April 18, 2024

You’re the Boss Blog: When Innovation Becomes the Problem

The Next Level

Avoiding the pitfalls of fast growth.

“Innovate or die” is an expression you hear tossed around a lot. It tells me quickly that the people using it are not really all that innovative and in most cases do not know what it takes to build a fast-growth company. When the fast growth starts to fade, as it always does, the problem is rarely innovation. More often, it’s an inability to do the things that have to follow innovation. It’s really about getting stuff done.

Getting stuff done means packaging, selling, delivering and collecting the money to increase revenue and profits. If you are best in class at getting stuff done and use creativity to reduce complexity and chaos, you just may have yourself a fast-growth business. But if you do, you will quickly learn that the biggest risk to your business is not that it will die because you stop innovating — it’s that it will die because you fail to rein in your innovating and start executing.

Here’s what often happens: Right in the middle of the selling part, someone comes up with an idea to expand the market, add a new product, add more features or offer a new service — in short, an innovation. Not only is innovation more fun than selling, it is what made you a successful start-up when you disrupted the market and created a new fast-growth niche. The organization cheers and rewards the innovators and soon enough you have innovation everywhere – but very little stuff getting done. What happens next is chaos and eventually you realize that you have very little revenue to show for your innovation, which is not good when you are in growth mode.

I remember one summer in high school I worked for my Uncle Buddy laying carpet. On the job, I wanted to talk to customers — basically about anything other than laying carpet. My uncle would look up and say, “Cliff, put tacks in the floor and lay the carpet.” The fast-growth winners are companies that have employees that step up and put tacks in the floor. The fast-growth losers talk about things like “innovate or die.”

Most successful fast-growth entrepreneurs can recall the day when they told their employees to stop innovating and start doing. No talking – just action. I remember a late-night staff meeting where we were long on excuses and short on results, and I simply could not take it anymore. I stood up and said, “Nobody else in this company can create unless it is approved by me. I want everybody to go and do what we already said we were going to do. You either do it or eliminate it. Your decision.”

I know I sound like a bureaucratic dictator, but I was running one of the fastest-growing companies in America, according to Inc. magazine, and I was totally frustrated that I could not get our product out the door. We had innovation everywhere — engineering had a new platform, programming had new features, marketing had new campaigns and the sales people wanted to hire new representatives to sell our “old” stuff so they could sell the new stuff. What helped me to say no was learning that Steve Jobs had once said, “I’m actually as proud of the things we haven’t done as the things we have done. Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things.” But saying no is hard. You are saying no to inspired people and potential revenue.

But the winners do it, like Jeff Platt, chief executive of Sky Zone, which builds indoor trampoline parks. Here is a guy who has built a business with a highly successful revenue model and has pre-sold more than 100 high-end franchises. When I heard him speak recently, he spoke with the confidence and knowledge of someone older than his 28 years. “In our world, at Sky Zone, we strive for operational excellence and to create ‘wow’ guest experiences,” he said. “At this stage of the company, we choose not to focus on bringing in new product offerings and new experiences for guests because we currently need to direct our attention on being brilliant at our core business.”

This is a guy who invented and patented the cable to tie trampolines together into an amusement park. In fact, he created a whole new industry by combining fitness and fun. Now, instead of focusing on innovation, Jeff is focused on training. One of the ways he is doing this is by investing money in e-training modules to make material available instantly to every employee across the country. He is also investing significant time in creating training courses for part-time, full-time and management positions. “We are focusing on getting stuff done,” he told me.

With an average of 10,000 to 15,000 attendees per park each month, it might be tempting for Mr. Platt to think about how to drive more revenue from each guest through new product innovations. If Sky Zone could figure out how to get $1 more out of each guest, it would be looking at more than $4 million in additional revenue each year. Or he could go back to the basics and focus on creating such a “wow” experience that those guests leave the park compelled to go out and tell everyone how great Sky Zone is.

That’s what I call getting stuff done — and that’s what I call a winner.

Cliff Oxford is the founder of the Oxford Center for Entrepreneurs. You can follow him on Twitter.

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/why-innovate-or-die-is-a-lie/?partner=rss&emc=rss

A Year After the Closing of Megaupload, a File-Sharing Tycoon Opens a New Site

AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND — At 6:48 a.m. local time Sunday, the Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom opened his new file-storage Web site to the public — one year to the minute after the police raided the mansion he rents in New Zealand.

