Disruptive Tendencies

Derivative Works: The Battle Over Purple Play-Doh

One of the most contentious areas in licensing negotiations is in the area of ownership of derivative IP. The most effective articulation of the issue that I have seen was by Jill Riola, a highly capable licensing attorney working at Carlton Fields in Orlando. During negotiations with a team of attorneys from a Fortune 500 firm that was licensing our IP, she brought it back to first principles:

·         We own our IP (blue Play-Doh)

·         You own your IP (red Play-Doh)

·         We are granting you the right to create purple Play-Doh, using our blue in combination with your red

·         But you do not own purple Play-Doh, because by definition, purple must contain some blue.

Furthermore, when viewed this way, all of the terms contained within the licensing agreement, including restrictions on Field of Use, royalty rates, etc., apply for all shades of purple Play-Doh.

We could get down in the weeds and occasionally lose sight of the issue, so it was amusing to watch how Jill would bring it back to first principles. “If it’s blue Play-Doh it’s ours…You own all of the red you can develop, but if it’s purple, you don’t own it, and you owe us if you sell any.”

Agree on who owns what Play-Doh upfront, and the specifics of the agreement will be much easier to draft later.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

martin.suter (at) iplicensing.net

Play-Doh is a registered trademark of Hasbro, Inc. Its use herein is strictly to illustrate a legal concept. No endorsement by Hasbro is expressed or implied.

 

Conflicting Goals in Asymmetrical Deals: Market Exclusivity

How many people have considered that Microsoft is, at its core, a licensing company? Or that the entire PC industry owes its existence to a licensing deal, the non-exclusive license to IBM for MS-DOS in the 80’s? How different a company would Microsoft have been had they signed an exclusive licensing deal? Chances are that it wouldn’t still be around. Bill Gates certainly wouldn't have become the richest guy in the world. As a licensing guy, I can only speculate on whether it was IBM's negotiating naivete or Microsoft's chutzpah that led to the deal being structured as it was.

Having sat on both sides of the table on various occasions, I have frequently found myself in a position where I’ve been able to help get to consensus because I understand where the conflicts may be and have been able to work through them.

Licensees almost always contend that they require some form of market exclusivity for competitive advantage. “Why would I sign a deal with you today if, tomorrow, my competitors can do the same thing?”

Licensors are thinking the exact opposite, “I can’t put all my eggs in one basket? I want to capture as much of the market opportunity as is possible, not be limited to a fraction of it.”

Perhaps even more importantly, what is the impact on the company’s potential for a liquidity event for its investors? Remember, once you’ve granted exclusive rights to a 3^rd-party, that prevents not only you, but any acquiring company, from pursuing that space. This may take a whole category of company off the list of potential acquirers at a later date. Try explaining that one to your investors!

So how do you reconcile these two positions?

The “need” for market exclusivity can often be a catalyst for M&A discussions, especially if the technology being licensed is the core franchise around which you’ve begun to build the company, or if the breadth of market exclusivity on the table prevents you from extracting value in other markets. But once again, these can be tricky waters to navigate. A technology acquisition requires you to consider valuation through a very realistic lens. The acquiring company will do an estimated build cost (# of person years x fully loaded cost per person year, around $200K per), and then offer a multiple based on their assessment of the value of time-to-market and your IP position, typically 3X-7X. As the inventor/entrepreneur, you need to be very realistic about their ability to get close enough to replicating that which you’ve built. Pride can get in the way, but do you really believe that Microsoft/Qualcomm/Oracle/Cisco engineers couldn’t do it?

If M&A discussions aren’t an option, then, in most cases, non-exclusivity should be the preferred path. One of the things, that the licensee doesn’t want to happen, is to invest its time and resources creating demand for a key feature, only to have a competitor come in and erode their margins selling the same widget at a reduced cost. A concession, that can help address this, is a form of price protection (MFN clause). In this type of clause, the licensor will agree to not license for less in comparable deals. The concept of comparability is key here. The consideration must be for similar product types, in similar quantities over a similar time period. If a subsequent licensee is pays a lesser royalty rate (or other form of consideration), a reduction in royalty rate will be accorded to the original licensee as well.

