August 31, 2011

5 tips for secure cloud computing

Five indispe
nsible tips for companies getting on the cloud.



Bookmark php NEW from Apricorn: Aegis NetDock

Posted by: vepemotevi at 10:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

August 30, 2011

Championship: Making the most of the juicy leftovers

Championship: Making the most of the juicy leftovers

By Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

Recently, tech heavyweights from around the world lined up to bid for . When the dust settled, the portfolio had been sold for five times the opening bid and at least twice as much as analysts had expected.

Feisal Mosleh, vice-president for acquisitions at, put the .

“Since the market took off in the last eight years or so, intellectual property went from being an unused asset in the corner to a prime financial asset that can be traded,” he said, adding that, “there is no shortage of capital for the right invention. It’s one of the most differentiating aspects of business today.”

While the hot trend of buying and selling unused IP may be a recent phenomenon, levering it as a resource for new company creation is not. Both are fundamental to  concept of , which we have already blogged about. In a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies can’t afford to rely entirely on their own research, nor can they afford to let internal innovations sit idle. They have to open their doors to let innovation in and out.

In his guest post,  supported this view, .

“There is seldom a correlation between what a company invests in R&D and its future success in terms of revenue,” Jason wrote. “Startups are famous for having successful technology R&D because they can iterate and adapt so quickly and tend to be closer to the ground – e.g. the customer. Rather than invest billions in internal R&D, many of our large technology enterprises may find their money better spent if they put a percentage into incubating startups.”

 is an avid supporter of corporate incubation and open innovation. He is a co-founder and a former partner of , a venture capital and strategic management consultancy that works hands on with global technology companies to help them commercialize their unused IP through spin-out ventures.

In his eight years with New Venture, Rimalovski led more than 50 spinouts from the R&D labs and business units of companies that included Lucent/Bell Labs, British Telecom, Philips, Agere, Boeing, Intel, Telstra, IBM, Avago, Freescale, Unilever, IDEO and Maxim.

New Venture itself was a spinout from . It began as an operating unit in 1997 called the Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs New Ventures Group. Over the next several years, this team created and financed 28 companies based on Bell Labs’ technologies and pulled in a total of $350 million in financing from VC firms and strategic partners. In 2001, the group left Lucent’s nest and became New Venture Partners, applying the methodology it had developed to help other tech heavyweights execute successful corporate spinouts.

These days, Rimalovski is heading up the NYU Innovation Venture Fund for New York University, which we will talk more in posts to come. We caught up with him to discuss the fine art of helping the big guys make the most of “those juicy leftovers that don’t have a path to market inside the company.”

Secure senior support

“Senior management support as high up in the food chain as you can go is really key,” he said. The challenge, however, is that big tech firms seldom think as monolithic entities. Instead, they are a sum of departments, each with its own agenda and set of priorities. In order for a spinout to succeed, that big supporter is needed who can herd the cats and ensure the necessary resources are allocated.

Seek out entrepreneurial fortitude

The engineers and other employees inside the parent company who were involved with the development of the technology are vital. They must continue to have hands-on involvement for successful technology transfer. They must have passion and a willingness to give up the comfort of their corporate environment for a startup environment.

Build a business savvy team

However, these innovators often lack the fundamental business development and marketing skills necessary to turn a patent into a validated product that will be embraced by the market. As with any startup, outside talent must be brought in to drive the new business forward.

In his work at New Venture, Rimalovski’s biggest challenge was often building that team of knowledgeable insiders and business savvy outsiders.

Don’t shoot the horse

A successful spinout also demands significant due diligence to ensure there is a viable business case for the technology and sufficient interest from potential investors and other key stakeholders to make it happen. However, as Rimalovski and his team saw when the downturn hit in 2008, companies eager to cut costs and liquidate assets can suffer from an itchy trigger finger that is counterproductive.

