RESQBug.com – Geek Speak to English

The Bilski decision came down yesterday and I’m still in a state of complete denial.  Basically, the court punted on the difficult issues and while denying Bilski his patent, they didn’t do anything to help the horrible state of the patent ecosystem that we have today.

(For a great summary of the case, check out the Groklaw summary).

To make my stomach even more upset, today I was alerted to an article authored by Ted Sichelman entitled “Why Bilski Benefits Startup Companies.”

In short, Sichelman points to a study that he was involved with and tries to come to the conclusion that these types of patents are good for startups.

To quote him:

“in a recent survey of startup firms, the Berkeley Patent Survey—which I conducted with Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson of UC Berkeley School of Law and Stuart Graham (now Chief Economist at the PTO)—startup executives reported that nearly 70% of venture capital firms and 50% of angel investors said that patents were important to their investment decisions.”

While I vehemently disagree with the article, what I found most interesting was a commenter who used a prior post that I wrote on why the study that Shichelman was involved in may be flawed.

Sichelman attempts to refute my post in the comment section, but fails badly.

First of all, it seems clear to me that Sichelman has intuitions on patents based on his experiences and has used the data to fit his theories, rather than using the data in an unbiased way to figure out what is really going on with patents and startups.

I make this assertion based on a couple of observations:

1. Everytime he speaks about patents, he begins with the story of his one experience with a startup company and how patents may have helped.  I’ve had dinner with Ted and I’ve heard the story.  I’ve also seen the story pop up in every situation he discusses patents.  A sample size of one does not make a scientific set.

2. Sichelman’s co-authors are no where to be found when he comes up with his conclusions.  Ted acknowledges that he doesn’t speak for his co-authors, but very easily uses the word “we” when discussing the study and “his” conclusions.  The blog post that I wrote refuting some parts of the conclusions of the study were not all my own ideas – they were the thoughts of his co-author Pam Samuelson who herself said the article really doesn’t say anything about VC attitudes toward patents.

It’s really clear that Sichelman has a bias that was probably preconceived on a data set of one (his startup) and not supported by his fellow authors who have not backed him up publically.

Furthermore if you read his comments on my blog post, his rebuttals don’t hold water as well.  (And you’ll want to read the comments for this part of this post to make any sense).

1. Response rates – just because you are the most comprehensive study doesn’t make the study necessarily any better.  It might, it might not.  I could be the world’s tallest midget and that still doesn’t get me much (no offense to midgets, sincerely).  I never definitively said the sample size was too low, rather it’s not rock solid clear that it was the right size or targeted the right companies.  It’s not an easy thing for them to do, granted, but we shouldn’t just accept the number “1300” being thrown out and assume that this is sufficient.  And per Sichelman’s own admission in his comments, only about 175 of the respondents were VC-backed startup companies.   This is not a large number.

2.  Only 75% answered the patent question and Sichelman says this is acceptable.  This is not.  In fact, others involved with the study have specifically questioned where the answer rate was a piece of data in itself.  Again, I’m not saying definitively this is data, rather the way Sichelman uses data like this as “proof” is not dispositive.

3. Results biased toward non-venture backed companies.  Sichelman again presents a non-compelling argument.  First, 2/3rd of the sample size, according to his co-author Pam Samuelson were D&B companies, not VentureExpert companies.  Secondly, him trying to convince readers that I only have a sample size of 25 current portfolios is either poor research on his part about me, or ignoring the facts.  I’ve been involved in VC for over a decade and with well over 250 companies, which alone is larger than his sample size of 175 companies.

4. (My Favorite) – Just because we didn’t survey VCs doesn’t mean that we don’t know what VCs think.  To quote him:

“VCs were not surveyed directly – Although it would have been more reliable to survey VCs directly, unfortunately, our time and resources were limited. Nonetheless, there is little reason to believe that the reports of executives at startup firms regarding the views of VCs during the financing process—which is lengthy and involved—are inaccurate. Rather, executives are presumably well-aware of those items that VCs found important during due diligence.

