To NDA or Not to NDA, this isn't really a question...

There is a stain of thought, one prevalent in the venture capital community and elsewhere, that NDAs some how mark you as a novice, neophyte, or worse, a rube.

This line of thinking starts from the moderately dubious premise that VCs are all honest money, and they are too busy being efficient stewards of capital flow to even contemplate, let alone effectuate, the misappropriation of the finer points of your next big thing(TM). Secondly, the argument flows, if investors signed NDAs, what is to stop jilted Founders from suing them every-time the failed to back their company over a competitor. "Law suits are expensive, and we just don't want to risk exposure for an unlikely event."

I tend to find this reasoning akin to a hotel telling its customers that they don't provide locks to the room doors. The reasoning would be "Locking your door is, in essence, an insult to the ethics of our employees, and it passes a cost in terms of "locks" onto hotel, which is impermissible." Agreeing to this is totally reasonable, right? The odds that someone is going to break into your hotel room are statistically slim, so why worry about locking that door, or even have locks to begin with?  A hotel break-in is a low probability, high impact event. One that has an absurdly low risk control component. The cost of locking your door is low to you, given the potential down side of not locking it.  The cost of the Hotel providing locks to all its doors is high given how often people break into rooms.  

Therein lies the rub. Whose job is it to manage risk. The customer, or the seller.

The truth is that VCs see hundreds of companies, lots of time these companies are direct competitors to your company.  No amount of NDA language is going to give you complete comfort that some portion of your next big thing isn't going to get passed around like a handle of fireball at a Tennessee wedding.

However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't make sure that you protect as much as you can. Big capital players usually have some form of internal control to at least minimize law suits, so it is not the end of the world if they don't sign, remember execution is much more important than  conception.  But ask questions, be knowledgeable about how they safeguard confidential information. If there are no locks, are there burly security guys on every floor?

However, if you are dealing with small angel investors and syndicates (potentially first time investors) that might a) not have the institutional controls, and b) internal discipline to keep things confidential, then make sure that you are using some form of NDA. Some of the smaller players might not have the systems in place to protect information, so a NDA can focus the mind. If you are dealing with anyone less than a household name in the industry, there is no harm in the ask. 

Asking for NDAs goes beyond investors. If you are outsourcing any part of your Dev team, NDAs are a good way to get people on the same page, as well as giving you legal recourse for straight up IP theft. (This does happen, regardless of what people tell you.)

All things being equal, even if no one agrees to sign an nda, you can still protect yourself.  We advise filing low cost provisional patent applications that cover your pitch deck. That way, even if your disclosures become public knowledge, you still have the potential of protecting the IP through the patent office. 

Never forget that VC money is not doing you a favor. Their job is to allocate capital, maximize return, and minimize risk. It is not your job to make their job easier by not protecting your intellectual capital.

Jordan Garner. 

Don't Fear the Patent Trolls

One of the concerns revised by start-ups is fear that their small company will be sued by a Patent Troll (Non-practicing entity). Generally this concern is premised that the software (it is almost always a software start-up which fears patent trolls ) used by the start-up is covered by some obscure software patent.

Much like the Satanic Moral Panic scares of the '80s and 90's, the fear of patent trolls outstrips the actual reality.

Generally, the goal of a NPE is to obtain a lump sum payment for past infringement. Suing a start-up which has not demonstrated any revenue, or even a viable business plan to generate revenue, wouldn't gain any meaningful recovery. In order to recover for patent infringement, you have to show lost profits, reasonable royalty or willfulness. Since NPE's (by definition) do not practice the patent, they have a hard time showing lost profits. Thus, they rely heavily on a reasonable royalty of the Companies' profits.

If your start-up has barely received a series A funding round, the profit motive for litigation is not there. That doesn't mean that a NPE won't send you a letter alleging infringement, thus trying to rattle the tree a bit in the hopes that you have deep pockets. However, if you are a start-up without a lot of revenue, or a famous or wealthy founder, odds are you are not going to find yourself in Court.

