If you understand French, you might be interested in how I explained the Black Swan on French-speaking radio broadcast Babylon on Espace 2. You just have to click on the picture. Many thanks to Jean-Marc Falcombello for the time he gave me to describe Taleb’s ideas. It is 19 minutes long – between 23:15 and 42:00.
I am less sure this works: http://www.rts.ch/espace-2/programmes/babylone/4203353-moi-je-ne-bluffe-pas-l-insoutenable-legerete-de-l-incertitude-30-08-2012.html?f=player/popup
Here is my second paper published by Entreprise Romande after the one on the Challenges of Innovation.
Copyrights, patents, trademarks. Never intellectual property (“IP”) has seemed so visible, but would it be a victim of its success? It is indeed becoming an almost exclusive tool of the rich and powerful and even worse, it may be hindering innovation whereas it was supposed to encourage it.
In July 2011, a consortium including Apple, Microsoft, Sony bought 6,000 patents from now deceased Nortel for $ 4.5 billion. In August 2011, Google replied by acquiring patents from Motorola Mobile for $ 12.5 billion. Finally in September 2011, the United States announced a major reform of patent law, the America Invents Act. These three events in a single summer confirm the increasingly dominant position of IP in the business world. Yet I think it is bad news!
New privileges
If a patent application only requires a few hundred dollars and tens of thousands to maintain over 20 years, should a company enter in legal dispute over it, it might cost millions in damages and attorney fees. Any fragile business might be dead long before winning a case or proving its innocence. Woe to the weak! Large companies are not the only ones to have understood: companies specialized in the valuation of IP portfolios (“patent trolls”) have emerged in recent years and these companies have no ambition to sell products or services around their IP. And Europeans should not think that the problem is American only as illustrated by the recent battle between Nokia and Germany’s IPCom.
IP is now a far cry from the original patent and copyright statements made by the revolutions of the late eighteenth century. It was then about ending the monopoly of corporatism and about supporting inventors and creators. Far be it from me to push the disappearance of intellectual property. I only here mention the example of the laser patents whose saga has at least allowed a wonderful book, closer to a thriller than the complex physics from which ir was born, Laser: The Inventor, the Nobel Laureate, and the Thirty Patent-year War. But I’m not at all convinced that IP could now enable what was possible almost 50 years ago with the laser. And already in the nineteenth century an abolitionist movement had appeared, aware of the limitations of a system that set new privileges.
Hindering innovation
The other debate about IP is best summed up in a recent article in the ParisTech Review: “Are patents hindering back innovation?” The story is old: Boldrin and his coauthors [1] argue that the developments of the steam engine were hindered by patents filed in 1769. Do we know that the microprocessor from Intel was never protected, nor of course the Internet, and it is more or less constrained that Bell Labs granted licenses on the transistor, an event that is perhaps at the origin of Silicon Valley culture: “In the 70s and 80s, many engineers from Fairchild, National and others met over a beer to talk about problems they encountered in the production or sale of semiconductors. The Wagon Wheel Bar was a meeting place where even the fiercest competitors exchanged ideas.” Having recently visited LinkedIn, I’ve heard engineers explain how they solve problems with competitors from Facebook. Discussing with Apple or Google seems much more difficult today.
Intellectual property is not the answer to everything and in its current development, it poses more new problems than it solves. The U.S. patent reform has already attracted much criticism. As for Europe, it seems stuck in its national self-interest as there is no European patent and the lack of patents on software or business models does not give it any advantage. In a globalized and dematerialized world, the IP must protect the creative people, to better enable the dissemination of ideas and techniques. The “open source” software movement as well as recent experiments in the diffusion of artistic works exclusively on the Internet show that new approaches are possible without killing business or innovation. But it seems that the fears of the established players outweigh the passion and creative risk-taking culture.
-[1] Do Patents Encourage or Hinder Innovation? The Case of the Steam Engine. Patent Law Is Highly Controversial. Michele Boldrin, David K. Levine, and Alessandro Nuvolari.
