism, ‘trusted content’ and UGC (user generated content)

2. Change takes time! Business models and culture takes time to change.

3. Global Media / local copyright?

4. If content is going to be free, why does copyright matter? Provides the framework for access and usage rights.

5. B2B versus consumer copyrights

6. ‘Effects-based’ approach to copyright. Helps to work out how to apply rules to the real world. Look at the commercial impact of activities.

7. ‘Legal’ versus ‘Illegal’ content. When to take action or technical measures over infringements.

8. Who are the ‘intermediaries’ in the value chain? E.g. Where does Google fit in? Searched for or ‘scraped’ conent?

9. ‘Fair Use’. Big variations across Europe. United States has a broad definition. If the use is commercial is that no longer fair use?

10. We are still lacking 21^st century infrastructure to cope with licensing and payments for use.

Laurence C. Rafsky – What do we mean by free?

Once freedom has been tasted there is no going back.

Value chain –

professionally produced but given away selectively – e.g. advertiser supported
Non-professional content
Gifted professional content. E.g. Stephen King novel
Free to some but not others
Content that should not be free.

Two enemy camps

Information wants to be free – the hippies
Corporate suits who want to charge for everything

The solution will need to be a compromise.

A question for the NLA to consider:

Do you use copyrighted material for commercial gain without payment to content owners?

Do you use copyrighted material for commercial gain without permission from the content owners as we understand it?

The crux of the debate is between these two viewpoints.

Can we separate business use from personal use? Google don’t distinguish between the two.

Jeremy Lawson – Supporting publishers and their right to monetise their content.

Questions from the audience:

Did the newspaper industry start digging its own grave by giving away content?

New York Times started with some free and mainly fee access. They ended it because when compared pay per click ads versus pay for access would give ten times the revenue. But as ad revenues fall they may go back to first model.

Should be driven by economics.

Do you think news aggregators are a serious threat to publishers?

Links are fine, but extracts complicate the issue as readers may not link through to content. But as web content grows and newspaper content becomes a smaller fraction, increasing hits to newspaper sites lose their economic value to the publishers.

85% of newspaper traffic comes via Google. So should Google pay the majority share?

Is the Kindle from Amazon a potential future model for subscription access to newspaper content?

Disagreement – ability to break news up into selected streams for readers counts against Kindle model.

When will paper newspapers die?

Laurence C. Rafsky predicted that by 2030 newspapers would cease to exist in paper form as a mainstream product.

He compares their future to candles today – they will become a decorative only production.

As he pointed out, if you had a choice, why would you use paper for something that only has a value for a few hours, and then you need to scan it to create a digital version which can be archived.

B2B vs B2C

Issues about consumers within a business environment – now that the genie is out of the bottle, how do you get individuals in a corporate environment to accept paying for information.

The event was kindly sponsored by Dow Jones.

1 November 2009

Book review – From Inventor to Entrepreneur by Celia Gates

Having met the Celia a couple of times in the Business & IP Centre I am aware of the both the passion she has for turning inventions into business, as well as the tremendous challenges she has faced on her journey.

So I was fascinated to see how she would express these in her new book. As with all entrepreneurial ideas this book came about because it wasn’t there when Celia needed it. In other words there was a gap in the market which meant both an opportunity to help other people in the same situation.

I’ve met quite a few inventors since joining The British Library and I now recognise Celia’s description of the inventor’s mindset after having had a light-bulb moment.

‘One of those burning ideas that bores deep into your head, gives you a rush of excitement and keeps you awake at night. You simply can’t stop thinking about it and the more your do, the better it gets. You know you’re on to a ‘winner’ but, the question is:

What on earth are you supposed to do with this idea next.

It’s with this question in mind that I have written this book. It’s the book I wanted to read when I first had my idea. I searched for it, but it didn’t exist – now I hope to put the knowledge and experience I have gained to use by helping you. The advice and guidance offered herein is cheap at the price. It has cost me at least £94,000 in expensive mistakes to acquire. The intention is to save the you the same peril but, you must be warned in advance; this book is not for the feint hearted.’

Celia is more of a creative designer than traditional inventor so I was fascinated to see that one of her earliest influences was a visit to the Alessi factory in Milan. As a fan of their products for nearly thirty years I can relate to this inspiration.

