Author: Timo Tokkonen

http://fi.linkedin.com/in/timotokkonen

Tutkintojen nykyisyydestä

Aiemmassa kirjoituksessan Koulutuksen tulevaisuudesta Niko Porjo pohti opiskelua ja kouluttautumista muuten kuin perinteisellä luentomenetelmällä. En ole asiasta eri mieltä, jos tosin poikkeuksiakin on tullut vastaan. Hyvä luennoitsija voi tehdä asiastaan kiinnostavan, mutta aina se ei silti tarkoita samaa kuin helposti omaksuttava tai helposti tenttiin valmistava. Sivistävä kylläkin. Joskus tehokkain tapa oppia voisi olla projektipohjainen, missä koko ajan opitaan uutta ja hyvä opettaja varmistaa kaikkien osa-alueiden tulevan katetuksi. Ulkopuolisena kuvittelen Metropolia AMK:n Raceaboutin toimivan tuohon tapaan.

Istuessani 1990-luvulla tähtitieteen laitosneuvostossa päättämässä suurista linjoista ja isoista rahoista (vitsi, yliopistoväki nauraa ja tähtitieteilijät puolestaan heille), saimme opetusministeriöstä useita selvityspyyntöjä. Osoittakaa, että laitoksenne ei tee päällekkäistä tutkimusta muiden vastaavien laitosten kanssa. Jos ei selvitystä, ei myöskään rahaa jne. Kun koko valtakunnassa ei ollut kuin kolme tähtitieteen opinahjoa, tehtävä ei ollut kovin vaikea. Enemmän purtavaa tosin aiheutti samoihin aikoihin käynnistetty tutkintojen määrän lisääminen ja opintojen nopeuttaminen.

Oppi-isäni, professori K-A Hämeen-Anttila tuli joskus sanoneeksi, että ei yksi opetusministeri tähtitieteen tutkimusta lopeta, mutta kyllä hän sen voi pysäyttää yhdestä maasta useammaksi vuosikymmeneksi. Millä konstilla sitten nopeuttaa opiskeluja ja saada enemmän tutkintoja aikaiseksi? Rahoitushan määräytyi jo tuolloin isolta osin suoritettujen tutkintojen mukaan. Arvon laitoksellamme oli noihin aikoihin kaikki vuosikurssit mukaan lukien yhteensä 14 laitosneuvostovaaleihin hyväksyttävää opiskelijaa. Hyvinä vuosina meiltä tuli yli yksi (1) tutkintoa per vuosi, parhaina moninkertaisestikin.

H-A:n, kuten professoriamme kutsuttiin, mukaan oli kaksi konstia. Toinen oli antaa enemmän opintoviikkoja (Huom! ei pisteitä tuolloin) samoista suorituksista tai sitten antaa vanha määrä vähemmillä vaatimuksilla. Jos haluttaisiin, että opiskelun ja opetuksen tehtävä on oppiminen, olisi omasta mielestäni diplomit voitu jakaa alta pois ensimmäisellä viikolla, että toisella olisi voinut oikeasti jo opiskella.

H-A:lla oli vastaus myös opiskelijavalintoihin, sen verran monimutkaisia olivat nekin pääsykokeet. Hänen mukaansa yliopistoon tahtovat opiskelijat tulisivat kesäloman jälkeen jonoon tai johonkin muuhun muodostelmaan pääoven läheisyyteen. Siitä hätäisimmät lähtisivät kyllä ensimmäisenä päivänä ja toiselle viikolle mentäessä tahti kiihtyisi.

Syksyn kääntyessä lokakuuksi ja marraskuuksi, edettäessä kohti kylmempiä säitä joku professori voisi säälistä pyytää sisukkaimpia räntäsateesta tuulikaappiin lämmittelemään. Joulua lähestyttäessä voitaisiin jo katsoa, mikä ala jäljellä olevia oikeasti kiinnostaa. Näin sitten päästäisiin näppärästi heti tammikuussa täydellä tarmolla opintojen kimppuun. Valitettavasti pelkään, että H-A oli oikeassa ja että menetelmä olisi tehokas. Jonkun mielestä menetettäisiin puoli vuotta, mutta oma kokemus antaa epäillä toisin. Turhan paljon katsotaan tutkintojen ja tutkintovaatimusten perään, itse asia tahtoo mennä pesuvesien mukana. Mutta johonkinhan politiikankin ammattilaisia tarvitaan. Mikä tutkinto muuten siihen vaaditaan ja nyt en puhu puolueen sisäisistä pätevöitymisistä?

Miten tämä liittyy sitten opetukseen ja tutkintoihin laajemmin? No siten, että sama ilmiö on siirretty täydellä painolla työelämään. Varmasti pesuvesien heittäjät tarkoittavat hyvää, mutta onko kaikki moisessa laajudessaan enää tarkoituksenmukaista? Esimerkki tietokoneen ajokortti. Analogiana voidaan ottaa ralliautoilija ja henkilöauton ajokortti. Mitä niillä on yhteistä? Lähinnä se, että yleensä tarvitaan ajokortti voidakseen ajaa rallia, mutta ei aina. Varsinkin jos otetaan mukaan rallisprintti ja Brittein saarten säännöt. Ja että ajokortti ei todellakaan tee rallivoittajaa. Se taito hankitaan jotenkin muuten ja toivottavasti muualla kuin yleisillä teillä.

