Innovation in the Legal Sector

Innovation is a big deal.

It’s been a big deal ever since customers rewarded differentiation and punished companies that failed to maintain their creative edge.

I never fully understood the role of innovation until I spent time as a post-graduate research fellow at the Kellogg School of Management’s Center for Research in Technology and Innovation (CRTI). I spent time at the CTRI (three years) after completing my law degree at Northwestern Law School.

In law school I never heard much about innovation and was never exposed to the subject in courses, or in any of my assigned readings. In hindsight, I now realize this was, and still is, a major failing of traditional legal education. Much has changed, however, since I graduated. More and more law schools emphasize entrepreneurship and clinical practice. Some law programs have fully and bravely embraced innovation as a major component of their curricula.

The role of innovation in the legal sector has yet to be fully analyzed, so in this blog post I’ll try to classify the different types of innovation occurring in this industry. Before I do that, however, I have to address: what is innovation?

Although it might seem easy to identify and define innovation, it’s surprisingly difficult. According to economist Joseph Schumpeter, widely regarded as the most important writer on the topic, innovation is a process initiated from “new combinations” initiated by entrepreneurs who unleash the gales of creative destruction within the economy. As a matter of degree, some innovations are incremental and others radical, as the important work by Harvard Prof. Clayton Christensen demonstrates. Studies show that the vast majority of innovation that captures value in the marketplace is incremental, although radical innovations get the majority of headlines, particularly when they displace existing businesses and become disruptive. As pointed out by Schumpeter and others, innovation is not the same as invention, since the vast majority of inventions (e.g. patents) are not commercialized and are thus worthless. Innovation has to possess some commercial validation and success.

These are core definitional aspects, but what captured my interest were the organizational factors behind innovation success and failure. Through my readings and conversations with CRTI faculty members and fellows I came across important organizational perspectives. For example, during most of the industrial era firms employed an internally-focused view of innovation. This closed R&D perspective often yielded a hermeneutic culture that led those within the firm to view outside innovations with skepticism, or outright disdain. This approach (which still exists among some firms) yields the infamous “not-invented-here syndrome” which is a bias against external innovations. This closed perspective proved dangerous and untenable as we shifted into the Knowledge Economy. In this context, licensing innovations externally from startups, universities and independent inventors proved to be a successful innovation model. The research of Prof. Henry Chesbrough yielded important insights into the practice of open innovation, which relies on knowledge transfers.

For me, one of the greatest insights on innovation came from CRTI faculty member Prof. Mohan Sahwney, a globally recognized innovation thought leader. In his 2006 MIT Sloan Management Review article “The 12 Different Ways for Companies to Innovate” he and his co-authors laid out a framework called the “Innovation Radar” that helps companies look at innovation from multiple perspectives along four major dimensions:

Offerings (What)

Customers (Who)

Process (How)

Presence (Where)

As the article points out, product-centered companies often myopically emphasize offering-related innovations and neglect the other three major categories. Successful innovators such as Home Depot innovated along the lines of Customers as it targeted a new DIY home repair customer segment. Dell was able to capture value by innovating along the Process dimension by creating new manufacturing methods and a direct-to-consumer sales model. Redbox innovated along the Presence dimension since it introduced the concept of DVD rentals at an entirely new location (supermarkets). The holistic “business innovation” perspective offered by the Innovation Radar offers a comprehensive tool to diagnose where innovation occurs and how it leads to value capture and differentiation. The article magnificently discusses these four major aspects of innovation and introduces eight other dimensions that build from the four major categories and which altogether comprise the “Innovation Radar”:

Innovation Radar

Source: Sawhney, Wolcott & Arroniz (2006)

Richard Susskind, Ray Worthy Campbell and Michael Katz and others have all written about, and in some cases helped pioneer, legal services innovation. The legal services industry is facing rapid transformation and innovation. In fact, legal hackathons are becoming increasingly popular and offer a platform for engineers and lawyers to brainstorm and develop new ways to simplify the legal system.

Here is a brief attempt to identify some (not nearly all) of the innovations in the industry introduced since I graduated from law school nearly ten years ago, and that apply to the four major Innovation Radar categories:

Offerings (What):

  • One of the key elements of legal practice is the ability to conduct comprehensive legal research. Casetext and FastCase are two recent innovators that use a crowdsourcing method for legal research
  • The art and science of effective legal practice often hinges on giving accurate predictions about the merits of a case. Lex Machina and IBM’s Watson supercomputer offer big data predictive analytics services to lawyers.
  • Previously, only attorneys could dispense legal advice under state bar rules. The state of Washington has pioneered a new category of Limited License Legal Technician, a non-lawyer who can provide legal advice in limited areas of practice.

Customers (Who):

  • Lower income individuals and small businesses were traditionally priced out of legal services, but the innovative delivery methods offered by companies like LegalShield offer a prepaid plan to market low-cost services to these customers.
  • LegalZoom also services lower income individuals and small businesses and offers monthly rate plans and standardized forms online.