“We asked them not to shoot the horse while we were in the middle of examining it,” he said, reiterating the importance of having that senior-level support. A spinout is therefore more likely get the care and feeding it needs if the parent firm is on a sound fiscal footing rather than in crisis mode.

Keep skin in the game

So what’s in it for the parent company? For Rimalovski and his team, the payout of choice was a piece of pre-market equity in the new venture rather than a payment of royalties that would “take money out of the hands of a startup when they desperately need it. Cash is a precious resource. If we shared an equity stake, it gave them a more vested interest in helping the company succeed.”

Counter the cultural bias

In Rimalovski’s experience, the attitude within an organization toward intrapreneurship and playing that role of champion is a significant barrier to more corporate spinouts.

“In a lot of cases it is a cultural issue,” he said. “Most companies are optimized to protect and keep things inside. The ideal of letting go something that has been invested in goes against the grain of a lot of companies. I think the best thing to encourage people to do it is to show success stories.”

In our upcoming posts, we’ll take a closer look at commercializing innovation from the university campus.

This is the 23rd article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

August 29, 2011

Spammers benefit from stock market turmoil

Spammers benefit from stock market turmoil

By Matt Sergeant

August was a busy month for cyber criminals, according to the August 2011 Symantec Intelligence Report. While phishing levels were one in 229.9 forCanadathis month, spammers were also busy taking advantage of the recent financial market fluctuations.

Matt Sergeant

“Pump-and-dump stock” scams have become popular among hackers hoping to generate profits on intentionally overvalued penny stocks, or highly speculative common stocks traded at less than a dollar. Just as they sound, “pump-and-dump stocks” are promoted (“pumped”) by their owners in order to inflate the price of the stocks as much as possible so that they may then be sold (“dumped”) before their valuation decreases to the original price. Using this scam, cyber criminals attempt to convince the prospective mark that the penny stock is actually worth more than its valuation, or that it will soon skyrocket, using false or misleading information.

When successful, these misleading scams can artificially drive up the price of the stock to a point where the scammers decide to sell their shares, ending the spam campaign and lowering the stock’s valuation back to its original price.

Most “pump-and-dump” stock email scams have been targeting North American users, and can be identified by the random line breaks and spaces between words and sentences, or poorly translated texts within the body of the message or email subject lines.

Examples of email “pump-and-dump”stock scams

[August 2011 Symantec IntelligenceReport]

 

As cyber criminals continue to leverage timely news and events to steal confidential information for profitable gains, online users should consider best practices when surfing the web or opening emails at home and in the workplace. Aside from installing and updating the latest Internet security and antivirus software, users should be suspicious of emails from unknown sources with subject lines referencing timely news or events or obscure topics. Users should also exercise caution when opening attachments and URLs in emails and on social networking sites, even if they are being shared by friends and colleagues.

 

Matt Sergeant, is a senior anti-spam technologist for Symantec Corp.

 

 

August 26, 2011

Sprouter and Akoha revivals show strong community matters

Posted by: vepemotevi at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

August 25, 2011

Two online legal services that are changing the game

Two online l
egal services are helping people achieve better and faster settlements with the help of the Internet.



Lg mobile gw520 iPhone 4 announced – What this means for iPad 2

Posted by: vepemotevi at 08:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

August 23, 2011

Championship: Opening up the ivory tower

Championship: Opening up the ivory tower

By Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

In the context of getting technology to market, “champion” can mean a lot of different things.

Early in this series we defined it as  or investing resources in an innovation to help realize its commercial potential. This is often driven by the need to solve a pain point that the patron organization has been unable to address with its internal resources.

A champion can also be a senior decision maker within a large enterprise who provides the clout and support for a successful spinout. Many companies often sit on proprietary IP and leave its commercial potential unrealized because it doesn’t fit with their product lines or existing markets. However, with a little vision and persistence from few committed intrapreneurs, a new company can be born.

