Transcending Race in Cyberspace – So Much to Do

A colleague of mine forwarded a link to “Transcending "Race" in Cyberspace? Yeah, Right!” which highlighted the extension of racism and stereotyping into Second Life. As Anxious Black Woman comments “if we're going to treat online environments like Second Life as a ‘game,’ I would at least like to envision the space being able to be more progressive and more transcendent of the real-world politics that so many of us deal with.”

My initial reaction was sympathetic but not particularly helpful. “To the extent that virtual worlds allow people to reduce their social constraints,” I commented, “it is inevitable that they are environments of worse social interaction rather than better social interaction.” But is it inevitable? I think the answer is both yes and no.

If we want to create a more transcendent environment, then we need to take a few steps to accomplish this.

• First – reduce the barriers to entry. Many commentators have complained about the lack of non-white and non-sexist avatar templates. Both the corporate organizers of these sites and the programming denizens need to make FREE tools available for a wider array of skin color, body types, clothing, and characteristics.

• Second – encourage greater difference in the avatars we choose for ourselves, our children, our employees, or our students. Those who are fans of Ralph Ellison should recognize the need to walk in other people’s shoes.
  

• Third – we must personally guard against erosion of certain social constraints. Virtual worlds need not be places where crass or cruel behavior has a home. There are real humans acting through their avatars, so we must remember to treat them as people rather than computer generated stock characters.

These three steps will not change the virtual worlds into utopia, but they must surely be a better response than “boys will be boys.” Let’s see what we can do.

Doonsbury Takes on Bottled Water

The December 2, 2007 issue of Doonesbury in the Sunday comics (http://www.doonesbury.com/) included an excellent indictment of the bottled water industry. As “entrepreneur Chad Severnson” explained in the strip, “bottled water is a triumph of perceived need over reason – the greatest marketing coup in history.”

In Own It, I describe the market influence of bottled water:

Public concerns about the quality of tap water (possibly fueled by bottled water advertising and marketing) suggest that fresh water is scarce. As the scarcity increases (at least in consumers’ minds) the bottled water becomes more relevant. Brand names provide an exclusive difference between the competing bottlers, so that the most well respected name in water will become the most successful.

Bottled water serves as a prime example of the interaction between [scarcity and relevance] because water is essentially a commodity throughout the United States, not significantly superior in quality or taste to most of the free tap water available. Nonetheless, the market continues to grow as the public becomes increasingly willing to buy the product.

As bottled water becomes more and more relevant in the minds of the consumers, some retailers have stopped providing free paper cups of water. Bars, movie theaters and concession stands have increasingly stopped providing free water because the public is no longer offended at being forced to purchase something that should be free.

Relevancy can transform market practices and public perception. Just as the producers of bottled water have changed the social relevance of an unnecessary commodity into a prized symbol of status, other commercial vendors, politicians, and community activists seek to shape public norms and create relevance in their message or merchandise.

We regularly play out the bottled water debate in my home because the notion of paying for plain, bottled water offends me. But it does highlight how important it is to develop the perception of relevance for a product or service. While I hate promoting bottled water, anyone who agrees that bottled water is a wasteful practice must also recognize implications of its marketing success.

The Farnsworth Invention - An Ode to Innovatio

Why does a blog on entrepreneurship and innovation focus on a play? Because no play has ever captured the drama of innovation better than The Farnsworth Invention soon to be opening at the Music Box Theatre in New York.

It’s 1929. Two ambitious visionaries race against each other to invent a device called “television.” Separated by two thousand miles, each knows that if he stops working, even for a moment, the other will gain the edge. Who will unlock the key to the greatest innovation of the 20th century: the ruthless media mogul, or the self-taught Idaho farm boy?

The answer comes to compelling life in The Farnsworth Invention, the new play from Aaron Sorkin, creator of The West Wing, directed by two-time Tony® Award winner Des McAnuff.

The promotional materials suggest that this is a battle between the last individualistic inventor and the most voracious corporate raider of the early Twentieth Century. That might be true in part, but anyone who has worked to bring new businesses and products to success knows that you need brilliance in both the technology and the marketplace. The tragedy for both these men was that they battled rather than collaborated. Why that was true is one of the subtle messages of the play.

As the promotional material explains:

In 1928, Philo T. Farnsworth demonstrated electronic television from his lab in San Francisco, using a cathode ray tube on the receiver end. On the camera end, he used an “image dissector” to record an image electronically, one tiny portion at a time. The image dissector would later become the cornerstone for further electronic television development. Meanwhile across the country, Vladimir Zworykin was working for RCA to develop his “iconoscope,” a similar model for scanning images electronically.

