Classroom IP

The ownership of intellectual property (IP) developed in the classroom is a tricky topic.  Let’s suppose a team of 4 students (Team ZZ)  is in a business innovation class.  For a full semester Team ZZ will refine a business idea, create a business model, do a marketing analysis and competitive landscape review, and develop a company launch plan.  It is a lot of work.  Let’s assume that the team performs well and all members pull their weight.  And, at the end of the semester one of the team members (student #1) wants to launch the company.

For clarity’s sake, I am not addressing in this post university ownership of intellectual property.  A university typically does own the IP produced by its employees in the course of their university work.  So, when a faculty member or PhD student invents something during their research, the university will own it (just like Cisco owns the IP created by its employees).  Importantly, students that “pay” to go to the university (like undergrads and masters degree candidates) are not employees and the university typically does not own IP produced by them.  In my example, let’s assume the students on Team ZZ are all MBA candidates in the business school (so are not employees).

So, on Team ZZ, who owns the business idea?  Does student #1 have stronger ownership rights than student #2?  Do each of the 4 students own the idea equally?

The answer will depend on the following key factors: (i) who came up with the idea and (ii) did the members of Team ZZ agree up front on ownership rights?  The matter is not a simple one even if the core idea was student #1’s (in other words, student #1 brought the idea to Team ZZ).  For example, the other students might have added to the idea or figured out the business model to commercialize the idea.  So, it becomes critical to agree up front on ownership rights in writing.  If the core idea was student #1’s, the best approach would be for student #1 to get the other students on the team to assign their rights to the idea and team output to student #1.  The argument is “hey, this is my idea that I am bringing to you and you are getting credit for your course work”.  The argument is sound.  The agreement should be signed up at the beginning of the project.  It really is the only way to make the matter cut and dry and safe for student #1.  And there are many variations in the assignment of rights.  For example, the team members could agree to assign all rights to 2 students instead or could agree to assign all rights to the team as whole with ownership percentages specifically spelled out.

If you want to see a form of assignment of rights feel free to email me.

Startups and Wrestling

I spent Thursday, Friday and Saturday (March 17 – 19) at the NCAA Division 1 Wrestling Championships in Philadelphia.  I wrestled in high school (very long time ago) and follow Cornell wrestling closely.  Prior to the tournament, Cornell was ranked #1 as a team.  Cornell ended up in second place, losing to Penn State, but beating Iowa (I think for the first time ever).  So, a great result for the Big Red.  Here are some highlights of the finals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h87Md3Q-hcU.  Even if you don’t like wrestling, you will probably enjoy the clip (turn off your volume if the music choice bothers you).

During the tournament I did a lot of work (mostly emails).  Given that I was watching wrestling all the while, I started to think very quickly how startups are like elite college wrestlers.  Worth some explanation:

1.  Tenacious:  startup entrepreneurs need to be tenacious in the “truly persistent and determined” sense of the word.  The best wrestlers are tenacious in this sense.   During the semi-final matches in Philadelphia, there were 1 or 2 instances where wrestlers momentarily had a mental lapse – loss of tenacity – and it cost them the match.  I am not advocating for stubbornness or being obstinate (other senses of tenacity), although sometimes those characteristics are life savers for both startups and wrestlers.

2.  Grueling = Enjoyment:  on the video clip, check out the wrestler with bandage around his head.  Wrestling is clearly one of the most grueling sports.  Incredible workouts; frequent pain; and hopefully frequent triumphs.  The similarity to startup life is uncanny.

3.  Sucking Weight = Preserving Cash:  there are various weight classes on a college wrestling team ranging from 125 lbs to 197 lbs and then heavy weight (not over 285 lbs).  With the exception of the heavy weight, wrestlers are constantly dropping pounds to make weight on match day.  Not eating while working out like a maniac is common.  Reminds me of cutting company burn rates in tough times and being a careful spender all the time.

4.  Taking Down the Competition:  the competition in Philadelphia was intense.  Cornell had 4 wrestlers in the semifinals.  Lots of us die hard fans thought all four would win and be in the finals the next night.  Only one did.  It was downright depressing.  Competition validates the sport.  Intense competition creates stress.  Competition causes you to be better and hopefully win ultimately.  Again, this sounds just like the startup world.  We all know the value of competition.  VCs invest in competitive spaces as they signify demand.   Competing companies drive innovation, and the innovation is often a stress creator inside a company.  Ultimately/hopefully, the innovation creates the winning product and the management team executes to win.

5.  There is Luck Involved:  Startups play the luck card routinely.  Right space, right time, with the right team.  In wrestling, luck can be a significant factor as well.  Might get lucky with a referee call.  Might catch your opponent in a winning move (like Bubba Jenkins did on his former teammate from Penn State – Bubba got booted off the Penn State team and transferred to Iowa State – talk about nice retribution).  In his post match interview he was quick to say there was some luck involved.  Being realistic is a winning strategy.  Being lucky can help the cause.

6.  The Glory of Winning:  If you watched the video, you noticed that one wrestler is missing a leg (Anthony Robles from Arizona – if you are interested there are plenty of clips of him on YouTube).  Last year, Troy Nickerson from Cornell beat Robles in the 3rd/4th place match at 125 lbs.  This year Robles beat last year’s defending champion in the finals at the same weight class.  And you should have seen the smile on his face!  And with only one leg!  His larger than usual upper body more than compensated for his handicap.  Winning is everything in wrestling.  Same is true for startups.   Investors know that not every company wins.

Maybe I have now converted some of you to wrestling fans.