And then there are those entrepreneurial individuals who, having themselves gone through the school of hard knocks to develop, validate and commercialize a disruptive new technology, look for an exploitable innovation which they know is worth their sweat equity until some kind of successful exit is achieved. They become consultants who help out those intrapreneurs mentioned above or university researchers with technology transfer.

Champions in whatever form are essential to the commercialization ecosystem. They are often also mentors, investors and, perhaps most importantly, advocates who take that leap of faith and make doors open at that critical juncture to snatch success from the jaws of failure.

In the coming weeks we’ll feature perspectives from a number of folks who fit this mould, but let’s first put the role of champion in its proper context. For established enterprises in particular fighting to keep their heads above water in a volatile global marketplace, taking this kind of initiative isn’t one of those “nice to do when we have the time and money” things. It’s becoming a competitive necessity.

, executive director of the  at Berkeley’s , nailed it in his 2003 book, .

“Open innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology,” Chesbrough wrote. “The boundaries between a firm and its environment have become more permeable; innovations can easily transfer inward and outward. The central idea behind open innovation is that in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or license processes or inventions (i.e. patents) from other companies. In addition, internal inventions not being used in a firm’s business should be taken outside the company” such as through licensing, joint ventures and spin-offs.

Tapping into an outside base of knowledge

You don’t need to look any further than recent headlines to see open innovation in action in a big way.

 in joint investments and $500,000 in grants to energy innovators in the second phase of its $200-million open innovation project, the , which it launched last year.

“The Challenge has changed how we do business at GE – we learned that accelerating open innovation across public, private and national borders can drive shared value for the company and its partners,” .

That article also highlighted Volvo’s open innovation initiative and featured Hans Persson, the automaker’s senior vice-president of technology and innovation.

“Open innovation is extremely important to cope with the really dramatic changes we foresee in the market, particularly in Asia,” Persson said. “For speed and execution and drive to markets, you need to be very connected to the outside base of knowledge.”

Business Week recently ran an opinion piece from Gary Dushnitsky, associate professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at the , in which he touted the .

“Just look at an example from the oil industry,” he wrote. “Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, there was an immediate need to separate the oil from seawater. The issue wasn’t resolved until 10 years later—not by an expert from within the oil industry but rather by a person with expertise in the construction industry with insights into the manipulation of near-solid cement during large pours. Ultimately, this demonstrates that more and more successful innovations utilize know-how originating beyond industry boundaries and that companies need to go beyond simple outsourcing (e.g., just asking an industry expert) to harness expertise from outside areas.”

Dushnitsky also pointed to open innovation competitions, such as the , which “allow businesses to pay for a proven solution rather than incurring huge R&D expenses that may in turn fund failed innovation efforts.”

Viable business vs. science project

It all comes down to this: In today’s global marketplace, established companies must look far and wide to gather up every competitive advantage they can. For engineers, researchers and nascent entrepreneurs, this can create a wealth of opportunity to secure funding, mentorship, contact with influential industry leaders and tastemakers. The onus is on business leaders to embrace the principals of open innovation and appreciate the valuable role they can play as champions.

But inventors and entrepreneurs can’t just sit back and wait for opportunity to come knocking. If they want to realize the commercial potential of what they have at hand, they must actively engage with their marketplace to validate their idea, ensure it is addressing a clear market need and connect with the champions who can help them move ahead.

This is what distinguishes a viable business from a science project.

This is the 22nd article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

August 22, 2011

Where to get funding for hiring IT students

There are nu
merous wage grants and subsidies for businesses hiring students and interns.



Apple iPhone 4 Unlocked iPhone 4 VS iPhone 3G S

Posted by: vepemotevi at 07:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

August 19, 2011

Wind Mobile rolls out slowest 4G network in Canada yet

Wind Mobile rolls out slowest 4G network in Canada yet

By Brian Jackson

Wind Mobile became the latest wireless carrier in Canada to claim it was rolling out a 4G network, and also the latest to lower the bar on what a “4G” standard even means any more.