In contrast, David Sarnoff understood the power of the technology to transform the lives of the audience. The Time 100 has an excellent biography of Sarnoff:

Sarnoff … saw the potential of the iconoscope, a proto-television patented by Vladimir Zworykin in 1923. Within five years Sarnoff had set up a special NBC station called b2xbs to experiment with what came to be known as television. In 1941 NBC started commercial telecasting from station WNBT in New York City, but once again progress was delayed by war. Sarnoff served as communications consultant for General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who later named him a brigadier general. The title stuck. And in the halls of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, Sarnoff became known as "the General."

Both Sarnoff and Farnsworth were driven, titanic leaders. Aaron Sorkin’s brilliant script cheats in his narration to make the audience feel better about the predictable outcome from the clash of these cultures. This is a wonderful play, with brilliant dialogue and strong performances. For any entrepreneur who has struggled to be understood by friends and family, the Farnsworth Invention is a must see.

Support literate theatre and the beauty of innovation. See this play.

KZSU Hearsay Culture now on Podcast

I had previously posted about KZSU-FM (Stanford University) radio interview show and podcast “Hearsay Culture,” hosted by Dave Levine, Resident Fellow, Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School (CIS). The episode based on “Own It” has now been posted.

From HearsayCulture:

Show #54, October 17: Dean Jon Garon of Hamline University School of Law, discussing his forthcoming book “Own It - The Law & Business Guide to Launching a New Business through Innovation, Exclusivity and Relevance.” Jon’s new book is aimed at the entrepreneur who wants a concise and readable overview of the IP law issues related to starting a business and building it (at least in part) on IP. Because Jon and I differ on some issues (although we agreed on more than I thought we would), we had a conversation that ranged from open source to software patents.

Show #55, October 24: Prof. Rebecca Tushnet of Georgetown Law School, discussing copyright and trademark law. Rebecca is a prolific scholar so it was relatively easy to discuss a number of issues. Rebecca’s treatment of fansites and their impact on how we view IP is very important work.

I have included the link to Professor Tushnet’s interview as well because Rebecca is a gifted, thoughtful scholar who brings a great deal of insight into the issues surrounding intellectual property policy.

The Hearsay Culture program is a real treat and I encourage everyone to subscribe.

The required personality for the No. 1 Entrepreneur

In the October 22nd Wall Street Journal, Phred Dvorak wrote an article about the different personality required from the CEO – even when the CEO had previously been an officer elsewhere in the company. (A Different Animal Seeks the No. 1 Post; Often, It's Not No. 2

by Phred Dvorak.) The same phenomenon occurs in start-up enterprises as in their fortune 500 counterparts – the Chief Enterprise Officer has different demands than everyone else in the start-up business.

For established businesses, the greatest surprise comes to the insider who is elevated to the chief office. “The buck stops here” includes a host of customer complaints (both founded and unfounded), personnel concerns and the attendant personal lives of the people who comprise the institution, complex strategic decisions, and trivial but emotionally charged operational decisions. The CEO is backstop to every process and department in the enterprise. Leaders in other aspects of the business are exposed to only a small portion of the mix. For new businesses, the challenges are somewhat different, but the experience is the same.

In Own It, I emphasize that being comfortable with risk is not a prerequisite to starting a business. The common wisdom about entrepreneurs being risk-takers is misplaced. So what are the attributes that are required of a start-up CEO?

First, the CEO must bring the vision to the enterprise. This includes both the concept and the ongoing commitment to that vision despite all the challenges, pitfalls and rejections from people who do not share the vision. The CEO must have a tenacity for the vision that need not exist in any other member of the start-up team.

Second, the CEO must find the ability to balance a clear-eyed understanding of the challenges in front of the organization with an unflagging enthusiasm for the business and its ability to succeed. While not cheerleader-in-chief, the CEO must guard against exposing the start-up team to frustration and doubt. Once the CEO has given in to frustration, everyone else on the team will join on the bandwagon, often sending the start-up into a quick downward spiral. As a result, the CEO must be more judicious in criticism and more expansive in praise.

The emotional toll taken by shielding one’s emotions can be high. To succeed, the CEO needs someone outside of the enterprise with whom the daily frustrations can be shared. A healthy friendship, marriage, or social network is an important part of the enterprise planning that does not appear on the balance sheet.

In one unique situation, the information can be shared on the inside of the business. Successful leadership sometimes comes from co-founders who can share their feelings and concerns behind closed doors. While it is obvious that a team approach makes sense in terms of getting the work done, the more important aspect of having co-founders is the ability to share the emotional burden and buoy each other.

However the burden is managed, the start-up CEO must find a way to keep the focus on the vision, manage the balance of day-to-day demands, and support the others in the business so they are always looking forward. This is not a job description for everyone, but it is essential for the enterprise to have success.

Listen to a talk about the book – Hearsayculture.com interviews Jon Garon

I just completed an interview on KZSU-FM at Stanford University for the interview show and podcast “Hearsay Culture,” hosted by Dave Levine, Resident Fellow, Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School (CIS). As described by Hearsayculture.com, “each 45-50 minute show is designed to cover modern technology/Internet issues, but not from a purely law or geek perspective. … An interview talk show that focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored.”