However, if you do receive a nasty gram from a lawyer claiming patent infringement, ask the sender to identify the patent and the particular claims alleged as infringed. Wait to hear back from them. If they get back to you in a manner that does not answer those two questions, then it is time to contact a professional IP attorney.

The point is that NPEs suing start-ups are not a wide spread issue. A quick google search shows about half a dozen high profile instances, but that is contrasted against the list of start-ups supported by every major venture firm out there.

Not every start-up is being sued into oblivion on the basis of specious patents. For instance, the Government Accountability Office found that Patent Troll Litigation only counted for 20% of patent litigation cases in the US. The rest were simply run of the mill patent disputes. Of that 20%, most NPEs directed their fire to major multi-national corporations, not 3 man start-ups.

Code, innovate, and create. Don't spend your time thinking that their are monsters under the bed.

Jordan Garner

Patents on Bitcoins

One of the questions that comes up often for IP attorneys is  "who owns Bitcoin'? 

In a sense, no one owns Bitcoin.  It is a distributed peer-to-peer unit of exchange. However this answer rarely satifies people who have come to you for your indepth legal opinion.

It should be noted that the concept of a network wide, anonymous, crypto-currency was only really implemented in 2009 by an individual known as Satoshi Nakamoto. Mr. Nakamoto (we have no way of knowing if that individual was/is a he/she/cybernetic construct from the future) published a paper describing the basic elements of the bitcoin system and released the software that underpins the peer-to-peer networking aspect. This software was released open source, without restriction. As such, no one legally has the right to prevent others from modifying or using the software for their own purposes. Thus while the Nakamoto Hivemind owns the software that bitcoin are mined with, it does not own the underlying conceptual framework.

There is some speculation that a Neil King, et al, listed inventors on US 2010-0042841 A1 (now abandoned for failure to respond to an office action) are the true inventors of bitcoins. Even if true, the patent office found several prior art references. Thus, the attempt to patent the concept appears to have been abandoned.  However, there is a thriving trade in bitcoin patent applications. People can, and do, attempt to file patent applications on the use of bitcoins for all manner of transaction. However, these patents do not reach back to the underlying concept of the Bitcoin and its use as a digital currency.

The actual software implementation of bitcoin generation is somewhat complex, but involves scanning for a value that when hashed twice with SHA-256, begins with a number of zero bits (you don't want me to explain this in more detail that that but ... a hash is an algorithm which takes a arbitrary amount of data and generates a fixed length of data. This is useful when attempting to use encode something for privacy. It is easy to hash something, and it is easy to verify that the data matches the hash, but hard to fake the data if you were up to no good. I am not a cryptanalysis guru and this was all distilled from 3 or 4 really good Wikipedia articles).

This is all a long winded way of saying that the process of generating bitcoins is technically complex and rests on the security and usibility of the SHA-256 Hash Function. However, in one of those ironic twists of fate that only happens in America, the NSA, bane of anonymous privacy advocates everywhere, actually owns the patent on the SHA-256 Hash function.

US Patent 6,829,355 to Lilly, and assigned to the NSA, covers the technical details employed in using the SHA-256 function to authenticate data (e.g. bitcoin transactions). All is not lost, the US has granted the world a royalty-free license to the patent.

However, the terms and conditions of this royalty agreement are murky. The royalty-free notice was filed in 2004. However, there is no easily available record of the exact terms of the grant of a royalty free (i.e. is it irrevocable?).

Thus, the long answer to the question of "who owns anonymous peer to peer government agnostic pro-privacy transaction crypto-currency" might, in fact, be the United States Government.  It is their world, we are just trading digital currency in it.

Jordan Garner
jgarner@leasonellis.com
(c)2013

Girls be illin?: Don't waste your start-up capital on non-essential legal fights

Story: Goldieblox, a toy company marketing engineering toys to girls, used the Beastie Boys famous / infamous song "Girls" in a parody music video to promote their start-up project. The music video went viral on youtube, spawning mostly ardent praise and affection.

