An IP System Fit for the 21st Century

Last week, I attended a breakfast meeting at the House of Commons to discuss and reflect on practical issues around implementing recommendations of the Hargreaves Report, as well as ways in which the IP system can be evolved to better enable the benefits from 21^st Century business and technology opportunities.

UK House of Parliament

This event, organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust, featured brief talks by Professor Ian Hargreaves (author of the IP Review report & recommendations – download it here), Ben White (Head of IP at the British Library), and Nico Perez (co-founder of startup, MixCloud), plus Q&A style discussions with the attending group of politicians and business people from relevant industries. Some key observations and comments are:

• London has the largest cluster of IP related start-ups, as well as the biggest hub for VCs, in Europe
• There has been a lot of international interest in the Hargreaves report and recommendations (the good professor regularly gets calls from interested observers across the globe). Also, the review findings and recommendations had good traction with the UK government.
• Digital economy versus creative economy; are they one and the same (i.e. is there and/or should there really be a difference)?
• The larger creative industry players (e.g. publishers), and their lobbyists, are not in full agreement with the review findings and / or recommendations, and remain firmly resistant to change
• According to one attendee, the interests of creative stakeholder (e.g. content creators) were not well represented or served by the review findings and recommendations
• Collecting societies act like de facto monopolies, which can make life difficult for some more innovative start-ups
• Broadcast TV players are trying to innovate and catch up with what consumers are already doing in their homes, but the current IP system is not sufficiently geared towards enabling such initiatives.

Note: Further information, comments and observations can be found in the IPT blog post about this event.

The upshot of the above points, in my opinion, is that a new / evolved IP system must really be geared towards dual targets, i.e. to help simplify and facilitate the use and reuse of IP works, especially in the digital realm. Such a focus would undoubtedly go a long way towards addressing the legion of non-technological challenges faced by most innovators, entrepreneurs and investors in the creative digital industries. For example, according to an article (see: The Library of Utopia), published by MIT technology review, “the major problem with constructing a universal library nowadays has little to do with technology. It’s the thorny tangle of legal, commercial, and political issues that surrounds the publishing business.”

These are pretty much the same issues to be found in similar ventures within publishing and other major creative industries, e.g.: Music (think cross border licensing for the much vaunted Celestial Jukebox), or a global film and image library (e.g. a mash-up of Hulu, Netflix, Corbis and Getty Images). In all cases, technology is not the stumbling block, because the bigger challenges lie with any combination of: business strategy, commercial models, legal / political / cultural mindsets, encountered along the way.

Having said that, it can be argued that such hurdles are not sustainable, for various reasons, not least of which is that individuals (or customers, casual pirates, consumers, freetards etc. – take your pick) are already way ahead of the curve in terms of digital content / technology, and will often use it exactly as they see fit.

This means that established incumbent players in the creative industries are forever playing a reactive / catch-up game, instead of pursuing or encouraging discovery of the next big thing. As a result, most disruptive propositions will invariably have a high impact on established business models, especially if and when they harness the natural instincts of individual users. An interesting example could be the recently launched Google Drive, complete with built-in OCR capability (which will enable users to digitize and search scanned content). Could this ultimately lead to a user generated version of Google Books?

To conclude, an IP system worthy of the 21^st century is an urgent necessity, but there is also pressing need to keep in mind the big picture, which is that the Internet is a global enabler / platform, therefore any new IP system must likewise be global in scope. The UK, with its wealth of creative talent, plus such efforts as the IP review and recommendations, may be in a unique position to provide some leadership on the best way forward for IP in this 21^st century.

Hands-On Gamification

The inaugural event for GSUMMITx – Gamification in London, which was hosted yesterday at Capgemini’s ASE in Holborn, provided a sneak peek into the world of gamification and its application to solving real world problems for business and the enterprise.

