Disruptive Tendencies

Applied Game Theory: Modern Analogue to Asimov’s Psychohistory?

Last weekend’s New York Times Magazine had an article, which I found fascinating: “Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?”  In it, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, reportedly one of the world’s most prominent applied game theorists claims to have calculated the answer.

Game theory assumes that people look out for what is good for them, (i.e. they act with rational self-interest) and de Mesquita then uses mathematical analysis to predict (very often correctly) such messy human events as war, political power shifts, Intifada.

Applied stats as a predictor of human events, I thought. Where have I heard that before?

Then it occurred to me that this was the premise behind Psychohistory as imagined by the great sci-fi writer, Isaac Asimov in his “Foundation Series”. “Psychohistory depends on the idea that, while one cannot foresee the actions of a particular individual, the laws of statistics as applied to large groups of people could predict the general flow of future events.”

In Foundation, Hari Seldon, a Pyschohistorian, predicts the fall of the Galactic Empire, in much the same way as de Mesquita predicts the fall of the Iranian theocracy. (See the video on TED.com: “3 predictions of the future of Iran, and the math to back it up”)

Interestingly, at the end of the talk, Chris Andersen poses the question: “I got very nervous halfway through the talk, just panicking whether you had included in your model the possibility that putting this prediction out there might change the result?”

I wonder whether Chris was aware, when he posed the question, that by so doing, Bruno was violating one of the two axioms established by the fictional Seldon – “that the population should remain in ignorance of the results of the application of psychohistorical analyses.”

Time will only tell.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

(martin.suter at iplicensing.net)

Skype - Joltid Licensing Dispute: Epic M&A Screw-up?

eBay must be ruing the day that it signed the M&A deal to buy Skype for $2.6b, in addition to an additional $530m as part of the earn-out provisions. Its original vision of incorporating Skype functionality into its auctions never happened. Despite that, Skype has proven itself to be quite interesting as a standalone entity, with some value potentially to be recouped via a spin-out IPO. However based on an eBay 10-Q form filed with the SEC on 7/30/2009, this is now at risk over a dispute over a license.

It seems that some of the core functionality within Skype is based on peer-to-peer software licensed from Joltid, a company also controlled by the founders of Skype, Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis. So if I get this right, Joltid entered into a non-arm’s length license with Skype (pre-acquisition), a company that Zennstrom and Friis also controlled. When eBay acquired Skype, it would have known that while it was “buying” Skype, it wasn’t buying Skype source code, it was licensing it from Joltid. Given the amount of money involved in the deal, and the fact that the principals were the same, insisting on a perpetual, fully paid up license, in some Field of Use (voice, IM and video applications) with rights to derivatives would seem to have been very do-able.

Instead, it appears that Zennstrom and Friis pocketed a boatload of eBay cash, and retained control of Skype’s destiny via a licensing agreement. Now with the M&A (and liquidity) at risk, eBay is now over a barrel. Negotiate and pay for that fully paid up license, re-write everything, or write it all off as the worst deal of the century. OK, maybe that’s overstating it, the Time Warner-AOL deal sucked pretty badly too.

I’ve been involved with transactions that have nearly fallen apart at the eleventh hour because of legacy tech transfer licenses. “What do you mean we’ll have to pay 4% royalties ad infinitum? We’re buying the company!” When it gets to this stage and a deal’s at risk, the original licensor has all of the leverage, and will often be “bought off”, at the expense of the shareholders, to make the issue go away so the deal can get done.

Having negotiated multiple technology transfer and M&A deals, I have learned that it is imperative to construct the tech transfer deal with M&A in mind. Exclusivity in a well-defined Field, rights to Derivative Works, Non-Assertion of IP rights, a built-in cap or royalty buy-out to convert to a license in perpetuity, are all essential. Of course, in a non-arm’s length licensing agreement, like that between Joltid and Skype, the license terms would have been very different, but in this case it is incumbent on the acquirer to recognise this and force the issue while they have the leverage.