I’ve about how communications company marketing departments had turned those two letters into a meaningless term in the hopes of bamboozled consumers immediately equating the label with being good. 4G of course used to refer to fourth generation wireless communications technologies, which included only (LTE) and Wi-Max until last December.

Brian Jackson, Associate Editor, ITBusiness.ca

That’s when the International Telecommunication Union decided to ease up on what could be called “4G” and allowed it to be applied to what had been previously considered later-stage 3G technologies.

The result of that move has led to a bizarre string of marketing ploys to try and convince Canadians they are the . That includes a recent Rogers tagline that makes its network seem like it is more than 4G (but not going as far as calling it 4G+ or 5G). But Wind’s recent fast and loose usage of the term takes the cake as the most egregious yet.

Let’s take a look at what the carriers actually mean when they say “4G”:

4G network definitions by carrier

Rogers Communications: Rogers in the National Capital Region earlier this year, and is the first carrier to bring LTE to Canada. To differentiate itself from other carriers marketing HSPA+ technology as 4G, Rogers has been branding its service as “Beyond 4G.” LTE can deliver up to 150 Mbps bandwidth under optimal conditions, but Rogers says users should expect between 12 to 25 Mbps speeds on average.

Telus Mobility & Bell Mobility: it would be the first in Canada to claim a back in February. In technical terms, Telus and Bell upgraded their shared HSPA+ network to Dual Cell or DC-HSPA+ technology, which supports a maximum download speeds of 42 Mbps and upload speeds of 11 Mbps.  Average download speeds for users would be about 7 to 14 Mbps.

Wind Mobile: Announced it was rolling out network upgrades to 4G speeds, with HSPA+ technology allowing up to 21.1 Mbps bandwidth. Previously Wind towers were delivering 14.4 Mbps speeds. Using the same rule of thumb Rogers, Telus and Bell use for their mobile networks, Wind’s 4G speeds will actually deliver about 3 to 6 Mbps.

Bottom line is that consumers and businesses alike shouldn’t pay too much heed to marketing of 4G networks. Just find out what the advertised maximum bandwidth is on that network and then divide by six or seven to get an idea of the actual speed you’ll be getting.

iPhone 5 coming October 7, reports say

Preorders of
Apple's next-generation phone will begin in late September, reports say.



Incubation: Whose job is it, anyway?

Posted by: vepemotevi at 10:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

August 18, 2011

iPhone 5 coming October 7

Preorders of
Apple's next-generation phone will begin in late September, reports say.



Bookmark php 8 Great Features in iPhone 4

Posted by: vepemotevi at 08:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

August 17, 2011

Accelerated: Springboard takes a ‘people centric’ approach

Accelerated: Springboard takes a ‘people centric’ approach

By Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

We recently conclude our two-part discussion with , the man behind  and , two U.K.-based startup accelerators that took their inspiration from and  in the U.S.

The Difference Engine was an initiative supported by public funds that launched in the north east of England two years ago. While that program was successful, funding cuts to regional economic development, as well as a desire among angel investors to regroup in a more central location, led to what was essentially v2.0 of The Difference Engine, Springboard. Springboard is an intensive 13-week program based at the , part of  state-of-the-art .

We recently spoke with Jon about , how it selects teams for its program, and the characteristics of a winning team. Today, we continue with his thoughts on why companies fail, how Springboard measures its effectiveness and what it takes to create a successful startup accelerator.

What are the common reasons why teams in your programs have failed?

Sometimes teams fail because it’s just a stupid idea. I was having this conversation this afternoon. One of my first graduates who took part in the first program wound the business up a week after the program ended. What was interesting about him was, essentially, he had been running his business for two years. We thought it was an interesting proposition. I think there were massive risks associated with it, but if the risks had been mitigated, it could potentially have been a game changer.