The raid was part of a coordinated operation with the F.B.I. that also shut down Megaupload, the file-sharing business he had founded.

Mr. Dotcom faces charges in the United States of pirating copyrighted material and money laundering and is awaiting an extradition hearing in New Zealand. But on Sunday, he said his focus was on the new site, which was already straining under heavy traffic within two hours of its introduction. In the first 14 hours of the site’s operation, more than half a million people registered to use it, Mr. Dotcom said.

“This should not be seen as the mocking of any government or Hollywood,” Mr. Dotcom, 39, said on Sunday at a news conference at the Auckland mansion. “This is us being innovators and executing our right to run a business.”

The event marking the introduction of Mega, held at the same property that had been raided by the police, was designed to be a spectacle. As Mr. Dotcom addressed a large crowd of journalists and guests, actors dressed as armed police officers rappelled down the sloping roof of the main house and shouted that all those present would be detained. A helicopter emblazoned with “F.B.I.” hovered overhead.

Mr. Dotcom, a German citizen and permanent resident of New Zealand who was born Kim Schmitz, was arrested on Jan. 20, 2012. During the raid on his home that day, the police seized vehicles worth about 6 million New Zealand dollars (about $5 million) and froze about 11 million dollars in bank accounts, according to a news release issued at the time.

Over the past year, Mr. Dotcom has become an ever-prominent figure in New Zealand as the legal and political saga surrounding his case has played out in the public sphere.

In June, a High Court judge ruled that the police had used the wrong type of search warrants to enter Mr. Dotcom’s property, meaning that the raid had been illegal. In September, Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand apologized to Mr. Dotcom after it was disclosed that the country’s intelligence agency had acted illegally by spying on him, even though he holds a permanent resident’s visa.

Mega, Mr. Dotcom’s new Web site, is a file-storage and sharing system that encrypts files on the user’s computer before they are uploaded to the site’s servers. Files can then be downloaded and decrypted. This means that files on Mega’s servers cannot be read by anyone, including by the company itself, without the user’s decryption key.

The allegation that Mr. Dotcom’s previous venture, Megaupload, knew its users were illegally uploading copyrighted material — and indeed sought to encourage the practice — is a crucial part of the United States Justice Department’s indictment against the site and those who operated it.

In contrast, the new site appears to intentionally distance Mega from any legal responsibility for the content on its servers, although the terms and conditions of the site do explicitly forbid uploading copyrighted material.

“What he’s trying to do is give himself a second-string argument,” Charles Alexander, a lawyer in Sydney who specializes in intellectual property law, told The Associated Press. “‘Even if I was wrong before, this one’s all right because how can I control something if I don’t know that it’s there?”’ he imagined the new company thinking. “I can understand the argument; whether it would be successful or not is another matter.”

American prosecutors declined to comment on the new site, The Associated Press reported, referring only to a court document that cites promises Mr. Dotcom made while seeking bail, including one that he would not start a Megaupload-style business until the criminal case was resolved.

“Legally it’s probably the most scrutinized Internet start-up in history,” Mr. Dotcom said. “Every pixel on the site has been checked for all kinds of illegal — potential legal challenges. We have a great team of very talented lawyers that are experts in intellectual property and Internet law, and they have worked together with us to create Mega.”

The Motion Picture Association of America, which has filed complaints about what it described as copyright infringement by Megaupload, told The Associated Press that it was skeptical that Mr. Dotcom’s new site was harmless. “We are still reviewing how this new project will operate, but we do know that Kim Dotcom has built his career and his fortune on stealing creative works,” it said in a news release.

The Mega site offers 50 gigabytes of storage free; additional storage and bandwidth can be purchased at three tiers of monthly fees.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/technology/digital-daredevil-behind-megaupload-has-a-new-venture.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

You’re the Boss Blog: Could the Inventor of the Bionic Wrench Have Avoided This Fight?

Today’s Question

What small-business owners think.

 Dan Brown, inventor of the Bionic Wrench.John Gress for The New York Tim Dan Brown, inventor of the Bionic Wrench.

The Times has published an article detailing how Dan Brown, inventor of the Bionic Wrench, wound up in a patent dispute with Sears, which has introduced a competing product, the Max Access.

