How is your Investability?

On 29 March 2011 I braved the traffic on the Bristol bypass to attend Investability at HP Labs. Investability is a one-day event held by Bristol and Bath Enterprise Network (BEN) for entrepreneurs, investors and anyone else with an interest in the funding of early stage technology businesses.

The highlight of the event for me was a keynote speech by Mike Southon who presented on what entrepreneurs could learn from arguably the most successful entrepreneurs in recent times: the Beatles (accompanying slides: here; Mike was arguably cheating though by being a professional speaker and motivator). Takeaway points included:

The five “p”s of a successful elevator pitch: Pain, Premise, People, Proof and Purpose;
The golf-club test: can your investor explain your idea to his mates at the golf club and get them to chip in?
Get a foil: i.e. find a team or partner who complements your skills and abilities, such as Paul and John. To paraphrase Mike, if have the technology brains but the thought of social functions leaves you dry, find a “talky, shouty” person to promote and sale your product or service.

Among those representing public support institutions, the atmosphere was bittersweet. The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and their associated programs were on their way out, as part of the political changes brought in by the new coalition government, but the new Bristol and Bath Science or S-Park was slowly taking form in what was a field in Emerson’s Green, Bristol. Excitement for the S-Park is gaining momentum, helped by the news that the UK’s National Composites Centre will also be housed on the site.

In the wake of the shutdown of a number of regional support agencies, many had the question: who would support business and innovation in the UK? One answer came from Dr. James Clipson of the Technology Strategy Board (TSB). The TSB are a Swindon-based organisation who offer a number of options for research and development funding in the UK. They offer three different R&D grants for single organisations:

Proof of market grant;
Proof of concept grant; and
Development of prototype grant.

These are available to pre start-ups, start-ups, and small and medium-sized businesses from all sectors across the UK. Applications are assessed throughout the year, but it is recommended to get application in as soon as possible: the vim and vigour (as well as the finance) instilled by the TSB’s new lease of life under the present government may suffer fatigue as the year passes. Plus funding is now awarded nationally (previously it was distributed through the RDAs), so you are in effect competing nationally. However, I was surprised to learn that up to 75% of applicants for low-level early (e.g. feasibility) grants receive funding and the competitions come with generous legal terms (e.g. any IP rights reside in the company receiving funding). This makes the TSB definitely worth a look for established SMEs who are looking to fund tentative market research projects.

Sean Smith of the University of Bath’s Technology Transfer unit also explained how Britain’s universities were available to help SMEs with innovation. Sean had a background in industry and so spoke with some understanding of the gulfs that sometimes exist between commerce and academia. He explained though that efforts on both sides to realistically understand the aims and goals of those involved in research projects could facilitate fruitful relationships.

I was pleasantly surprised by the number of angel and early stage investors who attended the event. In a session of three talks on the investment process the audience was roughly one third angel investors, one third entrepreneurs and one third others (e.g. me). Gonzalo Trujillo and Nathan Guest both delivered interesting overviews of the investment process, respectively from a finance and legal perspective. Takeaway points included:

An investor needs to be right for a company as much as the company needs to be right for the investor. Often at a long-term relationship will arise and it is important for the financial success of the company that this works.
As Gonzalo joked, an investment is much like a marriage: there is a lot of initial flirting and anxiety to work to a consummation (of a deal), but do not let this distract you from the real challenge: living together afterwards.
Nathan remarked on the need for initial legal paperwork, but warned not to get too bogged down in pages of text. An early situation is fluid – enough needs to be in place to allow a deal to proceed but exact terms can evolve and be added throughout the relationship.
Nathan also reminded attendees to carefully check the ownership for IP rights: conditions vary from right to right and depend on a person’s role, it is best to engage a professional to ensure that all valuable rights reside with the legal entity you are investing in.

The event ended with a look ahead to Venturefest on November 3 (a big event in the new S-Park) and the nascent Local Enterprise Partnership (more information: here, follow them on Twitter: @WofEnglandLEP).