But it became very quickly apparent that to achieve those targets without a lucky break or two was never going to practically happen. So having run the business for two years, he took part in the program and shut it down. I cc’d that, ironically, as a success as well. Because in a world where one has a limited number of entrepreneurs, one has to find ways to ensure that they use their time productively.

The other thing to think of is that (accelerator) programs have to be people centric. In the process of (entrepreneurs) taking part in a program, essentially you’re giving them the tools, the access, the contacts, the experience, which should give them a platform, that, even if the first business, or the business that takes part in the program, fails, they’re a bit older, a bit wiser, a bit more savvy to try to do the next thing.

Where one is kind of shamelessly business centric, I think you lose that.

Please describe the specific role that government and public money plays in the development and delivery of Springboard’s programs and services.

Minimal. Angels represent over 80 per cent of the funds. IdeaSpace is effectively the location where we are, it’s part of the university, and they were keen to help support the program in Cambridge … they gave me some money, they also took some of it back as rent. The much more interesting thing is (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts).

NESTA was brought on board from my perspective because they had access to resources that I would never be able to reach … they were interested in taking part in the program because it was a really interesting way for them to see how a program worked from the inside out … they could foresee that if this could work, it could serve as a model that could be used by other angel groups elsewhere in the U.K. and beyond to help stimulate innovation.

Why is Springboard’s model of interest to angel investors?

The reason why it’s interesting for angels is it allows them to diversify across a wide portfolio of teams with a limited amount of firepower. To give you some numbers around that, my program costs about a quarter of a million pounds. It is essentially paid for by 10 angels all putting in around £25,000, but with that £25,000, they get diversification across 10 different startups, which they couldn’t achieve themselves.

One of the things I say to people when they look at these models is it’s an interesting way of engaging angels in early-stage businesses by de-risking that process. But what you do with the angels is you don’t just get the cash, you also get the contacts and you get their experience as well.

And for most of my angels, when we’re talking £25,000, that’s chump change. They’re interested in writing bigger cheques. The process itself allows them to get up close and personal so that they can make a much more educated guess as to which of the teams they would like to invest and write that bigger cheque.

Where do individuals from the private sector come into the picture?

With the Difference Engine it was mentors, given that it was essentially publicly funded. With Springboard it is investors and mentors.

How does Springboard measure success?

I really don’t know how to answer that question. If we rewind to my angels, they all invest in the teams for different reasons … I’ve got certain angels who do it because it’s good for the ecosystem. Again, that £25,000 represents a very small amount of money to them. They want to do it because they want to give something back.

Most of my angels don’t actually see this as an investment opportunity. It comes back to that notion that first they invest in 10 teams, and then they make a decision during the process on a team they would like to invest in. Think of it almost like due diligence money, but with a return built in. I always start out from the perspective that if I take a pound from an investor I expect to return at least a pound to them. But there is so much more value that comes from around the program itself, both tangible and intangible, that (participants) will reap the benefits from the program, not just financially.

How do we measure the success of the program? Where we can create sustainable, long-term businesses, some of which may chose to raise venture capital, some of which may chose to bootstrap. Because we get our funding from angel investors who are successful entrepreneurs, none of (our teams) are wedded to the idea that they need to go and raise venture capital. It’s whatever is seen as most beneficial for the team going forward.

SpringBoard is obviously still in its early stages, but what kind of hard numbers are there from the Difference Engine?

Cycle 1 (June 2010): Nine teams took part – five funded post program – raising > £1 million.

Cycle 2 (April 2011): Nine teams took part – two funded to date.

Where do we go from here? How must we repeat this model elsewhere and establish a supporting network?

The TechStars model is much more replicable than the Y Combinator model … because of (Y Combinator’s) geographical location and because of (founder), there are some very special attributes that if anybody believes they can replicate that, they’re a fool. TechStars was actually built with the ability to replicate in mind from day zero.