Oma taustani on myös tietotekniikassa. Harrastepohjalta, koska minulla ei ole siitä tutkintoa, riippumatta paljonko ja mitä olen alalla tehnyt. Olen käsitellyt aikamoisen joukon työhakemuksia erittäin vaativiin tehtäviin. Jos henkilö on CV:hensä merkinnyt taidoiksi tietokoneen ajokortin, sille pitää käytännössä löytyä todellinen vastapaino jo väitteen puhdistamiseksi. Nimittäin monissa tehtävissä rallikuskin kyvyt ovat minimivaatimus itse työtehtävän suorittamiselle ja siinä ei B-ajokortin ykkösosa suoritettuna paina. Kovat koodarit™ eivät yleensä puhu suoritetusta tietokoneen ajokortista. Muutama ystäväni ei pystyisi rehellisesti läpäisemään vanhaa Stockmannin työnhakulomakkeen tietokoneen käyttökokemuksesta. Se meni jotenkin näin: arvioi osaamisesi Microsoft Word, Microsoft Powerpoint, Microsoft Excel, sähköposti. Varsinkin tuohon maailmanaikaan ko. henkilöt pyrkivät pysymään irti ko. toimittajan tuotteista kaikin mahdollisin keinoin. Niin pitkälle, että osa toteutti omat vastineensa aivan samoista ohjelmista.

Mitä Stockmann halusi siis selvittää? Microsoft Officen todella syvää käyttökokemusta, joka on oikeasti erittäin harvalla vai toimisto-ohjelmien normaalikäyttöä? Jos, mitä luultavimmin jälkimmäistä, kysymys on käännetty kansan kielelle, johon ammattilainen ei aina pysty vastaamaan hyväksyttävästi. Kerron heti ja nyt itse tässä MS Officen käyttäjänä – en todellakaan osaa/muista/koskaan tarvitsekaan kaikkia ko. ohjelmien ominaisuuksia. Kummasti olen vain aikamoista joukkoa neuvonut mm. noiden työkalujen käytössä. Siis: mitä oikeasti haluttiin ja mitä kysyttiin?

Montako prosenttia Roviolla, F-Securella, Digialla, Ixonoksella tai Tiedolla on suorittanut tietokoneen ajokortin?

Kuulemani toinen esimerkki telealan asiantuntijapaikan haastatteluista 90-luvulta. Mitä tiedät GSM:stä?Vastaaja a): kaiken, minulla on ollut GSM-puhelin jo kolme vuotta. Vastaaja b): en kovin hyvin, en tunne parin alimman kerroksen protokollaa kovin tarkasti. Siis? En voi arvioida vastauksia, koska en tiedä haettujen henkilöiden suorittamia tutkintoja. (Vitsi, valitettavasti).

Olen viime aikoina selaillut jonkun tuhat työpaikkahakemusta. Samat niskavillat aktivoituvat kuin Stockmannin vanhaa lomaketta lukiessa. Nyt vähän eri tavalla ja eri syistä. Joitakin vuosia sitten havaittiin isossa organisaatiossa, että tiettyjä päällekkäisiä asioita kannattaisi tehostaa ja tehdä kunnolla. Rakensimme sitten tyhjästä tilanteeseen sopivan innovaatioprosessin. Ei prosessia prosessin vuoksi, vaan järjestelmän, joka toimi organisaationsa ja osallistujiensa hyväksi ja ehdoilla. Siten, että koko yritys saa työstä konkreettista hyötyä eikä tuloksena ole ainoastaan ns. pullakahvikerho. Ja sen me totisesti teimme ja pyöritimme usean vuoden ajan.

Sain pidettyä hymyn poskessa ja naurun mahassa, kun kuulin joku vuosi myöhemmin järjestettävän eurooppalaisittain sertifioidun innovaatiomanagerikoulutuksen. Nyt emme olleet päteviä enää edes itse luomaamme hommaan. Meitä oli puolenkymmentä tarkasti valittua alansa ammattilaista ko. tehtävässä, jossa aiemmat tekemiset ja motivaatio ratkaisivat ketkä asiaa rakensivat. Ei muuten menty ensimmäisenä suorittamaan tutkintoa työtä aloitettaessa, ruvettiin perinteisesti töihin.

Nyt projektipäällikön paikkoja katsoessa pyydetään, vaaditaan tai toivotaan sitä, tätä ja tuota sertifiointia. Ei riitä enää käytännössä osoitettu kokemus muutamasta kymmenestä/sadasta menestyksekkäästä projektista. Koulutus on aina hyvä asia eikä sitä voi olla liikaa, mutta joskus sertifiointien hintalappu on suorastaan kohtuuton. Tähän kohtaan <x> saavat alan yritykset perustella miksi olen väärässä. Osittain myönnän olevani, koska perusasiat tulee hallita. Mutta taas toivon järkeä käteen ja pesuvesiä vain valtuustoihin, eduskuntiin ja hallituksiin.

