Scientist Gives VC an Edge

In this recent Wall Street Journal article, emanating from their weekly “Theory and Practice” installment on people and ideas influencing managers, we get a glimpse of the potential partnership model of the future.

“Together, Messrs. McGuire and Langer have launched 13 companies over the past 15 years and become a model for other venture capitalists scrambling to commercialize new drug and medical-device research. Dr. Langer, 59 years old, holds more than 600 patents and supplies the science; Mr. McGuire, 52, fine-tunes the business. Some of Mr. McGuire's work with Mr. Langer was described in a 2005 Harvard Business School case study called, "The Langer Lab: Commercializing Science.".”

“One early big hit came in 1997, when they co-founded, with another Langer protege, Advanced Inhalation Research Inc. The company, which devised a novel way to deliver large-molecule drugs via the lungs, was sold for $113 million in stock 18 months later; Polaris made nearly 10 times its money, and Dr. Langer profited as a significant shareholder of AIR. Since then, the two have teamed up on other drug-related start-ups like Pulmatrix Inc., which is developing inhalable aerosols for respiratory disease, and Tempo Pharmaceuticals Inc., which uses nanotechnology to create new drugs. Of the 13 investments, two companies went public and three were acquired.”

These types of arrangements seem to be a match made in bio-tech heaven, and from a business perspective they definitely make a lot of pragmatic sense, in terms of supplying “deal flow” and a reduced risk-premium for the investors involved.

Perhaps we should not be all that surprised that such partnerships are successful, as by its nature this particular partnership is multi-disciplinary, and spans the boundaries of multiple skill-sets.

Is it possible that we may see the increasing popularity of these types of partnerships in other areas of business?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120813571182711781.html?mod=djemSB

Who Owns Intellectual Property?

Jim Heskett of the Harvard Business School asks… Who Owns Intellectual Property?

He continues with the following supplementary questions:

“More generally, are views of ownership of intellectual property changing? If so, how will it affect the way intellectual property is valued for financial purposes? Are laws worldwide regarding intellectual property out of date? What do you think?”

In raising these questions, Professor Heskett cites the following qualities of the modern world that necessitate a discussion on Intellectual Property:

“Turning to the Internet itself, and particularly to content-sharing sites, the matter of ownership is challenged in a different way. Content produced by news media as well as individuals acting as professionals or amateurs is being copied, spliced, and represented essentially as something so new and unique that it is often downloaded by hundreds of thousands of viewers who might not have watched the original material. Who owns the result? Does anyone owe others for the use of the content? If so, how much and for what share? Or has the culture of "free" become so deeply imbedded in the minds of a new generation of users that content developers can only hope for partial, occasional, or eventual financial rewards for their efforts?”

He continues…

“This brings to mind some aspects of the way that the Internet facilitates cooperation in the generation of intellectual capital ranging from new product development to research. It helps explain why the Gen Xers we discussed several months ago find it quite natural to work in teams, either in face-to-face contact or online. In some cases, it is producing remarkable results. But whose work is it? Who owns the result?”

Without a doubt Professor Heskett’s questions are legitimate and timely, and are not easily resolved. Much is riding on the outcome.

Perhaps a more encompassing question is:

How does society balance the rights of “root” creators while still unleashing the breathtaking power of the creative cross-pollination of ideas through universal access and use?

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5909.html

Microsoft gets ISO go-ahead

It's interesting to see that Microsoft is now an official standard (ISO/IEC DIS 29500), as opposed to playing the role of a de facto standard that it generally occupies.

Microsoft's "Open XML" format beat-out the rival "ODF" (Open Document format) favoured by IBM Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc., in a recent ISO vote.

According to the IT World Canada article below, the ISO has not experienced lobbying of this nature before. This is not surprising when you consider that the three firms mentioned above all have:

a) Very deep pockets
b) Experience in Washington-DC's advanced lobby-ecosystem
c) World-class technical know-how

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on both Microsoft and the ISO, and indeed what effect, if any, that this ruling has on both enterprise-level, and consumer-level documentation habits.

What do you think might come of the ODF?
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=45515
http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?id=idgml-12e8db44-a77d-474d&Portal=2e5351f3-4ab9-4c24-a496-6b265ffaa88c&sub=1519551