– Laser: The Inventor, the Nobel Laureate, and the Thirty-year Patent War. Taylor, Nick (2000). New York: Simon & Schuster
– Are patents hindering innovation? Paristech Review, September 2011
PS: When writing this paper, I had not measured yet the impact of the Apple-Samsung litigation…
I am reading a new book on Steve Jobs and Silicon Valley entitled The Apple Revolution. I will come back on what I think when I am finished reading it. I discovered in the first pages of this book that famous author Tom Wolfe had written in 1983 another article about Silicon Valley centered around Bob Noyce, The Tinkerings of Robert Noyce.
You probably do not remember my previous posts mentioning Noyce, and if not you may want to read them:
– What is the mentor role? in August 2010.
– The Man Behind the Microchip in February 2008.
It is not very surprising that Noyce, the founder of Intel, is mentioned in a book about Apple computer. Noyce was a mentor to Jobs as you may see below or by reading my post above. Don Valentine add further that Noyce and Jobs may have been the two most important personalities of Silicon Valley: “There were only two true visionaries in the history of Silicon Valley. Steve Jobs and Bob Noyce. Their vision was to build great companies…”
Wolfe’s article is great and if you do not have time to read The Man behind the Microchip, you might want to read this shorter version. let me just extract a few things:
About the culture of Silicon Valley, work, openness and …
“The new breed of the Silicon Valley lived for work. They were disciplined to the point of back spasms. They worked long hours and kept working on weekends. They became absorbed in their companies the way men once had in the palmy days of the automobile industry. In the Silicon Valley a young engineer would go to work at eight in the morning, work right through lunch, leave the plant at six-thirty or seven, drive home, play with the baby for half an hour, have dinner with his wife, get in bed with her, give her a quick toss, then get up and leave her there in the dark and work at his desk for two or three hours on “a couple things I had to bring home with me.
Or else he would leave the plant and decide, well, maybe he would drop in at the Wagon Wheel for a drink before he went home. Every year there was some place, the Wagon Wheel, Chez Yvonne, Rickey’s, the Roundhouse, where members of this esoteric fraternity, the young men and women of the semiconductor industry, would head after work to have a drink and gossip and brag and trade war stories about phase jitters, phantom circuits, bubble memories, pulse trains, bounceless contacts, burst modes, leapfrog tests, p-n junctions, sleeping-sickness modes, slow-death episodes, RAMs, NAKs, MOSes, PCMs, PROMs, PROM blowers, PROM burners, PROM blasters, and teramagnitudes, meaning multiples of a million millions. So then he wouldn’t get home until nine, and the baby was asleep, and dinner was cold, and the wife was frosted off, and he would stand there and cup his hands as if making an imaginary snowball and try to explain to her… while his mind trailed off to other matters, LSIs, VLSIs, alpha flux, de-rezzing, forward biases, parasitic signals, and that terasexy little cookie from Signetics he had met at the Wagon Wheel, who understood such things.
It was not a great way of life for marriages.”
About youth and innovation:
“The rest of the hotshots were younger. It was a business dominated by people in their twenties and thirties. In the Silicon Valley there was a phenomenon known as burnout. After five or ten years of obsessive racing for the semiconductor high stakes, five or ten years of lab work, work lunches, workaholic drinks at the Wagon Wheel, and work-battering of the wife and children, an engineer would reach his middle thirties and wake up one day; and he was finished. The game was over. It was called burnout, suggesting mental and physical exhaustion brought about by overwork. But Noyce was convinced it was something else entirely. It was…age, or age and status. In the semiconductor business, research engineering was like pitching in baseball; it was 60 percent of the game. Semiconductor research was one of those highly mathematical sciences, such as microbiology, in which, for reasons one could only guess at, the great flashes, the critical moments of inspiration, came mainly to those who were young, often to men in their twenties. The thirty-five year-old burnouts weren’t suffering from exhaustion, as Noyce saw it. They were being overwhelmed, outperformed, by the younger talent coming up behind them. It wasn’t the central nervous system that was collapsing, it was the ego.”