The Cerberus Legal dogs of Universal Music sent Goldieblox a pleasant letter (by Cerberus legal dog standards) asking them to take down the video. The letter claimed that the parody video was outside the scope of the fair use exception to copyright use, and constituted an impermissible use of the underlying work.

The legal counsel for GoldieBlox filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding on non-infringement under the parody provision of fair use.  This could be a educational case about how a "letter" is never really a letter, but an invitation to bring a DJ action.

A lot of digital ink has been split regarding the merits of the parties positions. If you are in favor of the permissible parody argument, then the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff) has a great rundown of the law and their interpretation.

The point being missed here is one of resource allocation. It is argued that any press is good press. If that is true, then this entire episode is a net benefit to Goldieblox and their start-up ambitions.

However, from a business point of view, getting into a law suit with a major entertainment company is a huge hassle. Aside from your own legal costs, which could have been better spent on non-legal blog based marketing, you run the potential risk that you might lose and owe someone, or some mega corporation, lots of money. That outcome is unlikely here (even if GoldieBlox loses, they will likely have minimal damages), but that is besides the point.

A cursory level of diligence would have shown that not only do the Beastie Boys not like "Girls" (they refuse to play it anymore), they are actually quite litigious. As such, perhaps their IP, regardless of your use, was not the best media to use.

For the legal costs involved in filing and arguing a Declaratory judgement action, you could have hired a band or a composer to generate a all new song. The point here isn't that the Beastie Boys are right to argue about fair use, it is that a start up generally should avoid potentially bruising legal fights.  IP counsel should always be mindful of not only the legal arguments, but the overall business position.

Start-up resources should never we wasted on non-essential legal fights. If you need access to a particular piece of technology or code in order for your idea to function, then roll the dice, take the risk. If you want to make a music video parody of a famous song, think about the necessity to the bottom line.

Jordan Garner

Swiss-style Basic Income and IP

To the ill-informed, "Basic Income" is a social security system in which the government regularly gives each citizen a sum of money — with no conditions. No questions asked, no obligations. 

There is a referendum in Switzerland, which if passed would give each adult resident the equivalent of 2750.00 dollars a month. You can read the proponents thoughts here.  In short, the theory is, without the necessity to obtain income necessary to live, people could make more resumed choices about their careers. They could made different choices about how they spend their time. As a result, you might have a more efficient economy. 

Obviously, there are people, including economists, who think this is a terrible idea. The argument against Basic Income is that the whole system will collapse in a morass of lack of motivation to actually work. People will move their expenses down to the level of the Basic Income and then forego employment. Opting instead, it is argued, to just sit around all day. 

I take no position on which one of these outcomes is likely (or the likeliness of this idea gaining traction in the US). Wikipedia has a good run-down on the pros and cons.  However, I do take a position on the economic outcome of people sitting around. I tend to lean on the side of "that's great". 

Why? Because people freed from the restraints of taking ANY job to make ends meet, will naturally gravitate towards their hobbies. When people focus a lot on their hobbies, they tend to turn those hobbies into occupations. We see that with the craft "everything" movement. A zest for baking becomes a bake shop, a thirst for brewing your own beer becomes a craft brewery. A love of reading has become self-published media empires (Ed. a bit close to home....).

Freeing everyone from the constraints of occupation would lead to some people just sitting around. It would also lead to an explosion of new businesses financed by the Basic Income. 

Some of these new businesses would create new works of intellectual property. New artistic, musical, literary works; new software platforms; new devices and new methods could all spring from Basic Income. These works could be licensed world-wide; generating taxable revenue to feed back into the Basic Income system. 

Many Venture Capital organizations have an "Entrepreneur in Chief" position - a person paid to basically think stuff up. We are constantly being told that America needs more "innovation" and "entrepreneurship" and that IP is a step in the wrong direction. Basic Income matched with IP might allow the America to realize the dream of being a "Start-up" Nation where everyone is paid to "think stuff up."