Big thanks to BEN, including Martin Coulthard and Becky Smithson, and sponsors, including HP Labs, for a productive and informative event.

Case Law Review – T 0037/08

Case:

T_0037/08

Claimed Subject Matter:

Method for controlling subscriber accounts in connection with a pre-paid IN platform, and a pre-paid mediator

In the example of the invention set out from line 26 of page 6 to line 11 of page 7, the charging data are only generated once the service has started running. There is a distinction to be made between delivery of a service and, in this example, delivery of the SMS. Reception of a message at a mobile switching centre is part of the SMS service and an essential part of the delivery of that service. Nevertheless, the full SMS service is not delivered and it seems that claim 1 must be read such that the charging data are sent before the service is complete. (See section 3.4.)

According to D2, a running service is stopped once funds become insufficient, and this requires that charging data are sent before the service stops running. However, it is not quite clear that this is really the same thing as sending the data before service delivery, as stated in claim 1. The Board, then, tends to the view that this feature does provide novelty. (Section 3.5.)

Comments:

The effect of this feature, as argued by the appellant, is to prevent fraud, by which the Board understands that a user should not be allowed to use a service for which funds are not available. As it stands, this effect is not a technical one, and it is necessary to consider what the corresponding technical problem is. The Board notes that the sending of data before a particular time does not imply that the data is used by the recipient before that time; it is, however, a necessary condition for such use. The technical problem can, then, be formulated in this way: allow a check to be made, before service delivery, on whether sufficient funds are available. It would be obvious to the skilled person, faced with this problem, that she would have to provide for the charging data to be sent in time. The Board does not consider that this requires anything beyond the skilled person’s general technical knowledge. Nor, apparently, does the appellant, since the application does not provide more information on this feature than the statement that it is implemented (page 4, lines 19 – 22).

Case Law Review – T 0823/07

Case:

T 0823/07

Claimed Subject Matter:

Searching apparatus and a method of searching.

Novel Features:

(A) the images stored by the image storage means identify or are associated with commercial suppliers;

(B) the linking means links such images, i.e. images which identify or which are associated with commercial suppliers, with the corresponding text item to form listings (stored results entries) to display each text item and corresponding graphical image simultaneously;

(C) so that when the listings are displayed the user is enabled to readily identify a desired commercial supplier from the graphical image.

Comments:

The novel features, however, derive in a straightforward manner from an underlying concept which lacks technical character and does thus not provide a technical contribution to the prior art.

In fact, displaying logos of commercial suppliers in combination with information concerning products, services etc provided by such suppliers is a presentation of information which exclusively addresses the mental and cognitive activities of users. There is no direct causal relationship to the technical solution of a technical problem. Even if it is true that presenting information according to this concept enables the user to identify the desired supplier and the associated listings more easily and quickly than with the prior art system, this result would be entirely subjective depending on the mental furniture of the user.

As follows from decision T 1143/06, the manner how cognitive content is presented to the user may only contribute to the technical solution of a technical problem if the manner of presentation (exceptionally) shows a credible technical effect (see 5.4 of the Reasons of the decision). Non-technical features and aspects of an invention should not be given any weight in assessing inventive step. If they belong to the general framework in which the invention evolves, they may be used in formulating the relevant technical problem (see decision T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK, OJ EPO 2003, 352).

There has been no proof of any such technical effect of the present concept of presenting information, beyond the alleged advantages which concern the mental and cognitive activities of the user. The only credible technical effects result from the computer implementation of this concept.

This circumstance distinguishes the case from the decisions cited by the appellant in support of its arguments (see X. above). In all these decisions, the board concluded on the existence of a technical contribution over the prior art. The technical contribution resulted from overcoming physical limitations of the size and resolution of computer screens (T 643/00, T 928/03) and from the functions of a “new input device” conferring technical character (T 333/95). Neither one of the decisions derives the technical character of a feature or activity from the mental effort required or any similar effect; these are only secondary considerations. Moreover, in the context of inventive step, caution is required in applying old decisions concerning non-technical subject-matter like decision T 333/95 since the relevant case law has experienced some important development as explained in decision T 154/04 – Estimating sales activity/DUNS LICENSING ASSOCIATES, OJ EPO 2008, 46.