As the article explains, the tools have one significant difference:

The Bionic Wrench is made in the United States. The Max Axess wrench is made in China.

The shift at Sears from a tool invented and manufactured in the United States to a very similar one made offshore has already led to a loss of American jobs and a brewing patent battle.

The story of the Bionic Wrench versus Craftsman, which bills itself as “America’s most trusted tool brand,” also raises questions about how much entrepreneurs and innovators, who rely on the country’s intellectual property laws, can protect themselves. For the little guy, court battles are inevitably time-consuming and costly, no matter the outcome.

The article goes on to explain that sales of the Bionic Wrench took off after Mr. Brown got Sears to do a test sale. After the test sold out, Sears ordered 75,000 wrenches the next year — and Mr. Brown agreed not to sell his wrench to Home Depot or Lowe’s.

Please read the story — and then tell us if you think there is anything Mr. Brown, who teaches industrial design at Northwestern University, might have done differently to protect his product.

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/could-the-inventor-of-the-bionic-wrench-have-avoided-this-fight/?partner=rss&emc=rss

A Bull Market in Tech Patents

If so, it was a relative bargain. In June, Apple and Microsoft teamed up with four other companies to pay $4.5 billion for the 6,000 patents held by the bankrupt Canadian telecommunications maker Nortel Networks. That works out to $750,000 a patent or nearly four times the average price for computer, software and telecommunications patents over the last few years, patent experts say.

In a stumbling economy, stocks languish in a skittish funk and real estate remains depressed. But technology patents look downright bubbly.

This patent gold rush has a darker side. It is diverting money for innovation from industries crucial to the economic future of the United States, analysts say. Patents were created as an incentive for innovation, giving inventors a temporary right to commercialize their ideas, without others copying them. While the recent blockbuster patent deals may make sense for the companies, analysts say, they are fed largely by legal considerations — asserting patent claims or defending against claims — rather than economic ones.

So the very innovation patents were intended to encourage, they say, suffers in the patent wars. “You’d much rather see Apple spend some of that $4 billion on new inventions, and Google invest that $12 billion to generate new knowledge,” said Josh Lerner, an economist at the Harvard Business School. “It’s a transfer of wealth from innovators to bondholders and stockholders who have no motivation to innovate. It’s disturbing.”

Patent investment firms, lawsuits, weakened patent overhaul legislation and the fierce competition among well-heeled rivals have also fanned this inflation. The patent legislation that emerged from the House and Senate, and which may well be enacted in the new session of Congress, has been scaled back. It no longer includes proposals that would have sharply curbed damage awards and the freedom of patent-holding companies to file patent infringement lawsuits. Another provision that was dropped would have limited the ability to file patent claims in known plaintiff-friendly courts, notably those in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which includes Tyler, Texarkana and Marshall.

Large technology companies championed those patent suit restrictions. But they were cut from the legislation after resistance from interests that rely on strong patent protection, like pharmaceutical companies, individual inventors and patent-buying firms like Intellectual Ventures, a multibillion-dollar fund run by Nathan Myhrvold that owns more than 35,000 patents.

Without tougher legislation, said Mr. Lerner of Harvard, companies are left to settle disputes on their own in the courts and at the bargaining table, which tends to lift prices.

The result is that it now pays to sue over patents as a routine business practice. The smartphone business, for one, is rife with suit and countersuit. The better-known cases involve large companies. Apple, Microsoft and Oracle, in different cases, have accused Google or the companies that use its Android smartphone operating system, like Motorola and HTC, a Taiwan handset maker, of infringing on their patents.

But there are other suits by small patent-holding companies that have aimed at developers of software applications that run on Google’s Android operating system and Apple’s iOS, which powers its iPhones. So the larger companies, like Google and Apple, are often forced to step in with legal assistance to help their business partners, even single-person applications developers.

The result, said Brian Kahin, a senior fellow at the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group, and a White House technology policy adviser in the Clinton administration, is “a huge surge in the monetization of these patents.”

Some industry executives doubt whether the recent high prices amount to a patent bubble. John A. Amster, chief executive of RPX, a start-up founded in 2008, which has bought more than 1,600 patents, said the Nortel and Motorola deals were mainly special cases. The high prices, he said, reflected not only an assessment of the value of the patents, but the much larger objective of trying to gain the upper hand in the smartphone business.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2fe7e8c22a970101574eadd856649450