Joskus piti osata rakentaa radio voidakseen kuunnella lähetyksiä. Nykyään ei tarvitse. Vaatimustaso muuttuu ajan kuluessa, mutta eivät kaikki asiat silti tutkinnoilla ratkea. Tutkinto ei aina selitä osaamista.

Oppiminen, osaaminen ja ymmärrys ovat eri asioita. Kaikkia niitä ei voi eikä tulisi mitata tutkinnoilla. Ei. Eikä tutkinnon tulisi olla itsetarkoitus.

Levyseppähitsaaja, yo-merkonomi, filosofian tohtori – mitä yhteistä?

Patents – conventional warfare?

“After all a patent is only what it is claimed to be under its claims, nothing more, nothing less. And even those are eventually validated in courts, not in patent offices. So in real life, nobody knows what has been patented until it has been tried in a court. …. It is only about patent strategy and tactics. If you don’t have one, your competitor might have. It is war after all.”

WHY ARE PATENT APPLICATIONS SO COMPLEX AND HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

[Edit: See also Part 2: Patents — non-conventional warfare]

Writing a patent application is a skill honed to the extremes over the last two centuries. It is a mumbo-jumbo-techy-legal text that needs great expertise to understand what its actually being said. I have often heard from colleagues that they do not recognize nor understand. But what is that they don’t understand? The draft patent application they are asked to comment that is written based on their original idea. They don’t recognize the idea anymore nor find it in the written text. They can read the words but do not understand the sentences.

What is behind this all then?

Filing and receiving patents is also a game blown to the extremes. Individual patents have very little value as such. It is easier to understand the text if one tries to understand them through the system. It is like politics, lot of words but less concrete actions. Although there are agreements signed here and there now and then, they too are valuable only as long as everyone respects them.

Patents can have real value in several ways. An individual can show in his CV how many patents he holds and thus is inventive or where his interests lie. A company or an (academic) institution may have protected and published their new results as patents. Sometimes it is deliberately chosen not to patent and rather publish the results so nobody can claim those in the future. Quite often very important ideas related to manufacturing are not patented at all. It is better to keep a secret and not show competitors how things are done. If someone later receives a patent for the same idea, a company may be able to prove they’ve done it for years and keep using it.

But the ultimate question is if someone infringes your patent – what are you going to do about it? If you do nothing, your patent is just gathering dust. You must have the capability to protect your rights as well. Be ready to fight and have the resources and willingness to do so. In some cases it is not beneficial to attack the small fish but rather wait for the more lucrative cases to emerge and only then hit – being a shark. The old term of Shark has been turned into Troll when someone does not produce anything but just owns patents and actively seeks compensation for its rights. According to our laws and practices it is legal to do so and there are no clear boundaries when one could not protect his rights.

The real value of a patent is settled when it is sold or a court decides a company must pay another for infringements. Before the actual tried case, nobody can exactly say how valuable an individual patent is. Just like in military, one can only plan strategies and gather equipment, but the value of preparedness and tools are measured only in real use.

There is a heated cold war going on in several industries where companies are fighting for market position and revenues. Some technological areas rise in importance and 10-20 years later the original and subsequent patents become of value. In some areas standardization and games played there adds another aspect. Consider these as being equivalent of UN when compared to warfare. And patents are the needed tactical weaponry one might need one day – uncertain is only which and when. Enter patent portfolios that try to enumerate tactical advantage with numbers over quality. An individual patent is relevant only when backed up with other patents in the same and other areas. The patent costs are not so important as you have to have the army in any case to be taken seriously.

Only when you cannot afford to keep an army does the situation change. Well of course companies actively prune their patent portfolios by trying to understand and focus on the important, strategic ones. Old patents can be discarded or sold to someone else, perhaps to NPEs (sharks, trolls, non practicing entities). But overall I would claim most smaller companies do not understand the strategic role of the patents. They either over- or underspend resources, but when a company and an idea is growing, nobody knows what eventually will result. Patent strategy for a start-up may be a shot in the dark that may be prematurely required by the investors. Of course this is not a general rule, but I’ve seen this happen.

So there are reasons why the patent system is like it is, but why are the patent texts then so hard to understand? Can’t one just say what one means and has done?

Of course, but… For a patent to have some value and merit, it usually should not be too restrictive. For example if one protects a door opening mechanism with one hinge, another company may show why a two hinge mechanism is so much better and bypasses the original idea. To be generic enough but still have some merit and validity in other areas as well is one of the reasons why the descriptions are so hard to understand. A patent should have Generalizability.

There are processes and technicalities to be followed when filing patents – one may amend the original application given it has been covered in the original application. Thus from one perspective it is good to cover a lot in the first explanation as it can be used to alter the claims later. If something is not described in the original,  no later changes are possible, as a general rule. Another reason to describe the idea broadly is to have the patent text itself act as prior art for future development. Patents are far from the only form of prior art. Future technical development is a question mark for everyone, so it is better if your patent is not tied only to the current implementation. Sometimes a very narrow patent is the best thing to have, but it may be hard to think about all the circumstances that the future may hold. Patents can be amended and used to describe prior art covering more than the patent itself.