I think the point is well made, why did TechStars start in Boulder? Because it was person centric.  had a passion and desire to do this. Why did TechStars go to Boston? Because someone, after Y Combinator withdrew, stood up and said, “We want to do this.” Why do they pop up in these geographic locations? The reality is, that they are very personality centric … someone shows a desire to genuinely get stuck in it and do these things. Nobody in their right mind would ever have started a program like this in the north east of England, except for “I just wanted to do it …”

But interestingly, even though it was personality centric, I was talking to people who had a desire to do something similar. (The Difference Engine) cost the best part of £750,000. If it hadn’t had a public sector that had the desire and the willingness to try something new and different, I would still be in the north east of England and neither Springboard nor The Difference Engine would exist today.

So there has to be a hunger to try and do something different and to shake it up … I was very privileged that David Cohen actually took three days out of his life and we just sat in a room and we just talked about everything he had done. His attitude was, “I’m never going to run a program like this in the north east of England, so I am happy to help you start such a program.”

That demonstrates the willingness to help out the ecosystem. The more there are people like that, the stronger the ecosystem that will exist. That’s how the ecosystem can exist outside of Silicon Valley.

This is the 21st article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

August 16, 2011

Six-year-old kid sells $10K worth of Apple products

How a six-ye
ar-old Apple fanboy converted BlackBerry loyalists.



Nokia cp 69 leather carrying case retail packaging iPhone 4 announced – What this means for iPad 2

Posted by: vepemotevi at 09:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

August 15, 2011

Look who’s leading the way in low-cost broadband access

Shouldn't Ca
nada start looking into broadband access for low-income households? asks lawyer and tech entreprenuer Monica Goyal



Bookmark php Get 100 per cent tax write-off on computer purchases

Posted by: vepemotevi at 09:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

August 13, 2011

Cameron must be off his chump to call for social media ban

Cameron must be off his chump to call for social media ban

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s and BlackBerry Messenger service in reaction to rioting in London and surrounding cities is pure folly.

The logic of cutting off everyone’s access to communication tools because a few criminals are making use of them is bollocks. Imagine if the rioters used Molotov cocktails in their destructive experts – would a ban on the sale of liquor be considered? Also, it is rare to hear suggestions of gun bans after shootings take place.

Brian Jackson, Associate Editor, ITBusiness.ca

Cameron should be on his back foot after suggesting that a liberal democratic government would go so far as to limit the communications of its citizens. Such practices might be expected in countries with , but considering it in the birthplace of the Westminster parliamentary system is double Dutch. Yet that is exactly what British home secretary Theresa May will discuss with Facebook, and Research in Motion in coming days.

Though it’s acknowledged that these services have been used by rioters to stay one step ahead of the police, cutting them off is not likely to restore London’s usual conservative tranquility. Rather, police can work with these technology companies to track down suspects and limit the impact of riotous messages.

Research in Motion already agreed earlier this week to assist London bobbies with their investigations. It is standard procedure for communications companies to assist police when information is requested for the purposes of a criminal investigation, and this incident is no different. Facebook has also taken steps to remove threats of violence from its site, removing the rubbish while allowing Londoners to console each other in a harrowing time.

Indeed, if Britain does cut social services off from Londoners, they will be curtailing many positive responses to the riots. Take for example the Twitter account @Riotcleanup that launched early Tuesday – it has gathered more than 86,000 followers, mostly volunteers looking to help tidy the streets after rioters go on the warpath.

No doubt British authorities are in a sticky wicket. Allow communications channels to remain open, and they risk more riots being organized effectively. Close it down, and they’ll endure the backlash of decent citizens that use these services every day.

But the most likely outcome of a shutdown is that the good guys suffer while the criminals find new ways to wreak havoc, with the smug satisfaction that they have impacted society. A gang of youth that are highly motivated to commit crime won’t simply stop when a technical barrier is put in their way. They will find a way around the blockage (as grassroots protest movements have ) using proxy servers or IP masking techniques, or they’ll simply move on to organize with another online service.