About status, hierarchy and success:
“And if he was extremely bright, if he seemed to have the quality known as genius, he was infinitely more likely to go into engineering in Iowa, or Illinois or Wisconsin, then anywhere in the East. Back east engineering was an unfashionable field. The east looked to Europe in matters of intellectual fashion, and in Europe the ancient aristocratic bias against manual labor lived on. Engineering was looked upon as nothing more than manual labor raised to the level of a science. There was “pure” science and there was engineering, which was merely practical. Back east engineers ranked, socially, below lawyers; doctors; army colonels; Navy captains; English, history, biology, chemistry, and physics professors; and business executives. This piece of European snobbery that said a scientist was lowering himself by going into commerce. Dissenting Protestants looked upon themselves as secular saints, men and women of God who did God’s work not as penurious monks and nuns but as successful workers in the everyday world.”
Although he was an atheist, Wolfe sees in the values of “Dissenting Protestantism” roots of the Silicon Valley culture. “Just why was it that small-town boys from the Middle West dominated the engineering frontiers? Noyce concluded it was because in a small town you became a technician, a tinker, an engineer, and an and inventor, by necessity. “In a small town,” Noyce liked to say, “when something breaks down, you don’t wait around for a new part, because it’s not coming. You make it yourself.”
Interestingly enough the Apple Revolution also mentions all these points, but in the context of the hippie counter-culture… wait for next post!
It is in discovering the Parrot investment in two EPFL start-ups, senseFly and Pix4D, that I was reminded a start-up which recent success I did not know. I am sometimes very much disconnected! I had indeed met its founder, Henri Seydoux, in one of these start-up conferences that were popular in the late 90s. The start-up had already received support from Sofinnova, but it was less than 5 years old and was far from its € 250 million turnover achieved in 2011 and its 700 employees it has hired since!
As usual, I could not help but get its IPO filing document, and also some older material on the French register of commerce, which allowed me to build the following capitalization table.
(Click on image to enlarge)
To learn more about Parrot, the following video is quite refreshing …
Finally, I also wanted to try to learn more about Henri Seydoux, intrigued by a fairly famous family name in France … this work is probably closer to the tabloids than this blog but hey, I find the genealogy interesting!
(Click on image to enlarge)
After my summer break, I received mails from friends and colleagues, all related somewhat to new (in fact old) trends in innovation. Thanks to Jean-Jacques, Andrea, Will and Martin :-). The four articles I read are:
– Les Misérables – Europe not only has a Euro crisis, it also has a growth crisis. That is because of its chronic failure to encourage ambitious entrepreneurs from the Economist (July 2012).
– Small is not beautiful from the Economist again (March 2012).
– In bid for start-ups, venture capitalists elbow their way into the spotlight from the International Herald tribune, (not freely available online).
– In Silicon Valley, Chieftains Hold Sway With Few Checks and Balances from the New York Times (July 2012)
The second one is probably the easiest to summarize and it is such an important message, that it needs to be hammered again: Innovation is not about large or small companies (SMEs), it is about fast growth (gazelles, start-ups). And let me add, it is also about a culture of trying and risk taking. “Rather than focusing on size, policymakers should look at growth.” […] “In a healthy economy, entrepreneurs with ideas can easily start companies, the best of which grow fast and the worst of which are quickly swept aside. Size doesn’t matter. Growth does.”
The first article is more complex to describe and I really liked only the first half. The second half explains that Europe struggles because of bad laws on bankruptcy, bad access to finance and bad labor laws. I am not sure these are the causes of our innovation crisis. I preferred the first part such as: “Europe’s culture is deeply inhospitable to entrepreneurs; wanting to grow a start-up into a behemoth is quite as countercultural as piercings and performance art.” […] “They will struggle to hire professional managers to help their firms grow, because European executives are extremely risk-averse. Their young firms will quickly find that established European companies tend not to like dealing with tiny ones.” And as a consequence, “the giants are all ageing”.
“Europe gave birth to just 12 new big companies between 1950 and 2007. America produced 52 in the same period (see chart above).” […] “Many aspiring entrepreneurs simply leave. There are about 50,000 Germans in Silicon Valley, and an estimated 500 start-ups in the San Francisco Bay area with French founders. One of the things they find there is a freedom to fail.” The answer is not simple, but there is hope: “There are schemes […] to get academics to hate business less, to expose schoolchildren to entrepreneurial notions.”