Those are some of the easy reasons and excuses for the mumbo-jumbo-techy-legal aspect. It is possible that the application is deliberately written to be hard to understand. If you don’t understand it, the chances are the competition does not know what you are after. Some have speculated that being vague enough is a tactical move to get a patent granted. The patent examiner gets overwhelmed and is buried in prior art so that it is actually unclear what the idea is – it is claimed and seems to be new and innovative thus patentable. Patent text can be used to distract not just the competition but also the examiners.

In some cases the text may be written as a strategic weapon, thinking ahead what type of litigation may be waiting ahead. “Yes, we have independently come to that conclusion, please see our original patent application preceding the date…” and the like. Patent applications can be used to show and prove a point or any point.

Then there must be all the other reasons as well that one just cannot think of that somebody else does. It is a system and it acts like a system with its rules and weaknesses built in. But it is the system we have right now.

After all a patent is only what it is claimed to be under its claims, nothing more, nothing less. And even those are eventually validated in courts, not in patent offices.

So in real life, nobody knows what has been patented until it has been tried in a court. Different countries and courts may decide differently. And of course some patent applications take those into account during writing and filing as well. It is only about patent strategy and tactics. If you don’t have one, your competitor might have. It is war after all.

Tekemättömien töiden lista

Nokia ilmoitti kesäkuussa aikeesta irtisanoa Suomessa 40% työvoimastaan. Tämä ei ole ensimmäinen irtisanomisilmoitus Nokialta ja samaa viestiä on kuultu useilta muiltakin ICT- eli tieto- ja kommunikaatioalan yrityksiltä. Osa syy yritysten tarpeeseen tehdä leikkauksia johtuu itse asiassa Nokiasta, sillä sen ympärille on muodostunut laaja alihankinta- ja yhteistyöverkosto. Kun yhdellä menee heikommin, se heijastuu myös muihin.

Yritykset miettivät kuumeisesti tulevaisuuttaan niin lyhyellä kuin pitkällä aikavälillä. Jatkossa tarvittavien työtekijöiden osaaminen ja määrä ovat iso mysteeri. Jos on menekkiä, on myös resursseja palkata lisää väkeä ja panostaa tuleviin tuotteisiin. Heikompien aikojen koittaessa oikea aika ja tapa katkaista tappiokierre on isoa uhkapeliä. Silloin on tarve panostaa ja olla valmis tulevaan nousuun, mutta ajoituksen tai kohteen valinnan epäonnistuessa lopputuloksena on vain uusia ongelmia vanhojen päälle. Valinta sisältää aina riskin.

Eiköhän nyt uskalleta jo palata vanhaan suomalaiseen kielenkäyttöön ja puhua oikeasti ongelmista ongelmina, kaikki ei ole aina vain haasteita. Paitsi ehkä haastettaessa käräjäoikeuteen. Monelle yritykselle vielä äsken turvallinen perustyö kun on historiaa ja edessä on ongelmia ja ehkä myös niitä haasteita.

Kukaan ei osaa varmasti ennustaa Euroopan talouskriisin tulevia vaiheita, mutta sekin vaikuttavaa yritysten rekrytointiin. Viime vuonna eräs iso suomalainen laitos jäädytti uusien henkilöiden palkkaamisen kymmenisen päivää Stephen Elopin kuuluisan puheen jälkeen. Samaa “ei palkata” -viestiä kuultiin myös pienemmiltä yrityksiltä, jotka eivät tienneet sanoako irti vai ottaako lisää työntekijöitä.

Tämä koski erityisesti niitä, joilla oli yhteistyötä Nokian tai siihen voimakkaasti linkittyneiden tahojan kanssa. Ei ollut tietoa jatkuisivatko vanhat projektit vai loppuisivatko ne. Kokeneitä suunnittelijoita tarvittaisiin isoihin hankkeisiin, joita ehkä käynnistyisi pian. Uusia asiakkaita ei uskallettu ottaa, koska ei tiedetty ovatko kokeneet henkilöt vapaana tarpeeksi pitkään. Ja uusia henkilöitä ei uskallettu palkata niihin, koska vanhojakin saattaisi jäädä pian ilman työtä. Tämä oli hyvin tyypillinen yhtälö suomalaisissa ICT-alan yhtiöissä vuonna 2011.

Osa yrityksistä otti yhteistoimintaneuvottelut käyttöön kenties jo hieman ennakoivana toimenpiteenä tilanteen todennäköiselle heikentymiselle. Mikä puolestaan sai kokeneita suunnittelijoita hakeutumaan muihin yrityksiin pienemmän epävarmuuden toivossa. Samalla yrityksen tilanne muuttuikin hankalammaksi, koska vanhojenkin hankkeiden toteuttaminen vaikeutui.

Lopputuloksena oli odottaa jostain muualta saapuvaa isoa muutosta – esimerkiksi sitä uutta nokiaa.

Vuonna 2012 tilanne on toinen, epävarmuus on vähentynyt. Toivottua nousua ei ole tapahtunut ja Nokia on aloittamassa uudet, entistä laajemmat irtisanomiset.

