| INSIGHT |
| |
Intellectual
Property and Technology Commercialization
|
|
 A
short talk with Mr.
Robert Meyer on
Intellectual Property and Technology Commercialization. During
a twenty-five year career as a sole proprietor, partner
and corporate officer, Mr. Meyer has contributed to
decision-making in marketing, finance, and project
management in small entrepreneurial companies.
Robert has served as Research Commercialization and
Licensing Officer for the Office of Technology Transfer of
the University of Arkansas. At the University of the South
Pacific in Fiji, he served as Acting Department Head where
for two years he lectured business law.
Robert has been associated with the Global Business
Accelerator in the Austin Technology Incubator at the
University of Texas.
Mr. Meyer served as a Research Fellow with the
Bureau of Business Research in the McCombs School of
Business at the University of Texas at Austin, and,
currently serves as a Project Director for the IC2
Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
He has been a member of the Association of
University Technology Managers, the Licensing Executives
Society, and, the Association of European Science and
Technology Professionals and has been a speaker at AUTM
conferences and other professional events.
Robert served as senior researcher and co-author of
a report on an Assessment of a State of Texas grant
program that has awarded $320mm in research grants, and,
is currently engaged on the second phase of the Assessment
which was funded by the 79th legislature.
Robert consults with newly formed companies, serves in
executive management and acts as corporate counsel.
|
|
1.What are various
methods of commercializing your IP relating to technology
and what are the most commonly followed tech
commercialization methods?
|
|
There
is a clear distinction between technology transfer and
technology commercialization. Technology transfer
generally refers to a relatively static licensing
arrangement created between a research institution and a
licensee that proceeds independently from any action by
the licensor to launch a product or service. The
institution can be a private or public non profit
university or a for profit laboratory. The line
becomes blurred somewhat when an inventor's institution
incubates, finds angel or VC funding for, or otherwise
promotes and contributes to the development of the
technology and then spins the newly formed company out.
Increasingly, this is the preferred model in the USA.
Technology commercialization occurs at the intersection of
law, science and business and any entity can approach that
intersection from any point of origin. I am
concerned when commercialization goals drive the
university research agenda; basic research suffers and the
critical distinction between education and economic
pursuits is lost.
|
|
2.What do you think is
the biggest challenge in commercializing IP? |
|
|
The real challenge is the management
team. Worst case scenario occurs when an inventor through professional pride believes that
scientific skill translates into business acumen. Generally, angel
investors and venturecapital look first at the team and the balance between
marketing, science, finance and management. If the team is faulty, the
venture will likely fail.
|
|
3.What are the technology and IP
commercialization trends in USA Universities vis-a-vis
Companies? |
|
The
most worrisome trend to me is the move away from basic
research and the trend toward the sponsorship of only the
research that has provable and immediate market value.
Whether a laboratory, university, city, region or
entire country is the focus of macro economic development,
the entire pipeline has to be cultivated. Funding of
basic research cannot be ignored with a preference for
research that has definable business goals. Man's greatest
accomplishments flow more often than not from research for
its own sake by an investigator searching the unknown.
|
|
4.What
are various types of businesses that have evolved based on
tech or IP commercialization as the core? |
|
Scholars argue that four paradigms of
innovation exist. The first was craft based similar
to the Wright Brothers invention of the airplane in their
bicycle shop or Thomas Edison tinkering in his lab to
discover the ideal filament for the light bulb through
trial and error. The second paradigm was established
by the Manhattan project that developed the atomic bomb
and the idea that focused expertise if adequately funded
could make prescribed discoveries. The second paradigm is
what the university research model is still based on. The
third paradigm argues that companies like Dell, and
Microsoft and Apple in the last quarter of the 20th
century eschewed research and instead developed
technologies with an eye toward market demand. The
fourth paradigm is emerging and represented by Wikipedia,
on line interactive real time gaming and other evolving
business models where the customer shapes the product
itself. The successful companies in the 21st century will
be those that master the 4th paradigm.
|
|
| 5. What
is the best and worst tech commercialization deal you have
seen in your career and what are the reasons for such an
attribution? |
|
|
The worst is the fiasco that Blackberry
subjected itself to when by poor management and inept governance a multi-million dollar
inevitable licensing arrangement was unsuccessfully avoided at huge
expense. The best are evolving in the areas of energy conservation and
water purification which can help to prevent wars and the undoing
of much of what civilization has strived for the last 2000 years. |
| |