PS:  you can also see the glory of winning on Kyle Dake’s face.  Kyle is the only Cornell wrestler in the video.  He won the national championship at 149 lbs!  Last year he won at 141 lbs.



Difference Between a Startup and a Company

I just came across a wonderful blog post by Steve Blank (friend sent it to me).  It is basically about what the title of this post says.  Great to read, and it includes a 180 page slide deck that is superb.  It could serve as a road map for many of us.

See it here:  http://steveblank.com/2011/03/18/new-rules-for-the-new-bubble/

Enjoy.

Tech Founder Wins at Early Stage

At the early stages of a startup, the founding team is probably the most important variable of success.  As a company matures, the concept of “founding team” is replaced by “management team”, which may and hopefully includes the founders.  The management team continues as the critical success factor.

Focusing on the early stage, the founding team typically will have a tech oriented founder and a business oriented founder.  It may have multiple people in each category, but for purposes of this post, let’s assume one tech founder, one business founder and then some additional “first employees”.  It would be normal for these first employees to be involved in product development.

There are many blog posts (from others) written about founding team composition and the importance of picking your co-founders carefully.  I am not going to focus on those aspects.  Rather, I want to focus on one interesting aspect of the relationship between the tech founder and the business founder.

At Cornell, where I teach, it is not uncommon for a Johnson School student (business school) to meet up with a tech oriented graduate student from another Cornell department and actually start a company.  This combination can work very well, and I strongly encourage my Johnson School students to do just that.  But, with one big piece of advice:  once you raise money and before the company’s product takes off, the tech founder is in the driver’s seat. My point is not to cause anxiety.  Rather it is to make sure that both founders (yes, I want both to hear the advice) understand the reality with the hope that they will interact with each in a more informed manner.

Let’s play this out a bit.  Company XT has a tech founder and business founder.  It has a great idea and developed a great product concept (stress concept – product not yet launched).  Based on the work, Company XT has raised $250,000 in its first round of outside financing from an angel group or early stage VC.  Importantly, the “money” has a seat on the board and is actively engaged.  The other board members are the tech founder and business founder.  The company’s burn rate is only currently $15,000 a month (and expected to increase over time), so that $250,000 will last, say, 12 months.

At the end of month 4, the tech founder raises competency issues to the “money” board member about the business founder.  They discuss the issues, but after a few weeks of hashing them out, it becomes clear that the tech founder is unwilling to continue working with the business founder.  The tech founder’s reasoning may be justified or might be questionable.  What happens?

In the usual case, there is no way to complete the Company XT product without the tech founder and the only way for the investor to see a return is for the product to launch.  In essence, at this stage, product development defines the company.  Sure, the product may change prior to launch and end up directionally in a different spot, but the product “owns” the company.

There is only one choice – replace the business founder to make sure the tech founder stays engaged.  The first time this happens, the tech founder basically uses a hall pass and the business founder is shown the door.  If the issue comes up again, all bets are off, but it is not surprising to see a second hall pass used by the tech founder.  A third time, different story – you should just hope the product is launched by then.  So watch out – founder issues are the most likely cause of company death at the early stage.

Outside Board Member(s)

At a startup, there are a few critical “must haves”.   Funding cushion.  A great management team. A product that customers care about and want to buy.  Those are obvious list makers.

Additionally, I would definitely include a high quality outside board member (OBM), or if you are lucky, two of them, on the must have list.  The value that an OBM can bring is huge.  And that value comes in a variety of forms.

For clarity, an OBM is a person who is not an employee, founder or representative of a significant investor in the company.  They might invest eventually to take advantage of an opportunity, but the investment amount would tend to be small (say $25,000 – $100,000).  The OBM at a VC backed startup is usually compensated with equity.  The OBM is someone from industry who has relevant operating experience, marketing knowhow, or other expertise that the company needs.

In a typical startup board configuration (post venture funding) you might have 5 board members, with 2 being founders, 2 being VC representatives and 1 being the OBM.  There is no magic to this, and you might also have 6 board members, with 2 OBMs, or 3 board members (founder, VC and OBM).  Note that an even number of board members bothers some people (as in “who will break a tie?”), but not me.  I have rarely seen a significant board decision not be unanimous and have never seen a tie.

Back to the value of the OBM:

First, the OBM brings balance to the board.  I strongly prefer that the founder/CEO source the OBM.  That sense of empowerment is good.  And, when it comes time for the OBM to make hard decisions later, the fact that the founder/CEO sourced him/her makes the overall decision making process feel more balanced all around.  This is a particularly true if the OBM agrees with the VC board members on a given issue.

Second, an engaged OBM can really get things done.   I have experience with an OMB who literally spends over 500 hours a year on company business.  He is only compensated with equity (though his package is enhanced), he seems to know everyone in the industry, and he absolutely loves what this company is doing.  We are lucky to have him involved.  And I am pretty sure he feels lucky to be involved with the company.

Third, new potential investors will look favorably on high quality OBMs.  They add legitimacy to the company by association.  They can bring valuable insights that new potential investors might want to hear.  Involve OBMs in your fund raising activities if they are willing.

Fourth, OBMs can be fabulous mentors to young CEOs and other management team members.  Sure, VC board members can be excellent mentors too, but there is always the element of enhanced control rights lurking.  OBM do not have that handicap.  With that said, I have witnessed an OBM telling the full board that the then current CEO (who picked the OBM) needed to be replaced.

There are additional benefits, but they fall into the same theme:  OBMs are incredible resources.  Find them with deliberation, engage them with fair equity packages and get them as deeply involved in your business as they are willing.