Suomessa on nyt tarjolla erittäin kokenutta työväkeä, joilla on huomattavasti laajempaa kokemusta kuin tyypillisesti tiedetään tai halutaan uskoa. Eikä heillä kaikilla edes ole asennevammaa tai harhaluuloa omasta erehtymättömyydestään. Hyvän tuotteen tekemiseen vaaditaan eri taitoja kuin tietoon valita oikea tuote tehtäväksi. Ensimmäisen kohdan ammattilaisia on nyt vapaana eikä heitä kaikkia kannata laittaa Kansanradion oppien mukaisesti vanhainkoteihin tai rakennustyömaille. Muitakin konsteja löytyy.

Nyt on vapaalla jalalla tuotekehityksen osaajia hyvin monenlaisella osaamisprofiililla. Alleviivan sanan tuotekehitys, julkisuudessa usein kuultu sana tuotekehittely on ja kuulostaa harrastajien puuhastelulta. Tarkemman analyysin jätän Kielitoimistolle ja alan ammattilaisille.

Kaikki suunnittelutyö ei tule siirtymään Aasiaan. On huomattu, että ei sieltäkään löydy yli-ihmisiä ja että palkkakustannusten noustessa alkuperäiset isot rahalliset säästötkin haihtuvat pois. Samoin etäisyys ja erilaiset työkulttuurit tuovat mukanaan omat hankaluutensa sovittaa työt ja tarpeet toisiinsa. Kaikkea ei myöskään voida määrittää tarkasti etukäteen, joka voitaisiin helposti siirtää kauas Kiinaan tai Intiaan suunniteltavaksi ja tehtäväksi. Ja jos voidaan määritellä, se on siis jo tunnettua ja samalla jo vanhaa.

Meillä on ihan omiakin asioita eteenpäin vietäviksi, muitakin kuin mobiilipelit.

Saloon ja Ouluun tehtyjen ministerivierailujen yhteydessä olemme kuulleet, että valtio on valmis panostamaan rahaa työllistämiseen. Ei puutu kuin palkanmaksaja.

Jos itse kärjistän ja käännän kysymyksen eri muotoon, ei puutu muuta kuin tieto tai visio mitä tulisi tehdä. Sitähän se palkanmaksajakin lopulta on, joku joka yrittää tehdä jotain. Enää ei olekaan päiväkodin täti, luokanvalvoja tai komppanianpäällikkö kertomassa mitä tänään tulee tehdä. Ja kenelläkään heistä ei oikeasti ole kristallipalloa kertomaan mitä nyt tulisi tehdä, koska se on “oikein”. Sellaista pelastajaa ei ole.

Innovaationeuvostot eivät voi keksiä ja päättää kaikesta mitä tehdään ja mitä ei. Tai voi, mutta ei heilläkään ole takeita tulevasta menestyksestä. Meidän tulee tehdä ja kokeilla erilaisia asioita, niitäkin joita kukaan muu ei tee ja jotka tuntuvat kaukaisilta mahdollisuuksilta. Kauas on pitkä matka, mutta hitaastikin pääsee perille kun lähtee joskus liikkeelle.

Mitä sitten voitaisiin tehdä?

Aluksi lopetetaan surkuttelu. Nyt ollaan missä ollaan ja se ei tekemättömäksi muutu.

Meillä on kykyjä ja voimaa aloittaa hankkeita, joilla voidaan saada aikaiseksi mitä halutaan. Vaikka suomalainen Kuuhun, mutta se on jo 50 vuotta vanha idea toisesta maasta.

Meillä on paljon asioita, jotka ovat tekemättä tai kesken tai pelkästään huonosti. Niihin kenties odotetaan poliittisia päätöksiä ja kunnan tai valtion taholta toimia, että asiat etenisivät. Nyt tarvitaan enemmän tekoja ja vähemmän rakenteita.

Entä jos kerättäisiin ministeriöiltä, järjestöiltä ja kansalaisilta lista asioista, jotka pitäisi tehdä – TEKEMÄTTÖMIEN ASIOIDEN LISTA. Meillä on paljon esimerkkejä hankkeista, jotka on saatu käyntiin ja valmiiksi vain keskittymällä johonkin asiaan. Linus Torvalds ja Linux ei todellakaan ole ainoa esimerkki. Paikallisesti voi olla omia tärkeitä asioita, joita tulisi saada tehtyä.

Kerätään tieto mitä pitäisi tai haluttaisiin tehdä ja ruvetaan tekemään. Projektoituminen voi tapahtua itsestään, kun järjestetään oikea ympäristö ja kannustimet. Annetaan tulokset meidän kaikkien käyttöön ja perustetaan menestyksekkäimmistä oikeat yritykset.

Hoidetaan tukea kuntoon veronkevennyksillä hankkeisiin osallistuville ja vanhoille yrityksille annettavilla vähennyksillä jos ja kun panostavat moiseen työhön. Kyvykkäitä ja innokkaita vetäjiä hankkeille löytyy juuri nyt kenties enemmän kuin koskaan.

Ei tehdä tästä vaikeaa, ruvetaan tekemään töitä oikeiden asioiden eteen meidän  kaikkien käyttöön.

 

 

 

SMOS: The Kiss of Death of IPR – another view

Since the publication of SMOS last week, we have had several discussions with different people about patents – whether patents are essential and does it really matter for a small company to have patents or not. The answer is, of course, yes and no. But even with yes, it is not always as clear as one might expect as Jakke presented in his previous blog.