Process (How):

  • RocketLawyer is a pioneer in crowdsourcing legal advice among various attorneys through its website.
  • The Avvo website is a question and answer (Q&A) website that also crowd sources legal advice from attorneys.
  • Many innovative companies have perfected techniques for managing the e-discovery process during litigation and have developed new technologies to manage this complex legal process.

Presence (Where):

  • Wal-Mart has started to offer fast and affordable legal services at some of its locations.
  • Several of the companies identified here, such as FastCase offer apps that are available for use on mobile devices

The period of rapid innovation and transformation in the legal services industry is here. It’s both interesting and exciting to watch it unfold, and to see innovations occur among all the dimensions of the legal services business system.

Steve Jobs: Creator and Intellectual Property Strategist

Like many others, I owe a lot to Steve Jobs. Some of the designs and intellectual property management strategies he pioneered at Apple were, and remain, the subject of my research and teaching. His work, along with that of the many talented people at Apple, continue to inspire me.

The New York Times has a nice interactive feature that allows you to view the many patents Steve Job helped usher in during his tenure at Apple. It provides a glimpse into the unique role Jobs had within Apple as a pioneering innovator and strategist.

Letter or Spirit?

Business Insider posted a story recently about Facebook and the news the company has made working with Goldman Sachs to obtain significant capital investment without going public.

The story boils down to Facebook wanting to trade stock for a capital infusion. There is no shortage of people wanting to invest in Facebook stock. A thorny issue arises, however, if the number of Facebook stock owners of record increase to 500 or more individuals. If that is the case, Facebook must comply with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure laws, which are expensive to comply with and  reveal sensitive financial and strategic information. Facebook is not quite ready for that step and has enlisted the financial experts at Goldman Sachs to engineer a special purpose entity that would buy up to $1.5 billion in Facebook stock and become the owner of record.

The rub lies in the fact that Goldman Sachs would then sell the shares to potentially hundreds of private client investors. The Business Insider story discusses that Facebook and Goldman Sachs may have legal grounds under the SEC rules to argue that the transaction does not increase shareholders beyond a single owner, the special purpose entity. The rule, however, may prove to be a sword of Damocles, since the SEC rule does not allow the transaction if the stock issuer knows, or has reason to know, that the special purpose entity is used primarily to circumvent the rule concerning 500 shareholders or more. By engaging in the transaction, Facebook may be heading for going public and complying with the SEC disclosure laws without listing on a major stock exchange.

As a professor, I found this to be a good case to discuss in class, not just because many students enjoy hearing about Facebook. The case also illustrates an important point about a bigger issue facing business and legal regulation. The point is whether a business should strive to comply with the letter of the law, or go beyond this and seek to comply with its spirit. The SEC rule mentioned above has a built-in provision that guides enforcement of the law’s spirit. Many other important regulations lack this type of provision, however.

Ultimately, the whole issue of compliance with the SEC’s disclosure rules triggered by reaching 500 shareholders or more may amount to little more than a smokescreen for Facebook. The transaction with Goldman Sachs using the special-purpose vehicle places a much higher value on Facebook stock. Those who invested in Facebook prior to this transaction just saw their paper net worth increase substantially. Also, at the time of Facebook’s inevitable public offering and listing on a stock exchange, whoever is the lead book runner and investment banker to the transaction (Goldman Sachs?) will have strong precedent and argument to sell the stock to the public (the rest of of us) for at least as much as it was valued during this most recent transaction.

As with most legal issues involving Facebook, this is a case worth watching.

Will a Green Patent Exchange Take Root?

Photo taken by Lars Schmidt

Silicon Valley is officially out of the dumps. Leading the way into our brave new world is clean tech. What is clean tech? The term is broad, and includes any type of novel technology that reduces our carbon footprint, by utilizing renewable energy or lessening the harmful impacts of carbon-based energy sources.

I met clean tech empresario Nikhil Jain back when I was at Michigan Tech. He offered to guest lecture my entrepreneurship class, and subsequently was available via skype to speak to the students about his latest venture, an online marketplace for ideas called OnGreen.

I received a call today from Nikhil, and learned of his latest venture: the OnGreen Patent Exchange (OGPX). This online marketplace of ideas aims to connect parties interested in clean tech-related patents. Yes, patents. The OGPX hub aims to stimulate investments and deal making in green technologies currently secured by patents.

The idea is compelling. It also highlights one of the major issues facing buyers of technology. There is so much innovation and information being claimed, it can be daunting to find the right partner or complement in a rapidly rising sea of patented technology. Hopefully, entrepreneurs like Nikhil will make it happen sooner rather than later so we can begin to enjoy the benefits of the next wave of green technologies.

The OnGreen Patent Exchange is located here.