GSummitx – Gamification in London (at Capgemini’s ASE)

 

The event featured a talk by author and gamification expert, Gabe Zichermann; a DIY online leader board demo from a startup called Leaderboarded; as well as the problem-du-jour / challenge faced by a non-profit organisation which it would like to solve with gamification. A key high-light for me was the facilitated / hands-on session which demonstrated the use of games technique in the ideation process of gamestorming (or games based brainstorming) for solving a real world problem, in this case: how to enable debates at a global level. The gamestorming technique used was based on the 3-12-3 game, as originally described in the eponymous book called ‘Gamestorming’ (see: my review of same) Some interesting suggestions that emerged from the session included: an avater-based online system (to protect the vulnerable); a global SMS debate platform (to include/reach the widest demographic); and adoption of universal rules for debates, possibly even including ‘Rap battle’ style formats – seriously. The winner by far was the idea of an ‘instagram like’ platform for debating. Btw. you know you’ve got it made when your service / platform is now being used to describe other ideas.

So yes, this was a fun event, with lots of fresh ideas, new information and experiences for the 40-strong audience. More information about GSUMMITx – Gamification in London, including some audience feedback, can be found at their Meetup homepage. Also, you can find out more about Capgemini’s ASE here, (and on here YouTube)

Supercomputers and the Future

Wednesday the 18^th of April marked 100 days to the greatest show on earth, along with the promise of even more superlatives, as a direct consequence of the Olympic motto: “Faster, Higher, Stronger”. It certainly made an auspicious date for an event, held at the House of Lords, on the future of Supercomputers. 

The House Of Lords

The event was The Second Lorraine King Memorial Lecture, sponsored by Kevin Cahill, FBCS.CITP (author of “Who owns Britain” and “Who owns the World”), and superbly hosted by the Lord Laird and Computer Weekly. The main topic of debate centred on whether Supercomputers were merely “prestige objects or crucial tools in science and industry”.

Figure: (L-R) Kevin Cahill, Prof. Meuer and Lord Laird

The lecture delivered by Supercomputer expert, Prof. Dr. Hans Werner Meuer, (see CV) was most illuminating, and I gathered, among other things, that the UK ranked 4^th in the Top500 list of Supercomputer using countries, and that France was the only European country with any capability to manufacture Supercomputers. Clearly more needs to be done by the likes of the UK or Germany to remain competitive in the Supercomputing stakes, which begged the question, (as posed later by an attendee), of whether these machines were nothing more than objects of geopolitical prestige, superiority and / or bragging rights, (e.g. My Supercomputer is faster than yours, so Nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah nyah-nyah! – Or perhaps Na na, na, na, naa! – apologies to the Kaiser Chiefs).

In any case, several things stood out for me at this rather well attended event, including:

• The definition of a Supercomputer remains based on the most powerful or fastest computers, at any given point in time, e.g. Apple’s iPad 2 is two-thirds as powerful as the Cray2 Supercomouter from 1986. The typical measure of speed and power is based on sheer numerical processing power (i.e. not data crunching), using the Linpack test
• According a paper by Sponsor, Kevin Cahill, the Supercomputer sector is the fastest growing niche in the world of technology, and it is currently worth some $25Billion. Japan, China and the USA are currently holding the lead in the highly ego driven world of Supercomputing, but there is an acute shortage of the skills and applications required to make the most of these amazing machines
• Typical applications of Supercomputing include: university research, medicine (e.g. Human Genome Project), geophysics, global weather and climate research, transport or logistics. It is used in various industries e.g.: Aerospace, Energy, Finance and Defence etc. More recent applications, and aspirations, include: bio-realistic simulations (e.g. the Blue Brain Project), and a shift towards data crunching in order to model and tackle challenges in such areas as Social Networks and Big Data.
• The future of Supercomputers is to move past the Petaflop Supercomputers of today, to Exaflop capable machines by 2018. The next international conference on Supercomputers takes place June 17-21, in Hamburg, Germany, and it promises to include topics on: big data / alternative architectures for data crunching / Exascale computing / Energy efficiency / technology limits / Cloud computing for HPC, among other things.

The Future of Supercomputing (Source: www.isc-events.com/slides/london)

Overall, this was an excellent event, in a most impressive venue, and the attendees got a chance to weigh in with various opinions, questions and comments to which the good Professor did his best to respond, (including inviting everyone to Hamburg, in June, to come see for themselves!). Perhaps the most poignant take away of the evening, in my opinion, was the challenge by Lord Laird to the computing industry about a certain lack visibility, and the need for us to become more vocal in expressing our wishes, concerns and desires to those in power, or at least to those with the responsibility to hold Government to account. As he eloquently put it, (but paraphrasing slightly), “If we don’t know who you are, or what it is you want, then that is entirely your own fault!”