The last two articles are probably less important but give interesting new trends in Silicon Valley. One shows that the venture capitalists are becoming more visible (in order to court entrepreneurs) and mostly thanks to or because of new fund Andreessen Horowitz. But there is also debate (and I agree with the following comment): ‘‘I don’t quite understand the venture capital celebrity. We should be supporting actors. The entrepreneurs do the work and deserve the credit.’’ But Andreessen adds an interesting comment about the dynamics of venture capital: “Each year 15 deals account for 97 percent of all venture capital profits. To be successful, they would have to pursue those 15 companies. And they would do it by aggressively marketing their expertise to the reporters and bloggers who follow start-ups.” The final paper complains about the dangers of too much control to founders and managers vs. board or shareholders: “Since Google went public in 2004 in a way that maintained control for its founders, the leaders of Silicon Valley have been chary about shareholder voting rights.” […] “Directors are meant to act as a check on executives or at least add their expertise and advice to big decisions. In the Valley, however, the idea of the visionary chief executive dominates, and there may be little room for input from directors.” […] “So the new thing in Silicon Valley appears to be for public companies to be run as private ones without significant input from boards and shareholders. This leaves the wunderkinder of the Internet free to run their companies without interference. The question is whether this is merely a bubble in corporate governance or a trend that will spread to the rest of corporate America.”
Here’s my 5th contribution to EPFL‘s “start-up of the month”
When its IPO was announced last February, everyone agreed that Facebook was worth somewhere in the ballpark of $100 billion. Today, Facebook has lost 40% of its value – how is this possible?
Facebook a perdu plus de 40% de sa valeur
Facebook, unfortunately, isn’t an EPFL start-up, but the controversy surrounding its overvalued stock market debut (Initial Public Offering, or IPO) nonetheless provides a good opportunity to discuss the value of a start-up, in particular, spin-offs from EPFL laboratories.
A company’s value cannot truly be measured scientifically, even though there are techniques that try to do this via revenues and profits – Logitech and Swissquote, who have historical connections with EPFL, are measured like this. The law of supply and demand rules here: the value of a company is the product of the number of shares and the price per share. Companies listed on the stock exchange are thus hostages of the market and its moods.
When companies are not listed on the stock exchange, as is the case in the majority of start-ups, they can still be valued. Interested readers can learn more in the article “Equity Split in Start-ups.” When EPFL start-ups like Eelcee, Abionic, Aleva and Kandou (see previous articles) recently announced they were looking for financing, they were valued by their investors, even though there was no market in which to buy shares. Switzerland, however, provides some information via the registre du commerce (commerce registry) in which each start-up registers the change in its number of shares. From there, if you know the amount of money that has been raised, you can deduce the price per share and thus the value of the company. But I personally wouldn’t make the calculation, out of respect for the discretion desired by the entrepreneurs and the investors.
Again, value is just a subjective thing that depends on the good will of the investors. Facebook, like Google ten years ago, didn’t completely abide by Wall Street’s rules, by which a company agrees to be under-valued at its IPO so that the ensuing trading result in an upward curve. So far, it’s just simple speculation, and we’ll have to wait several years before we know whether or not Facebook’s IPO was a failure or not.
Our start-ups have a similar problem. I’ve known many entrepreneurs who prefer that their companies have the best possible value when they were looking for funding. They forget that the only real value is that which is created over the long term by their products or services, and that the value of a company is a very volatile thing, as Facebook just illustrated so well. Entrepreneurs tend to retain the lion’s share of their companies, even though by doing this they also seem to be ignoring Logitech founder Daniel Borel’s advice: “We prefer a little pie that we control completely to a big pie that we only control 10%, and this can be a limiting factor.”
I’m convinced (even though I’m often wrong) that Zuckerberg’s impact will be similar to Brin and Page’s. Here in Switzerland, I hope that local companies are created whose value is on a par with those of Daniel Borel, Mark Bürki and Paolo Buzzi.
References
Facebook Finally Files For $5B