Posts Tagged ‘innovation’

The EU Patent: A Major Breakthrough in Innovation

Tuesday, December 11th, 2012

Today the EU has removed a major hurdle to innovation and economic growth. A single patent system will give innovative entrepreneurs the platform to become major contributors to the sustainable economic recovery of Europe. It will not only offer SMEs more exposure to national markets, it will also standardise and harmonise Patent Law to give them legal certainty, thereby protecting them from fragmented national legislations.

It has taken us over 30 years to arrive at this significant milestone and it is the culmination of many rounds of negotiation. Thanks to the EU’s action, SMEs will have a simpler system to register their innovations at significantly lower costs. This will stimulate innovation across Europe as SMEs are able to protect their IP through a harmonised system. We need to ensure that the EU patent lives up to its objectives namely to create a level playing field for entrepreneurs. Even if the first EU Patent will theoretically exist by 2014, we need to remain vigilant that Member States encourage adoption and provide on-going support for the new system.

For more information, read here

Innovation and IGF – Lessons from Purple Rain

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

I never meant to cause you any trouble,
I never meant to cause you any pain

The opening lines of Purple Rain serve to sum up the challenges faced by innovative SMEs around the world, seeking to protect their investments with IP. At the Internet Governance Forum, no one means to cause them any pain…but they do. There is a widespread campaign by some, primarily in the OSS community (but they are not alone) to devalue and trivialize intellectual property around the world and SMEs have the most to lose. This campaign has many faces including debates surrounding so-called Open Standards, development, accessibility and blatant preferences for open source software. There are legitimate issues to be addressed in each of these topic areas, but the overreaching tendency is to minimize the value of IP. Truthfully, large companies with their thousands of patents and cross licenses have far less to fear from this devaluation. It is smaller companies with their one or two patents, central to their entire business, that stand to lose the most.

You might rightfully ask, what does all this have to do with the Internet Governance Forum. The answer is that the IGF has increasingly become a minefield of unintended consequences for small innovators. The IGF has become a critical venue where governments, NGOs and business get together to discuss the internet. There is really no other forum like it where posturing is at a practical minimum, discussions are open and frank, and everyone that wants to be is at the table. Changing the IGF, even just a little, would most likely undermine these rather unique positive, and frankly essential, characteristics. None of this means there are no dangers about which to be vigilant.

In open standards discussions, the definition of “open” seems to be creeping towards “implementable via the GPL,” a license that was created specifically to be at odds with IP. There are plenty of open source licenses which are compatible with IP and we need to make sure that OSS does not necessarily mean only the GPL. Anyone can choose the GPL as their license, particularly if he or she is trying to build a community around their software project, but there should be no entitlement that the world will always accommodate it. There are positives and negatives to selecting the GPL as your software license and everyone should go in with their eyes open. If SMEs are going to be involved in the standards process and allow their IP to be part of the process, there have to be ways to protect it, such as field of use restrictions, even in a royalty-free implementation of a standard. There might be instances where implementations of standards need to be developed under another GPL-compatible license so that those rights can be preserved. It happens all the time today and the world has not ended.

In the context of development and accessibility, we need to strike a balance between innovation and means-based cost management. Up-front costs cannot be the only driver for governments or the disabled community or they will not get the innovation they so desperately need. My father, who is both seeing and hearing impaired has benefited greatly from his Kindle and his hearing aid, both of which are based on IP for which innovators are compensated and this cannot be any different in software. In fact the core technology of the Kindle came from one of our members, Mobipocket, and existed only as software before it was integrated into a hardware device.

These messages are not new but I suppose the IGF is a new forum in which they are debated and we need to stay on top of those debates. More people from the innovation community need to get involved in the IGF and drive an innovation message for both governments around the world as well as the disabled community. If that message isn’t delivered, short-sighted concerns about up-front costs will significantly hamper innovation in their spaces.

The IGF is an incredible and unique forum in which everyone can be at the table. But as with any big family, no one is hoping you will go hungry but if you are not at the table, there is nothing stopping someone else from eating your lunch.

Is Silicon Valley Tired? And Europe Wired?

Wednesday, January 24th, 2007

John Markoff has an interesting piece in the New York TImes today about the Digital, Life, Design conference in Munich.  The theme of the piece is that the whole "World is Flat" phenomenon has removed the intitutional advantage of Silicon Valley companies.  It’s an interesting theory, but also a bit naive because there is more to building an environment for innovation and entrepreneurship than just social networking technology (We will actually be releasing a paper that looks at many of these issues in early February).

Markoff and the entrepreneurs he interviewed also seem to recognize this (at least partially), however:

"Still, he says that while there are major cultural differences in the way start-up entrepreneurs are viewed in Europe — failure is not viewed as a badge of honor, the way it is in Silicon Valley — a native community is beginning to emerge."

There definitely is a growing community of start-up entrepreneurs in Europe, and many of them are ACT members.  Companies like Ceatec Solutions Limited, Logotec Engineering Group, Tribeka Ltd., Mobipocket.com, Astron Clinica, and Cyberfab are leading some of the leading voices in Europe’s vibrant community of new companies. 

Yet, in the conversations we have with our European members, there is near universal agreement the Europe is a less hospitable environment for tech entrepreneurs.  At the top of their list of concerns, is this issue of "risk adversity," which not only keeps many potential entrepreneurs off the playing field, but also makes it much harder for those that lace up their boots to raise the capital they need.  Other concerns usually include labor laws, red tape, market barriers, and lack of IP protection. 

Has anyone actually READ the European Commission’s Open Source Study?

Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007

Recently, the tech press and blogging community have been buzzing over a new European Commission report on the economic impact of Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) on the European information and communication technologies (ICT) sector. 

One thing, however, is notably missing from the online debate over the nearly 300 page report:

someone who has actually read it.

Open Source advocates have been quick to laud the report and proprietary advocates quick to trash it, but their comments reveal little evidence that they’ve actually spent any time reading it.

So, we at ACT are going to step into that void. 

After an initial read, it is clear the authors have done some important (and voluminous) research into the role of FLOSS in the European economy.  That said, there are also some significant holes in their research, questionable assumptions, and misguided recommendations – particularly in the realm of small and mid-size business (SME) policy. 

Over the next several weeks, we’ll be taking a closer look at the report at the ACT Blog to help the community better understand the findings and start a more intelligent discussion on what they mean. 

What makes a gadget so cool the world salivates in unison?

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007

10apple_1901xThat is the big question on the day the world awoke with a technolust-at-first-sight hangover.  How did Apple create a device so utterly cool and innovative that geeks, hipsters, and soccer mom’s alike are now counting the days until they can buy one?

The New York Times’ David Pogue suggests that Steve Jobs has kidnapped Cinderella’s fairy godmother and locked her away in some backroom at Apple.  A colleague of mine still thinks that Jobs has a team of Oompa-Loompa’s wandering about the campus.

The reality, however, is a little less mystical:

200+ patents and jaw-dropping good looks.

(more…)