So, you’ve now heard that M&A is not an option at this time and non-exclusive rights aren’t either. Under what conditions can exclusivity make sense? My answer is twofold: Money solves a lot of problems, and that it is possible to tightly constrain the scope of a license, thus preserving your ability to license to others or for an acquiring company to practice in any field but the restricted field for which you’ve granted exclusivity.

How do you constrain the license grants? By placing boxes around the grants…I’ll explain more next time.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

martin.suter (at) iplicensing.net

 

IP Licensing – Gut Check Time!

So you’re now thinking that licensing makes sense as a means of accelerating the time-to-market and monetizing your leading-edge technology. You’ve identified the gorilla as well as the chimps in your space, and managed to get the attention of at least one of them. They’ve probably begun posturing and now they’re coming to the table to discuss terms. For most companies, this is a classic “Oh shit!” moment.

As I blogged previously, before you agree to sit down, it is imperative that you have established clear guiding principles. Your internal stakeholders must understand, talk through and agree to a position on the major issues. These are the “non-negotiables”, and can help prevent bad decisions from being made in the heat of a negotiation. Each of these must be taken seriously, as getting them wrong can have a huge impact on valuation and even exit potential.

Issues to lose sleep over

·         Exclusivity vs. non-exclusivity

·         Derivative works

·         Field of Use, Territory

·         Indemnification

·         Consideration (cash flow, NPV, etc.)

Each of these merits its own discussion. As my plane is now on final approach, I’ll have to get to these in future blogs.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

 

Before Taking the Licensing Plunge, Consider These 3 Things

If I had to impart any words of advice to a company that is seriously looking at licensing as a go-to-market model, it would be the following three things:

1.       Understand all of the implications of a licensing strategy, including its impact on valuation and potential liquidity events for the shareholders;

2.       Develop guiding principles outside of the deal;

3.       Assess every deal through a strategic filter.

The first of these is critically important and requires the full buy-in from the Board and investors. Don’t assume that they automatically appreciate what these are. Licensing has implications for valuation and exit potential, and while the benefits are many (focuses scarce resources on core technology development, time to market, leverages existing channels to market, non-dilutitive cash inflow, etc.), the risks are also real. But many of these risks can be partially or wholly mitigated by a rational approach to the deal, and it is incumbent on you to show them how.

Which leads us to the second imperative: Develop guiding principles outside of the deal. Get the Board to sign off on these and empower you to negotiate the deal within the deal framework that’s been discussed. The last thing you want is the Board “helping” you to negotiate a deal in real-time or proffering opinions at the eleventh hour. Given the implications of a bad deal, there are certain things that will not be negotiable. These may be dealbreakers, but it’s far better to know going in where you have the support of the Board and often, this makes for easier negotiations. At worst, you can cut bait.

Lastly, every deal should be looked at in a strategic context. Does it make sense to grant any rights, even non-exclusive, in the Field of Use that is likely going to be the driver for a liquidity event? Granting rights in niche markets is very different than granting rights in a core market.

In future blogs, I’ll discuss some of the issues that are worth losing sleep over.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

 

IP Licensing for the Technology Entrepreneur

Intellectual Property licensing is a complex subject with many moving parts. Unfortunately, it is rarely covered in modern business school curricula. The net result is that managers, C-level execs and Board members seldom approach IP licensing strategically, either in terms of monetisation or in the connection between license terms, and their potential impact on valuation and exit opportunities.

This set of slides attempts to simplify many of these issues for the business strategist - Board members, C-level execs, and senior managers. I have used subsets of this presentation to groups of Executive MBA students, corporate counsel and IP professionals and generally use them as a launching pad for a broader discussion. (To discuss speaking opportunities, please contact martin.suter at iplicensing.net).

These slides draw on my experience, as I have been fortunate to have been mentored by some very capable attorneys over the years (such as Cliff Chillemi, in-house counsel at MeshNetworks, and Jill Riola, Co-Chair, IP Group at Carlton Fields), and worked with top IAM strategists (people like John Cronin from ipCapital Group and Paul Germeraad from Intellectual Assets, Inc.). I have also sat across the table from many very capable negotiators representing companies like Dow Chemical, Microsoft and Motorola and had to justify IP licensing recommendations to VC investors across North America.

 

Feel free to share and comment.

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)