What is today’s IPR about? It is about litigation, and litigation itself is a game of power and strategy. But even those rules are changing.

I believe that Jakke was a bit optimistic when he was looking at patents from their utility aspects. In practice they are much more.

I may be harsh with my statement, but to some degree patents are like weapons. They are everywhere and can be used both for good and evil. But when one is manufactured, you never know whether it will harm someone someday. For gun exports and trade, and ultimately war, we have regulations. But for using and transferring patents, and eventually litigations, not so much. I am not a lawyer, but for a small company or a single entrepreneur the unwritten rules of the game are quite literal.

Let’s take an example that company LetterZ finds out that company SillyNumber is infringing one of its patents. What will LetterZ do? Most probably it does its homework to know their own position and carefully document everything that works for them. And most probably it plans counter measures if SillyNumber has something against them. If SillyNumber is a small company, LetterZ can wait for it to grow. It is not good business to pay lawyers to sue companies that do not have money. Basically it is a time bomb that only company LetterZ knows exists.

Just like in warfare, the company can plan its strategy carefully over time before striking. With SMOS we would have had no idea who we might have been eventually facing. It would be polite to let the one infringing know and give a chance to change their approach, if possible. But as said, this is more about power and influence than being right. It is warfare.

Traditionally biggest headlines have been written about clashing titans. One party will either pay a lot and/or case ends in cross-licensing. During the last 10+ years there has been other, new type of development. Some companies acquire licenses after careful studies that someone (lucrative enough) is infringing exactly those patens. For the most successful suing companies it is enough to threaten the infringing party to keep the case out of courts. Some of such companies, patent trolls, don’t actually produce anything else than money.

Recent tactics has been to move away from the frontline clash of titans towards guerilla wars. Instead of suing the provider, suing e.g. individual hotels and restaurants for 5000 USD each, there is decent money to be made out of hundreds or thousands of cases. The sum has to be small enough that it definitely will not cover litigation and lawyer fees. Many companies may end up paying without putting up a fight, regardless of the actual case details. The threat and uncertainty are much bigger.

As courts may decide the compensation based on the number of devices made or sold that include infringing technology, corporations are separating their manufacturing and patents. Patents are turned into the hands of portfolio companies, who “do not have anything” to do with the originating company. There is only a licensing agreement, but no other relationship what comes to potential damage based on production numbers. Patents are truly becoming intercontinental missiles of the cold war era.

In August 2011 US Patent Office granted its 8 millionth patent. Two days ago, May 1st 2012, patent number 8 170 000 was granted. That is in the USA alone since the 18th century. There the growth of granted patents has been exponential since the early 1900s. It is a fact that nobody can tell what exactly has been patented and what other prior art exists around all those ideas. In principle all inventions are equal, big and small. We as people have just built and ended up with this kind of a system we face today. It probably is better than anarchy, but can it survive? Is it ultimately so that elephants have the right of way in traffic what ever the highway code says?

There are some efforts to change the status quo, for example https://www.eff.org/patent-busting, but there is much more to patents than corporations and litigation. It still is a possibility for the tiny to have their rights protected. Just as humans as a species have decided. To our knowledge ants do not have proprietary rights for certain lifting techniques, but people may have.

For an individual company patents may be crucial when seeking investments or selling the business. But should the system be reviewed and changed accordingly and be more than a weapon of distraction/destruction?

Do we need a common database of free ideas that are exempt from official patents that may be used for humanitarian purposes and collectively against patent trolls? Yes, I know I am reinventing patenting process just as labor exchanging communities are reinventing money.

But if data wants to be free, could some inventions be agreed to be free as well? It is for our own benefit after all.

SAVING LIVES OR MAKING MONEY – THE ROLE OF INNOVATION AND STARTUPS IN SOCIETY

Later this week we will start releasing material about a project we have been working on for over a year. We have learned a lot.

In short the idea is to make cheap, interconnected telecommunication boxes that can be deployed very fast to areas that have lost cellular connections for example due to earthquakes, flooding and the like. This way people in the area can get connected when their mobile phones still have battery power. It also provides secondary information for rescue teams to know where and what type of help is needed from the early hours of a catastrophe. [Edit: For latest details, please see blog The SMOS Project].

We, a core team of five persons, have decades of experience in communications, mobile devices, innovation and cutting edge technology. We have been better prepared compared to many inventors about what can and should be done when trying to promote an idea and starting a business. Still we found some elements that left us thinking whether something should be changed or different.

We are not saying this just because we did not get funded. We sadly have other evidence to prove our experiences.

We are asking questions about how we want to act as a society in the future.

WHAT WE DID AND WHAT WE DID NOT DO

It all started as a hobby and ended as a hobby. All of us had our daily jobs, families, house mortgages and the like that help in making decisions. Each of us defined the maximum sum of money we were willing to lose if everything goes badly. Risk for it was known to be high, regardless how good we were or how well we did our part. You could not buy a Ferrari with the sum, but at least a decent used car would have been possible.

We (over) analyzed our focus, needed technology, starting a business and everything we knew and basically could imagine. We also listed where we could get support when needed. After the first three months we were ready. We knew the idea and technology were feasible and even pessimistically calculated numbers showed we were onto something. Lesson number one: Do your homework.