Publishers vs. eBook Price Fix vs. Copyright

Recent developments in the world of publishing, clearly demonstrate yet again that the primary objective of the content industry is to make a tidy profit. Nothing wrong with that, if you ask me; however, it usually turns into a rather sticky mess when that pursuit is clouded by accusations of skulduggery, conspiracy and outright price fixing.

I refer to a recent lawsuit filed by the US Justice Department against Apple and 5 major book publishers, over allegations of conspiracy, collusion and price fixing. According to this article from the Wall Street Journal, it could change the course of a rapidly expanding eBook publishing industry. But how so, you ask?

Well, it is really down to opposing business models, (i.e. the so called agency versus wholesale approach to eBook pricing), where, on one hand, an agent such as Apple will allow publishers to set their own price, and take a cut (in this case 30%) from sales on its iBook platform. On the other hand, a wholesale pricing model is one where the retailer (e.g. Amazon or Barnes and Noble) sets the price for eBooks and can effectively apply discounts as they wish (even if it means selling eBooks at a loss). Obviously, this latter scenario leaves publishers with less control over prices, and consequently profits, hence the opportunity to take advantage of a more favourable option could not fail to be attractive.

However, the question remains about the value proposition for consumers, who are themselves increasingly embracing eBooks for its convenience, ease of use and, perhaps more to the point, a huge potential for significantly lower prices overall. One might argue that eBooks do not require paper, glue, physical stores / shelf space or any significant distribution / transport costs, therefore they really shouldn’t be priced anything close to their physical versions. Surely, this quest to keep prices high can only be in favour of publishers, and their bottom lines, mustn’t it?

So what are the key arguments / rationale for keeping eBook prices artificially high? Perhaps the main reason has to do with high operating costs incurred by large publishers, as well as the need to maintain a powerful marketing and promotional machinery. Furthermore, it may also be argued that lower cost eBooks are somehow cannibalising the margins to be had from physical books. Whatever the case, it seems publishers stand to lose out if they don’t do something (innovative?) to counter the effects of change.

Hmm, now where have we seen this before, (and how did that industry cope / survive)? Ah, yes, the music industry went through something similar, except they chose to sue those pirates and freeloaders (aka the people formerly known as customers), that supposedly ‘stole their bottom line’. However, they seem to have found other ways to complement dwindling revenue streams, e.g. via ticket sales for live performances. By the way, death may no longer prevent artistes from performing before a live audience, assuming this deceased artist hologram idea catches on.

Luckily the book publishing industry don’t have to take quite so drastic a measure, especially as it has been shown time and again that new media formats and channels do not necessarily mean the complete demise of existing ones. This is arguably the perfect time for publishers to embrace even bolder / more innovative thinking to discover complementary initiatives that will bolster an industry under threat, real or imagined. They must observe and capitalise on consumer trends and emergent user behaviours. For example, the sheer capacity, variety and anonymity (i.e. no tell tale covers) of reading material to be found on your average eBook reader means that users now carry, consume and explore hitherto unthinkable (at least in public) subject matter. The current boom in romantic erotica sub-genre, aka Mommy Porn, is an interesting case in point.

Perhaps even more fundamental, is a need to seriously consider the verboten idea of evolving copyright into something much better aligned with the digital age. Unfortunately, that will be a tough sell to the publishing industry, if this report of a speech given by HarperCollins International Chief Exec, at the London Book Fair, is anything to go by. According to the article, “others in the book trade, including the Publishers Association” have criticised the recent Hargreaves Review of Copyright, which some feel could weaken the current copyright regime. As you may have gathered by now, I don’t subscribe to that point of view, but then I am only an author and may not see things in quite the same light as a successful publisher might.