Basically his response is:  “we couldn’t afford to interview VCs, so we just guessed by asking entrepreneurs.”  This is totally bogus and backed up by Pam Samuelson herself in recent remarks at the University of Colorado law school.  This only talks about perceptions that entrepreneurs have of VCs.  This says nothing about what VCs think.  To think that one study group can be substituted for another study group and presented as fact discredits the valid parts of the paper.  This is just bad science.  If it was good science, we’d just ask parents about what their kids really thought about things.

In summary, it’s been a rough day thinking about what could have been with Bilski.  I’m getting a ton of backchannel about the politics behind the decision, which just makes me more upset.  To try to capitalize on the poor decision with articles like this just makes me more disappointed about the system and the supposed “experts” who pretend to know much more than they really do.

With thanks to www.jasonmendelson.com .  To see the original article please click here.

Remember, that the only dumb question is the one never asked. If you have any questions or comments, I look forward to them, please email or call me.

Cheers.

Allan

RESQBug.com Technical Services and PRAD Enterprise

“Managing Your Technology for Improved Workplace Performance”

c: 416.464.1508

e: allan@resqbug.com

t: http://twitter.com/resqbug

Visit us on the Web at http://www.resqbug.com

This article is for information purposes only.  It is recommended that individuals consult with an IT professional before acting on any information contained in this article. The opinions stated are those of Allan Waddington and not a reflection of any company he currently works with or has in the past.

“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” -Red Adair

All of us have had to work with an idiot.  It could be the person who serves you coffee in the morning and can never seem to get your order straight.  It could be a group of employees you’ve inherited as a new manager.  It could be your tech support team.  Whoever fits the profile for you, we’ve all had to work with what we call stupid people.

After a less than satisfactory breakfast meal this past weekend the manager at the restaurant took the time to ask me how my server was.  “A little spastic” was the best way I could figure to describe the girl’s high energy but lack of detail.  I certainly wasn’t expecting to hear “yes, by the end of the day I want to hang her” as the response.  And yet, that’s what I got.  The most honest reply I’ve heard in a while.

The same day, my pizza delivery guy referred to his support centre as “[f**king] retards.”  Two brutally honest accounts of what working in teams is like these days.  At the same time, ‘team’ work is all the craze and what every university is pushing these days as part of their curriculum.  Perhaps the generations to follow will enjoy working together a bit more than those do today.

But can anything be done about difficult employees? Co-workers? Or managers?  Seems the best thing one can do is learn the various personalities that hi-jack the workplace and learn how to deal with them.  Well it just so happens there are several companies out there that specialize in personality analysis and can help you and your organization learn to work better together.

Learning to work with different personalities and work styles can be the difference between hating your job and looking forward to each Monday.

Understanding how the different people in your organization operate will make everything from meetings to lunch breaks easier.

Each office has the ‘gunner’ or ‘eager bunny’.  These characters are high energy and do everything quickly.  The benefit is often higher productivity.  The drawbacks can be alienating fellow employees or skipping important details in the interest of speed.  If you fall into this category remember to speak slower when dealing with other personality types to avoid seeming arrogant and take the time to review the details more closely.  If you work with someone that falls into this category ask them for additional detail when you feel they’re glossing over things.

Each office also has the ‘method-ist’.  This is someone that needs every detail of the project or task ironed out before they are willing to take action.  The benefit is thorough, detailed work.  The drawbacks can be slower path to productivity and getting hung up on details when you need to focus on the overall picture.  If you fall into this category try to prioritize your work and communicate with your team members to ensure your thoroughness is not delaying anyone else. If you work with this sort of personality, you can help ease the personality difference by over communicating details and keeping track of the difference between urgent and important.

Of course each company has a combination of micro and macro managers.  Micro managers will hover over you for details while macro managers will give you all the space in the world.  Learning to maximize your relationship with both types of leaders is important.  Focus on building trust with your micro manager and remember not to take advantage of the freedom you may have with a macro manager.

This is only a very small sample of work place personalities, but regardless of the personalities that surround you, exercising patience and understanding will always help.
To learn more about the personalities in your work space and how better to deal with them, drop me an email.  Together we can try to identify what personality analysis solutions will work best for you.

Cheers,
e.

c: 416-819-9200
e: Evelynn@shermans.net