The show is #54, October 17: Dean Jon Garon of Hamline University School of Law, discussing his book “Own It - The Law & Business Guide to Launching a New Business through Innovation, Exclusivity and Relevance.” It will be podcast in late October. Hamline will also be adding it to the Conversations in Law series. (For older programs on Hamline’s intellectual property, listen here.)

While most the guests focus on the intersection of intellectual property on popular culture and society rather than on commerce, the conversation was fun a lively. Let me know what you think of the show.

Directors' Impasse - thoughts from the Midwest IP Institute

Last week sported both the publication of Own It and the 2007 Midwest IP Institute. The program is always interesting, with comprehensive panels and an audience capable of very sophisticated conversation.

At the Own It session (Garon on Counseling the Start-Up on the Use of IP), one of the more interesting topics was the use of an independent director to help settle disputes between the corporate directors.

While the conversation was quite far-ranging, the tension on how best to manage corporate disputes remains one of significant concern to the participants. So what can an entrepreneur do?

The first step is to reduce the potential for disputes by specifying key terms and decisions in writing between the owners of the enterprise. Specify that the intellectual property will be owned by the business rather than in a holding company and how those rights will be redistributed upon dissolution. Also specify the primary business objectives; agree to a rough (but realistic) time-line for milestones to take place, and include steps for further approval, so that if milestones are not reached, the enterprise does not drift, but rather the participants are compelled to make decisions on how to proceed.

The second step is to specify a process for breaking significant deadlocks. No one can anticipate all the problems that will arise in a start-up business, and few entrepreneurs have either the stomach or budget for solving all those problems. However, if the enterprise is a two-person (or four-person) group, tie votes can create significant issues.

One suggestion presented by a participant at the session called for an outside director to serve as a tie-breaker. Most of the participants, however, were quite uncomfortable with this popular approach because the risks inherent in relying on someone who has a small stake to remain impartial, to remain engaged, and to provide useful, objective guidance over time. While there are examples of such approaches working, both sides in the enterprise are staking a tremendous amount on the qualities of this impartial individual.

Instead, the participants promoted other suggestions. At the outset, the entrepreneurs are well advised to seek the advice of non-owners (key staff, legal and business counsel, etc.) to help the evenly divided participants find common ground. This is usually informal, but whether informal or formal, it will help both sides better understand the situation and the alternative solutions.

If these outsides voices still do not help the parties reconcile, then the parties should utilize binding arbitration. A properly drafted LLC should provide for binding arbitration in the event of an impasse, since the selective use of a qualified neutral is far better than the destruction of the enterprise due to an impasse.

I suggest that the arbitration provision require the arbitrator to utilize “baseball” arbitration rules.

Under baseball arbitration, the two parties each separately identify the problem and craft their proposed solution to the impasse. The arbitrator must then decide which solution is the more appropriate solution. The arbitrator cannot impose a third solution. This system requires that each side present a solution that is reasonable or risk the other side winning the arbitration, even if the other side was more culpable in causing a problem. The goal of the arbitration is for the enterprise to overcome the impasse and move forward. Quite commonly, the need to draft proposed solutions results in the parties narrowing their demands to the point that they can find compromise without the arbitrator ever rendering a determination. But if a determination is needed, the arbitrator’s decision is binding and the parties must adhere to it.

Baseball-style arbitration has the benefit that the arbitrator cannot craft a compromise solution to merely split the difference between the parties. Whenever a decision maker becomes known for selecting the middle point between the two alternatives, the parties are encouraged to make their demands more extreme. Baseball arbitration solves that primary flaw of external decision making. The parties can also invite the arbitrator to suggest a non-binding intermediary position, if they think the additional guidance would be helpful in crafting a compromise, but the entrepreneurs must understand that unless they agree among themselves, they are bound to the position presented to the arbitrator which was found most appropriate.

Comment on this suggestion or raise an Own It question of your own.

Own It - The Law and Business Guide to Launching a New Business through Innovation, Exclusivity and Relevance

This book first focuses on the legal and business attributes of exclusivity and relevance to highlight how bust to build market share and maximize profitability. Chapters on relevance and innovation focus on how to identify the opportunities for changes in processes and markets. It contrasts market relevance from social relevance, explaining the strategies of creating and marketing must-have products. Using simple descriptions and numerous examples, the book explains how intellectual property assets can improve customer satisfaction and maximize profits.

Because the relationship between entrepreneur and investor is critical to success, the book shows how to align the interests of investors and employees with the entrepreneur. Together with nuts-and-bolts information of the start-up phase of business, this book provides the keys to building an economically stable business and a secure financial future.

The blog will continue this focus, looking a news and trends in the intersection of intellectual property and business.

Feel free to visit www.lawbizbooks.com for additional information on law and business resources for entrepreneurs.