Independent Designers: Here’s a Powerful Tool to Combat Knock-Offs

I’m always troubled when I hear stories about independent designers who are ripped off by knock-off artists, large retail chains and unscrupulous exporters who take advantage of low-cost manufacturing costs to catch a free ride from a designer’s work.

Reporter Christina Binkley wrote an interesting article on this very topic in The Wall Street Journal on April 29. The article discusses how the small, independent makers of the popular Shashi bracelet saw their unique fashion accessory imitated and sold for a fraction of the cost by a large corporate retailer shortly after the product gained mass appeal.

Innovators often fall victim to this type of intellectual property theft as free riders imitate a design and exploit a cost-based advantage that erodes the original design’s exclusivity, leading to brand erosion and foregone sales. From numerous articles I have read, it seems that this happens all too often to designers, and that all they can do is throw their arms up and accept this sorry state of affairs. As The Wall Street Journal article reports, most designers believe that the only response is to keep designing and hope their new creations will keep them above water.

I’d like to offer designers another solution based on strategic knowledge of intellectual property. Designers can register and protect their designs as numerous forms of intellectual property (IP), including trademarks, design patents, copyrights and trade dress. The Wall Street Journal article mentions this fact and discusses how these IP assets rarely prevent the flood of copycats.

The Wall Street Journal article, however, does not discuss a little-known procedure that IP owners can initiate that could offer them a powerful shield in their arsenal. The procedure is IP recordation with the U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement Authorities.

The process is actually quite simple. After you have registered your IP as a trademark, design patent, copyright or trade dress, all you need to do is file a short form with Customs and pay a $190 fee. The form is extremely simple and asks the IP owner to provide a registration number, describe the intellectual property, list parties authorized to use the mark, and provide an image of the intellectual property.

To access a screen shot of the actual form, click here.

Once your IP is recorded with Customs, you may then notify the office of any suspected parties that may be importing goods that infringe your IP. Customs may then decide to seize and impound the knock-off goods at any U.S. port while it conducts an infringement assessment. Impoundment creates a difficult scenario for the alleged infringers, including the foreign manufacturer and the domestic importers, which may include distributors and retailers. The procedure creates a cost for all these parties, buys the designer precious time to retain exclusivity for their designs (especially important when the design in question ties into a current fashion trend), and sends a clear signal that the designer means business.

The Wall Street Journal article mentions that designers may send cease-and-desist letters, and this is an important weapon in the independent designer’s arsenal. However, large companies tend not to respect these letters as much as when a big corporation with deep pockets is behind the letter. For an up-and-coming designer, having knock-off goods impounded is a much stronger weapon, especially when many companies that sell imposters have those items manufactured in China or other locations overseas.

Customs provides statistics on what types of goods have been seized under this impoundment procedure. In 2009, it conducted 14,841 separate IP-related seizures with confiscations worth $260.7 million. To view the statistics, click here.

To learn more about the impoundment procedure and how you can take advantage of it to protect your intellectual property, visit the Customs website here.

Designers, please consider using this legal tactic to protect your hard work and creativity under a system of fair trade for everyone.

Entrepreneurship Week at Michigan Tech & Poppy King Video

Michigan Tech joined hundreds of other academic institutions by celebrating entrepreneurship week. This week-long event celebrated the spirit of entrepreneurship on campus by inviting famous and inspiring speakers like Poppy King, author of the entrepreneurship book “Lessons of a Lipstick Queen“.

Too see the video of Poppy’s Library reading and lecture click here:

An on-campus elevator pitch competition drew in 16 entries with thousands of dollars awarded in prize money. The spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well!

Top 10 Places for Tech Jobs…And Their Patents

U.S. News and World Report lists the Top Ten Places for Tech Jobs. The list includes: Atlanta, Boston, Houston, Huntsville, New Yok, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington.  It’s an interesting list, and I thought I would do a patent search for inventors based out of these cities. Here are the results I obtained and a chart that lists the patents for each area. The West Coast is still dominant with the top three and nearly 60% of the total share of patents. The East Coast is not doing too shabby with nearly 20%.  I was surprised by the relatively large share of Houston and Phoenix. It’s nice to see some other areas of the Nation gaining some traction in the high tech sector. My main question is, why didn’t the Research Triangle of the Durham North Carolina area make the list?

patentstats

To the Folks at Twitter: Use Trademarks to Monetize Your Traffic

I just read an article on a packaging blog that mentions how companies are adding their Twitter ID on product packaging. I agree with the article’s conclusion that it’s a smart marketing move that allows a company using this strategy to stay in touch with customers. Pepsi, for example, added “twitter.com/pepsiraw” to its Pepsi Raw beverage packaging.

Here’s an idea for the folks at Twitter, who have been criticized for not monetizing their customer base. Try licensing your trademarks to companies who want to add the Twitter ID to their product packaging. After all, you own the Twitter trademarks! You can license the brand name and logo for premium royalties, in my opinion.

I ran a quick search and found six live trademarks federally registered to Twitter.