We had internal discussions whether and when to start a company. Remember that most of us had and still have daily jobs, we never dreamed of getting rich fast. We had a three-day preparedness to have a company up and running when ever we would have needed one. When working with a small budget, a startup company would have created costs right away eating away our development budget and the like. Eventually we did not start a company, which was exactly the right decision then and now.

Person close to the project published a blog about start-ups and Finnish legislation, whether it makes sense to start a company and asked why it is seen as such a big thing. This kicked off a high-level academic blog debate that start-ups are a great thing for the future and we are just too scared to make that jump.

Lesson number two: People think there is always money in startups, and you get money when you start a company. It is irrelevant whether you actually know what you are doing. Right now big corporations in Finland are letting people go and are kick-starting startups. It is not a bad thing as such. But if you have no customers and do not know what you will be doing, it is a lottery.

A bad analogy could be borrowed where a man is on a burning platform and is given a lollipop to aid his situation before jumping. This results in a sea filled with startups holding their lollipops.

For us the lollipop was not the aim. We wanted to create something that works. We had no misconceptions about IPR and patents. That was one of the strongest assets we had in the team. We knew their role and that we were not a major player in the area. But we knew where to get help. The Foundation for Finnish Inventions was among the very best things we came across during the whole process. Two persons were especially helpful. You two do not even know how good a job you did and are doing and why your approach and attitude are exactly what is needed in this business. More often we have seen the opposite approach and attitude.

With the help from FFI we were able to get resources to verify our internal sanity checks. The results were favorable to us; patenting was a possibility. And we did not have to spend our own money to get to this stage! The next thing was to focus more on the business side and sharpen the business plans as the need and the technical solution were already covered. We had already received comments “this is needed”, “why this doesn’t exist already” and the like. We continued with our work.

We verified with patent companies that in order to protect the idea well, we’d need a small global patent portfolio. One patent covering the idea would not help in today’s world of litigation. Opening everything under creative commons license would be more effective than having a single patent. CC-license actually was our original fallback plan. By the way, a decent patent portfolio would have cost as much as a late model BMW. Lesson number three: Patents are crucial, but not everything.

From early days of the project we had a big open question and we worked hard to answer it. Where does the money come in and who is the paying customer? We spoke with experts who have potential to run and support a system we were building and providing. We had conservative numbers to estimate how many lives could be saved and/or other damages minimized with a solution like ours. We had no break-through answers for a constant cash flow. We tried to device a secondary business case that would support the main business. Every time we realized that we would be a small dog eating from a big dog’s bowl. The big dogs would eat us and finish the meal with our business plan.

We knew that not only we needed a customer, we needed a big customer. To achieve that we had to prove our point first by building a working system. Then we could talk about becoming a supplier. This all of course requires money. Our calculations had shown all along that our small used car budget was not enough to get everything done. In the first phase we would need one BMW and later closer to production two Ferraris.

Our case was handled in the FFI Business board. They were the number one candidate for helping us out financially. First we wanted to protect the idea, so that nobody could stop us from helping people with our system. And more importantly we needed to finish the system prototype instead of just individual components that prove the thing to us but not to anyone else. That was the plan how to get the customer, demonstrate a system that works and later productize the technology.

We later heard the discussion had been very lively with two different views. The first one saw this as a great idea to help save lives. The second one saw it as a competing idea to what telecom operators were doing. Operators would have shared interest and that’s why they would crush and eat us like the big dog would. Eventually the second opinion won and we were not given funding.

We were back at the used car lot. We had been presented with two questions that could turn the decision over to our favor: prove the point that our claimed 72-hour window of opportunity exists and there is a customer. First one was as easy as said. You just need to have 20 years of experience and a world-wide network to get connected to world-class experts. Just email some the of your friends, and they will reply. And actually they did! Top experts of their areas spent days to go through our material and questions. FOR FREE! We got our proof that such a 72-hour window exists, there really was a need for our solution. The next phase of proof would be to actually deliver the system. Lesson number four: It is good to have a network or to have money, but even better to have both.

By this time we had been thinking about the customers and secondary and tertiary business plans for more than six months. We picked all the brains we could to come up with fresh ideas. We ended up having the same 5-15 ideas and questions presented. At one point we were told it would be better to make games for mobile devices. It might somehow save lives, but I guess people hit by an earthquake don’t find games to be their first priority and a new way to kill their phones’ battery. We had to come up with something else.

What do you do if you don’t have money to buy a Ferrari or even a BMW? You tune what you have. Luckily we had an engineering and design company up in our sleeve. They not only had experience building (actual) folkrace cars, but also Linux-based and other embedded systems. We made a gentleman’s pact: they’ll check if they can pimp our ride for free to compete with the Ferraris. Very big thanks to Offcode, please pimp our ride! Depending on the result we then of course would have compensated them by turning them into millionaires, if possible.

Unluckily Finland is a cold place in January and not all results are heart warming. We got the assessment that it is possible to build our idea. However, a key part of the code was proprietary. Owned by the big dogs. Everything else could have been probably bypassed, but not this part. The cost for the missing piece of software would have been a BMW and a set of wheel covers.