In hindsight, many would agree, this acquisition missed the mark strategically, resulting in a $1.43b writedown. But it’s hard to fault big, bold plays with the potential to break new ground. I have a deep admiration for those involved in transactions like that. But a key takeaway is the tactical execution by eBay’s M&A team appears to have missed the inherent conflicts of interest and let slide the licensing agreement with Joltid. Now, with no leverage, it’s biting them hard. Caveat emptor!

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

(martin.suter at iplicensing.net)

Nortel’s Devolution to Non-Practicing Entity?

As someone who once wore a Nortel employee badge, and who counts many ex-Nortel employees among friends and family, watching Nortel’s descent from the peak has been hard to watch. Those, with better visibility into the decision-making than I, will ultimately dissect all of the wrong turns. 

Financial mismanagement, ill-conceived M&A deals, and strategic missteps have, unfortunately, landed Nortel where it is today – in bankruptcy protection and actively divesting entire businesses; its enterprise business possibly to Avaya, its wireless business to Ericsson. But like the Black Knight in Monty Python’s “The Holy Grail”, they’re “not dead yet”, despite hacking off multiple limbs.

When Nokia Siemens Networks’ bid was announced for Nortel’s remaining wireless business (CDMA and LTE roadmap), the decision to exclude wireless-related patents was a very strong indicator of intent. Under the terms of the announced transaction, NSN received a license to Nortel wireless IP, while Nortel retained ownership of said IP. According to reports, the Ericsson deal construct is very similar, with ownership of Nortel patents remaining with Nortel.

Once NSN’s stalking horse bid was announced, others emerged as suitors for the wireless business, including most notably RIM and the eventual winner of the auction, Ericsson.

Why would RIM pursue Nortel’s wireless business at the 11^th hour? Is it because it aspires to get into the CDMA/LTE base station business? I’m guessing not. Could it be that RIM saw Nortel’s moves signaling a fundamental shift in its future business model? Rather than remaining in the messy business of actually producing and selling product, why not sell off the operating businesses for a bunch of cash, throw in non-exclusive licenses to Nortel’s IP, and re-emerge as Nortel, the Non-Practicing Entity (aka Patent Troll)?

Few companies have been as badly burned recently, by NPEs, as has RIM. With its $612.5m settlement with NTP, for what ultimately amounted to the assertion of just a couple of claims (the validity of which was being seriously challenged), and more recently, its settlement with Visto for $267.5m, I’m sure RIM can see a day when Nortel, the NPE, asserts claims against RIM’s LTE products, at a cost to RIM that makes its $1b pseudo-offer seem reasonable. No doubt this is why RIM is rumoured, already, to be pursuing licensing discussions with Nortel for LTE patents.

A key here is that Nortel, as an NPE, would no longer be constrained by the usual rules of engagement that make the assertion of claims, by practicing entities (PEs), so rare. As a going concern, and even with an impressive patent portfolio (reportedly 5,500 patents), it would be highly unlikely for Nortel to assert its patent position against its main competitors. A kind of détente exists with patent holders, who understand that an assertion here will bring a counter-assertion there. The worst fear of PEs, however, is the NPE (or Troll), for which this détente is irrelevant, and where the business model is uniquely about asserting and monetising IP rights.

So Ericsson gets a pass on LTE patent assertion by Nortel, a key US customer committed to LTE, and a team capable of enhancing the CDMA to LTE migration story. Not a bad deal for $1.13b. And while one is tempted to feel sorry for NSN, its original bid of $650m turned out to be woefully miscalculated. One can only guess at what losing the deal with Nortel will end up costing NSN; in legal costs, eventual royalties and market share. Conversely, Ericsson will have gained in all of these areas. Kudos to its management team for realising this.

So what of Nortel? Can it make the transition from multi-billion dollar equipment vendor to NPE/licensing company? There certainly are precedents, even in Nortel’s backyard. Wi-LAN and Mosaid are two companies that have gone done this path, each of which has developed IP licensing as a core competency. Keep an eye on key Wi-LAN or Mosaid employees. If they start to leave, perhaps it’ll be to take on the challenge of monetizing Nortel’s patent portfolio. And if I’m Jim Balsillie, I’d be super pissed.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

(martin.suter at iplicensing.net)