Almost everyone I meet has had a light-bulb moment at some point in their life (many have claimed to have been the first to come up with the idea of wheels on suitcases). However, the key is what they do next. According to Celia, out of 33,000 ideas, only 3,000 ever get written down, out of those only 300 are developed further, 3 of those are filed for official ownership (e.g. a Patent application), and only 1 idea goes on to become a reality in the market place.

For Celia the idea is secondary in the route to market, the primary factor is the inventor.

‘You are totally and utterly responsible for the success of your idea. Turning and idea into reality has everything to do with you. You and the belief and action you are prepared to take in order to turn your idea into a phenomenal success.’

As Celia correctly points out, the very first thing you should do with your brilliant idea is to value it. Far too many inventors devote time and money developing and protecting their idea, only to find out it will never be commercially viable.

1. You need to work out who (and calculate how many) will benefit from your idea.

‘Avoid sweeping statements such as ‘everybody in the entire world is going to benefit’

Concentrate on who is going to benefit the most, and so who are likely to be your first customers.’

2. Find out how accessible you target market is. How are you going to get to meet them to talk about your idea and get their reaction?

3. Work out who you are going to be competing against. Many inventors say they are creating a new market with their idea, but even where this is true existing businesses with either feel threatened or, see a new opportunity and will respond.

4. Clearly identify your competitive edge. Why is you idea so much better than anything else on the market?

5. How sure are you of being the original creator of your idea? Similar ideas often occur simultaneously, so keep watching out for your idea in patent searches and trade magazines.

Celia has adapted the famous Edward De Bono Six Thinking Hats Principles into what she terms The Whether? Forecast. This is to help view the idea from a range of perspectives:

Sun – think sunny positive thoughts about your idea.
Rain – concentrate on all the negative aspects, and what could go wrong.
Snow – clean sheet thinking. Imagine the landscape is covered by snow and start again.
Blue Sky – think creatively, don’t be constrained to the known.
Environment – look around you and consider the physical environment in which your idea will function.
Whether Report – review the evidence and your research. Look for gaps in your knowledge and try to fill these. Examine past trends and historical patterns to help predict the future.

The importance of building prototypes is covered;
‘They say that a picture speaks a thousand words: in this case a prototype speaks a thousand pictures.’
Apparently James Dyson built 5,127 prototypes when developing his dual-cyclone vacuum cleaner.

The book gradually moves towards more entrepreneurial activities, such as the need to develop an elevator pitch. This is something inventors are particularly bad at in my experience. Too often they go into far much technical detail, forgetting to emphasise the benefits of their invention to the consumer.

In chapter eight Celia attacks the tricky issue of selling intellectual property. Many inventors really struggle with this concept as they don’t trust anyone else to take proper care of their ‘baby’. The chapter starts with the following:

‘How to get rich from your invention

So, let’s start by overcoming a barrier: are you an inventor or an entrepreneur? With a little luck you are an Inventive Entrepreneur and in this case you are in line to make some BIG MONEY…

… but before we proceed, how do you feel about this?

Are you in the invention game to make BIG MONEY or are you inventing because it is your hobby or because it rewards you in other ways?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing something because you enjoy doing it. The world needs more social entrepreneurs and if you are in this business solely because you believe you are capable of adding infinite value to the lives of many other through your ideas then you have my utmost respect.

Her in the UK we seemingly ‘hate the concept of making BIG MONEY and yet, if we open up and are honest with ourselves, the concept of infinite riches is what stimulates and motivates many of us every day.’

I have to take issue with Celia on this point, as in my experience most inventors are more motivated by wanting to see their invention come to life, rather than making millions of pounds from it.

The rest of the book covers how to get your product into the market place, including starting production, getting attention, testing and optimising, brands and assets and return on investment.

Celia’s own experiences (and those of many other inventors) lead to the inclusion of a lengthy chapter on what to do if someone has stolen your idea.

In summary, I would say that although this book is quite quirky in places, it sees the world through an inventor’s eyes. It strongly emphasises the point that – yes – the innovative idea is essential, but unless the inventor can morph themselves into an entrepreneur then their idea is likely to remain just that, an idea, rather than a product consumers can benefit from.

From Inventor to Entrepreneur by Celia Gates

Helping you acquire essential knowledge & skills by learning how to save time & costly mistakes.
How to generate innovative & original thoughts.
How to develop ideas as valuable assets.
How to secure & register official ownership.
How to commercialise an innovation & turn the value of you intellectual property in to riches & wealth.
How to stop your ideas being stolen & optimise your return on your investment.