But the cost itself was not the main obstacle. The first one was related to available persons and competencies. The second one was related to an open-source activity bypassing the proprietary code. It would be finished at the same time or slightly later compared to our implementation. Best option would be to wait for a year. Or two or three, at that point the code would probably be available for free. But even small dogs have to eat several times a year. Lesson number five: Be lucky with your timing.

We had visited the used car lot, and knew we could not compete with the Ferraris this way. It was time regroup once more and think about the original fallback plan. We just did not want to give up without trying remaining options that would match our budget. What do you do if you don’t have enough money for a car and you want it badly? You ask your parents. In our case we did not do that literally, but we went again to the Foundation for Finnish Inventions. They had promised that if we can provide the needed facts, they can help us. All for us left to do was to show there was a customer. Lesson number six: Do not give up.

There was and is a customer. It is huge, in the same league with United Nations. We have verified several times from their internal and cooperating sources that they don’t buy powerpoints or vaporware. They buy proven solutions. We just need to prove our point to negotiate further. Daddy, will you give us money? FFI had its hands tied, we had answered most of the questions but not all. They were still there for us, but we needed to prove there was a real customer to match the proposal. Lesson number seven: You will be continuously asked about your customer and business plan, know your main facts and numbers.

We had been hit by a brick wall months earlier and while leaning against the old wall, there was another brick wall about to squash us. But we didn’t give in easily. We piled everything we could as a last effort to stop the crushing wall and pleaded for help to climb over the wall. This would be our last stand.

We approached several companies and institutions for starting very deep cooperation and building the thing with them for free. We could have let them own and control the patents. So we continued with the discussions with everyone we could, right up to the last minute. This had been a professional, coordinated effort and would end as a professional, coordinated effort. During some of these negotiations we were attacked for not having a customer, but that was a fact we already knew. We also knew that customer alone was not enough, contrary to some beliefs. But we acted professionally. Lesson number eight: Act professionally and you will be treated professionally.

It looks like there is a Catch-22 here. To get the money to build a demonstrator, you have to show the demonstrator. And to show the demonstrator, you need the money to build it. And for the big customer you need more than just a demonstrator. That money is not in the used car league. It is in the BMW league and then some. That money we do not have. So, sorry, we have made the decision that we will not risk two BMWs or half a house and fly around the world knocking on doors on the off-chance of finding a customer. This was based on our early decision of acceptable losses. Lesson number nine: Define your boundaries and risk taking capabilities early and compare against them later.

So we have now made a decision to fold. We have learned a lot, now we try to share that information. This decision to quit turned out in the end to be rather easy mentally, because during the way we made a sad finding and a fact. During our last attempts to both prove our point and remove all hindsight, we came across some scientific and newspaper articles. Those made us really sad, if a bit relieved, but also angry. All at the same time. It was not actually anger about what happened to us. There was something deeper.

For us, the proof was in an article in Finnish (Immonen, Rantanen 2011). It studies ICT business potential in crisis management. The main conclusion is that disaster communications is a severely fragmented field, with too many players and too much politics. This was beginning to be our hunch also, but seeing it on paper gave us some closure.

But there was other proof as well. In discussions we received first hand evidence from (struggling) startup companies in the disaster prevention and management area – they are not doing well and are not getting funded. It is seen as a task for the government, but the government does not have the capability to do it. We had also identified potential companies in different countries to partner with our technology. Despite their nominal success and lives saved, most have ceased their operations.

We also learned there is a term used in business to describe work like ours – according to Thomas Landauer (The Trouble With Computers 1995). Welfare benefit is used to describe a thing that is good for society but not for a company. To a small degree we, together with our findings, are a living proof of the phenomenon. Which begs to ask a totally different question.

WHAT NEXT

But what next? All our checks for other types of cooperation and next step funding have failed. We have only one question without an answer, just like we did 11 months ago. We have had some very positive negotiations during the last months. But in large organizations there are other shorter term considerations that have worked against us, once again. It is certainly true that we have not approached absolutely everyone and have not turned every stone. However, we have now totaled one car – gone past the budget we had set for ourselves – and now is the time to stop. We are not bitter, but of course another outcome would have been better. Lesson number ten: Know when to stop.

We beg to differ that economics is the only viable way to look at things. We acknowledge that numbers are important, but many successful companies have proven otherwise by being stubborn and playing their game. We know that many have failed. We are very stubborn, but we also pick our fights. We know that some of the other ideas we have may have better business potential. Last lesson: Be stubborn but be flexible.

Could there be other ways to promote ideas that are for the common good? Are we too much engineers and scientists that we just cannot think in business terms? Do you always need to have a proven business case before you start? If so, is it too obvious or known already? Based on this and other similar cases, I wrote a half-serious article on “Innovation lottery” (which I will translate into English eventually). Something totally different like that just might be the best chance for crisis prevention ICT companies to get funded.

Or should we as a society think what is ultimately more important – making money or saving lives?

So Aaron Huslage, you were not alone (Tethr: Getting online in a crisis). But are you alone soon?

P.S. Our member’s 4-year old daughter started her own online business 10 months ago selling jewelry that she designed. She has gathered more revenue and profit than we have. Well done Maija! Perhaps she will hire us.

 

 


Translate »