It’s in the most trying time that a liberal society tests its dedication to freedoms. That’s why Cameron should keep all channels of communication wide open. For England.

August 12, 2011

Last chance to enter ‘heroic’ business contest

Posted by: vepemotevi at 10:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

Accelerated: The U.K.’s Springboard gets on and does stuff

More often t
han not, it isn’t the lack of core technical competency that holds companies back, but the lack of business experience.



Motorola a1200 flex cable NEW from Apricorn: Aegis NetDock

Posted by: vepemotevi at 09:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

August 11, 2011

So you have the right invention, do you have the right circumstances?

By David French

In a previous post, I talked about the importance of  and how this role fits into an organization.

 

Part of the responsibilities of such an individual is to ensure that a company is obtaining value when it pays to patent its inventions.

I identified the three principles that apply if the objective is to obtain meaningful patents:

  1. Right invention
  2. Right circumstances
  3. Right procedures

In my last post . This time I will address the right circumstances.

While a good patent always starts at the beginning with a good invention, the circumstances of the market are equally important to having a successful product. Even if you have a product that will appeal to customers and can be delivered at a price that customers are willing to pay, if there are alternate products already available in the market that are nearly equivalent, then you’re going to have difficulty.

As discussed in the previous article, having the right invention is essential. No patent in the world will be of value if the public doesn’t want to buy the product, or if the product can’t be made at a price that the public is willing to pay. This addresses the consideration of right invention.

Right circumstances refers to the market environment in which the product is to be sold.

How do you define value?

It’s pretty trite when you understand it, but so many product innovators forget this principle. You’re going to have a great deal of difficulty selling a product at a premium price to customers who have the alternative of purchasing a substitute that delivers essentially the same value. The concept of “value” is used in this case to identify the combination of product appeal and price. That’s what is always on every customer’s mind. Patents cannot contribute to preventing competitors from selling already available products.

A patent is about restraining others from selling competing products. But a valid patent can never be issued for something that has already been available to the public. If an alternate product is already on the market and is just as good as what you’re proposing to market yourself, and if the value combination of appeal and price is very nearly the same, then there’s not much scope in these circumstances for making a lot of money.

Even if you obtain a perfectly valid patent in respect of your innovation, a patent can never prevent competitors from marketing anything that was previously available to the public. This includes not only things that someone else has already marketed before, but also anything that has been disclosed or described anywhere in the world. This is the fundamental rule of patent law.

A meaningful patent vs. a publicity patent

So if you have an excellent invention that can be made at a reasonable price but others are selling something that’s equally good, then having a patent isn’t going to help you very much. There is the old saw that you can brag that your product is patented. But a “publicity” patent, because that’s what it is, is not really a meaningful patent. It doesn’t deliver meaningful exclusive rights.

Then there is the prospect in which you have a product that is better than something which is already on the market. This looks like an ideal situation. But what if your competitor has the ability to drastically lower their price once you introduce your new, superior, widget for the benefit of the ever-appreciative public? You have to ask: will I be able to maintain sales if my competitor offers a somewhat similar, if not identical, product at a substantially reduced price? In many cases, this kind of behaviour by your competitors will ruin your prospects for succeeding in the market.

Even if something isn’t already on the market, and even if it hasn’t been described previously somewhere in the prior art, market circumstances may nevertheless make it futile to obtain meaningful patent rights. If the object is to charge higher prices from the fortress of enjoying patent exclusivity, then patent rights are useless if they fail to suppress newly arising competitive alternatives. There is always the prospect that your competitors will come up with something new that will compete.

If you build it, someone will imitate it

Everyone’s heard the expression: “If you invent a better mousetrap, people will beat a path to your door.” This concept is probably not true, as many bitter innovators have learned. But I propose another concept: “If the customers start to buy it, then a competitor will make it.” In the battlefield environment of the contemporary world marketplace this is probably as true a statement as could ever be made.