In many ways, this whole situation could be seen as a remix of circumstances surrounding the birth of copyright. In 1710, the printing industry lobbied for creation of a law to govern the rights to print or reproduce works (now known as the Statute of Anne), in order to protect their interests and the authors / creators of said works. Copyright is essentially an artificial system, which routinely needs a degree of manual intervention whenever new and disruptive content technology or consumer trend emerges. That, in my opinion, is the fundamental flaw with copyright which any revision thereof must try to address. In an age of multi-platform, multi-channel and multi-format publishing, there really is no place (or time) for manual intervention each time a new and disruptive trend, challenge and opportunity presents itself. I for one would be more than happy to attempt to demonstrate just how such a system could work (based on real copyright content), but then I would probably need a hefty six figure advance from some far-sighted multi-publisher to make it happen. Who says there is no future for publishing?

How Can You Measure Real Value?

It’s been a while since my last post, but then nothing much has changed, perhaps because, in real terms, a few weeks is really not that long, even in the fast-paced world of digital technology and innovation. However, it could just be proof of that old saying: “the more things change, the more they remain the same”, right?

Although, on the surface, it might not appear that much has changed, there are evident signs of continuous progress in several areas, including: technology and innovation; user experience and social networking / media / business; mobility and data of the large variety (aka big data). Many other experts and analysts, across various media and other channels, do a great job of observing / commenting on these topics and trends that I won’t bother trying to rehash them here.

In any case, the point I really wish to explore is that such developments, trends and indicators seem to point towards a new value exchange paradigm and/or system, sometime in the not too distant future. This notion is clearly described by Tim O’Reilly, at the last Strata Conference, where he talked about a fundamental need to find better ways for “measuring the economic impact of the sharing economy”. Among other things, he asks the key question, in my opinion, of how to measure the real value of sharing, particularly where traditional economic value yardsticks, (e.g. typical financial metrics), are no longer adequate for the task. He also described the often unmeasured benefits to be derived from the sharing economy (e.g. enriching an ecosystem of which you are part), versus the sometimes destructive impact of a profit-led, financially measured system (e.g. the contribution of global financial institutions to the current economic shambles). It would appear in this new paradigm that the way forward would involve “creating more value than you capture”, which, somewhat counter-intuitively, actually works to your advantage.

Perhaps this paradigm shift will be most realisable, (at least for the content industry), via a strategy of diversification and multi-publishing, which together increases the likelihood of better traction / success for content, via multiple touch-points, partnerships and hooks to end consumers. A couple of examples, which describe real life scenarios in e-book publishing and music licensing, are outlined below as follows:

1. E-Book Publishing: A recent post on CopyrightandTechnology.com discusses Harry Potter’s DRM Free e-Book offering, which runs somewhat counter to conventional wisdom for publishing such valuable properties in fully DRM’ed electronic formats, for fear of piracy. However this works for Harry Potter on many levels, especially considering how this would complement and create further opportunities for their existing and future merchandising initiatives.
2. Music Licensing: An article in the Berklee Music Business Journal examined the pros and cons of Coca-Cola’s equity stake in a music licensing startup. On the one hand, a major global consumer brand partners with a music outfit to source original musical content for its marketing campaigns; on the other hand the artistes, (often independent, unsigned and eager to be heard), get an opportunity to gain access to Coca-Cola’s global marketing might – which beats anything a record label can provide these days. Verdict: Win / Win!
3. Streaming Movies: The key players in on-demand video streaming services, e.g.: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon (i.e. Prime and LoveFilm), and latterly Sky, all offer different value propositions to the consumer, but in my opinion, the winner/s will likely emerge from those that are willing to leverage multiple customer propositions / channels / formats (e.g. books, music, DVD and perhaps devices).

In conclusion, it is becoming increasingly harder to ignore such trends / evidence / indicators that suggest a move towards multiple consumer propositions (including pricing), multi touch points (channels / interactions) and multi-formats is rapidly gaining ground. This makes it even more imperative to find a better yardstick for measuring the real value of content, products and services for both suppliers and consumers. It seems to me that we’re likely heading for a post monetary value exchange and recognition system, and hopefully one that is more in keeping with the post-global realities of a digitally connected planet. I remain optimistic, and fully convinced that money is not, and perhaps has never really been, the best yardstick for measuring true value.