Accordingly, when you choose your innovation, you must not only look to what your competitors are already doing, but also explore what they might do. That’s what right circumstances is all about. Ideally, your innovation should have a feature that not only has never been adopted or disclosed before, but one that cannot easily be imitated using some alternate technology.

This post has been about the right circumstances for obtaining meaningful patent rights. The right circumstances go with the decision to pursue a specific innovation, an innovation which incorporates the right invention. Both of these issues are requirements for obtaining meaningful patent rights, and I haven’t even yet addressed the third issue, right procedures for patenting. That will be the subject of my next post.

As part of our ongoing series examining the ecosystem necessary to bring technology to market, David French, a senior Canadian patent attorney with 35 years of experience, now provides the fourth of his commentaries on the importance to a company of protecting its intellectual property.

David French is the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services, which provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more information visit .

August 10, 2011

Fix a cranky PC with HWMonitor

Find the sl
acker inside your system with free benchmarking/tuneup software HWMonitor.



Motorola v3 razr dark blue unlocked gsm cellular phone WINNERS! Comic Zeal 4 for the iPad

Posted by: vepemotevi at 04:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Canada loses two social media gems

Canada loses two social media gems

Canada’s online community has taken a major hit this month as two social networking sites with a positive bent had no choice but to shut down after running out of cash.

First Sprouter, a question-and-answer site that sought to help aspiring entrepreneurs by providing them access to seasoned experts, announced plans to (but seems to remain online for the time being). Then Akoha, an online game that encouraged its players to enact real-world good deeds in hopes of creating social change, informed its users it would be .

Brian Jackson, Associate Editor, ITBusiness.ca

These sites share much in common. Both were run by experienced and celebrated entrepreneurs well known in Canada’s business community – Sarah Prevette is Sprouter’s founder, and Austin Hill is Akoha’s co-founder alongside Alexander Eberts. Prevette was the only Canadian named to Inc. Magazine’s Top 30 Under 30 list in 2010, and Hill was dubbed a technology pioneer of the World Economic Forum in 2002 among other accolades.

Related Slideshow:

Both also had engaged and enthusiastic communities built around their sites. This was demonstrated by at Sprouter’s Sprout Up events in Toronto, which crammed hundreds entrepreneurial types into a bar to network and watch startup demos. At Akoha, by the constant stream of positive updates coming from users celebrating their personal achievements and reflecting on the good things in life.

In covering these firms for the past three years, I always heard glowing reviews from those who used the sites. Beyond just finding these social sites useful or fun, users seemed to have some real sentiment invested in them – a real emotional bond as part of a meaningful community.

That’s why it’s so unfortunate to see both these sites close their doors due to financial problems. Both were able to build their businesses during a tough recession, and it must have been a painful decision to now have to bow out.

It’s hard to say how things could have worked out differently for the sites that seemed to enjoy success delighting users, while failing to generate revenue. Perhaps if more investment dollars had been available to give these social media startups a longer runway, they could have made it.

When covering Canada’s startup community, it is not unusual to hear about the lack of venture capital available in Canada compared to the U.S. Most agree Canada’s private investment climate is more cautious overall, and therefore perhaps unwilling to take risk on the new and relatively untested business model of social networking sites. Consider the amount of financial backing Facebook and Twitter required to launch and then grow their networks. It took years to build up an enormous user base before finally generating revenue, only very recently.

Even if the social media space is a little less positive at the end of this summer, the user community can take heart at some good news. Both Prevette and the Akoha co-founders plan to eventually take on the challenge of building new startups.

Let’s hope that next time around, they’re able to find money as well as they’ve been able to breed good will.

August 09, 2011

3 tips to revitalize Anonymous

Security exp
erts offer advice for how the hacker group can grow up



Bookmark php Will flow-through shares program help finance tech firms?

Posted by: vepemotevi at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 2 >>
73kb generated in CPU 0.0119, elapsed 0.0937 seconds.
32 queries taking 0.0855 seconds, 108 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.