Cloud and emerging economies

With the Earth’s population hovering at the Seven Billion mark, there is pressing need for bigger, better, faster, and preferably cheaper, sources and versions of almost everything (e.g. food, energy and even computing power). This is just as acute in the emerging economies of Africa, South Asia and Latin America, which must rely on more creative and innovative ways to achieve their objectives. Enter the cloud.  

Although, in many so called emerging economies, certain key infrastructure essentials such as constant power supply, high bandwidth connectivity and landline coverage may be lacking, the rapid expansion and penetration of mobile technology (and infrastructure) as well as novel approaches to power management has helped to create opportunities for entrepreneurs and operators to provide Internet based services to the populace. Furthermore, the lack of pre-existing infrastructure that would otherwise require interfacing and integration is advantageous and has contributed to what is often described as the leapfrog effect.

The upshot of this is that mobile technology and the Internet both combine to create an opportunity for accelerated growth and development in emerging economies. Other factors include: a younger demographic; dysfunctional institutions; a global economy in shambles; an expanding middle class plus a Diaspora of educated and skilled professionals that are increasingly tempted to return and contribute to further development of these markets. A recent Sunday Times Magazine article (note: subscription required) pointed out that six of the ten fastest growing economies in the last decade were African.

In light of the above, it is easy to see how cloud and emerging economies can align to mutual benefit, not least because they are relatively more flexible and unencumbered by legacy considerations for pre-existing infrastructure and / or an aging population of baby boomers. However, the reality is that much care needs to be taken in order to reach the full potential of such alignment. Recently, a friend and colleague with much experience working across Europe, Africa, Middle East and the Caribbean, described a trajectory and framework for cloud technology adoption which encompassed: 1 – localised exploitation (via mobile / enterprise systems); 2 – Business Process Re-engineering (requiring business analysis / change management expertise); 3 – B2B interconnectivity between businesses (at local and global levels). In addition, global tech companies are already getting in on the action, and you can’t turn a corner without bumping into various initiatives from the likes of: Google, IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, and SAP, to name but a few. Also there is a lot of technology investment activity from Private Equity and Hedge Funds.

In any case, the immediate question and decisions faced by emerging economies with respect to cloud include: information governance (where is the data located); data centres (location and hosting options); security (emerging threats and vulnerabilities); new and smart applications (designed to work within the limitation and specific circumstances of particular markets). Once again, it will require more innovative and creative approaches to attain the promise of mobile / cloud enabled leapfrog effect. It really is an exciting time for emerging markets.

Technology, Innovation and the Business of the Enterprise

“Don’t just ask what the role of the IT department in the Enterprise should be; Ask what the role of Technology should be in the Business of the Enterprise.”

BCSNLB Event Images

 

That was the tagline for last week’s sell-out event at the BCS, Chartered Institute for IT, which featured Capgemini’s CTO, Andy Mulholland. Attendees were treated to riveting talk by Andy, in which he described the trends, implications and impact of innovation, especially the evolution (in back-office) and revolution (in front-office) of technology and the enterprise. To further drive home the point, Andy outlined what he calls the  top ten game changing technology shifts for enterprises to watch and understand, e.g.: people and social tools, the user experience, big data, user driven IT environments (aka consumerisation), and mobility, to name just a few.

And if that wasn’t enough, the second speaker / session at this event provided a practical hands-on demonstration of what might be described as a prototype for ‘crowd-sourced innovation’ in action. This session, which was led by Destination-Innovation’s Paul Sloane, involved attendees forming into small groups in order to explore painful ‘real life’ problems, and to come up with an innovative approach to resolving one of them. The outcome was then played back to the larger group, and suffice it to say that some of the suggestions were astonishing, and one attendee commented afterwards, saying: “It’s amazing what you can achieve in a short period of time”.

Overall, this event provided a great mix of comprehensive knowledge and innovation foresight, along with some practical application of innovative techniques to address them; resulting in a balanced, demonstrable experience of how challenges posed by technology disruption may be met in turn by an innovative approach designed to harness individual creativity. For an event organised, in their spare time, by a bunch of volunteer committee members / helpers of the BCS, North London Branch, (including yours truly), I think this was an excellent outcome.