In the present case, the only relevant technical aspects of the invention are standard programming features for implementing the idea of displaying search results in connection with supplier logos on a computer system. The programming and implementation of this idea is obvious in the light of the prior art.

Case Law Review – T 1445/10

Case:

T_1445/10

Claimed Subject Matter:

Nappies with active elements.

Comments:

The Examining Division considered that there were two problems relating to the feature of the active graphic being placed in the interior of the article. The first problem related to the question of small amounts of urine being sufficient to activate the graphic. The second problem related to the necessity for the wearer to inspect the pants internally in order to see the signal. The first problem was considered to be linked to an unpredictable perception of the user and thus linked to a further feature which could not be controlled. The second problem was considered to be non-technical as it related to the use of the article.

The Board considers both problems to be linked to the general problem of improved assistance in toilet training. Although it may be unpredictable whether or not the individual wearer correctly uses the provided assistance, such use which is not claimed but rather an article which provides, by means of a technical feature (the active graphic disposed on an interior article surface) the possibility of such improved assistance. Hence, the application specifies an invention within the meaning of Article 52 EPC. Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider the further auxiliary requests. (See sections 2.4.1/2.4.2.)

Case Law Review – T 1359/08

Case:

T_1359/08

Claimed Subject Matter:

Versioning of elements in a configuration model

A method for defining a configuration model for a configurable product and for updating subcomponents thereof. As explained in the description, a “configuration model is generally some collection of … information that is needed to configure the product” (see p. 2, section 0003). The configuration model includes components, subcomponents, and elements which define characteristics of the product as for example prices, costs, colours etc (see p. 3, section 0011 ff.).

Comments:

Defining a configuration model and its components and subcomponents is thus a form of information modelling, which is, as such, not an invention for the purposes of Article 52(1) EPC (cf decision T 49/99 – Information modelling/INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS, not published; retrievable from URL: legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/ t990049eu1.pdf). The same holds for the management of information models during their life cycle. In general, abstract activities in the field of information management are per se not patentable, and to the extent that they do not interact with technical features to contribute to the technical solution of a technical problem they cannot establish novelty or inventive step (for a summary of the relevant case law, see the EPO-publication “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office”, sixth edition, European Patent Office, July 2010, chapter I.D.8.1.).

All features in claim 1, except for the general computer-implementation of the method, concern abstract processes of information management in the context of defining and updating a configuration model. In particular, setting versions of the model to an active or inactive state is primarily part of the abstract concept of managing the update process and not per se a genuine technical feature of the computer implementation.

The present application does not provide any specific information about the computer implementation of the method at all. Even from the drawings, no details of the implementation can be derived. Only from the acknowledgement of the background art and from general statements at the end of the application, starting with section 0067, can it be understood that the computer implementation is a possibility for carrying out the invention.

Considering that the application is confined to disclosing abstract concepts of information management rather than setting out a practical computer implementation, the Board concludes that a technical interpretation of the said features of the second auxiliary request would be inappropriate. The board judges that these features do not support inventive step.

BEN: Green Profits

Bristol and Bath Enterprise Network (BEN) is a network for the technology business community based around Bristol and Bath. They hold a series of events designed to foster profitable connections between individuals and companies in the region.

I was recently lucky enough to attend one of their events in Bristol: Green Profits.

Green Profits

The key question for this event was: can commercial and environmental success be aligned? To help answer this question two case studies were presented.

ModCell Logo from Website Linda Farrow talked about how her innovative architecture and design practice, White Design, allowed them to develop a new building module, Modcell, for the rapid construction of sustainable (and even carbon-negative) buildings. The Modcell is a brilliant idea: a prefabricated flat pack wooden frame is assembled and filled with compressed straw bales before being coated with lime render to form a wall panel. I was pleased to see that Modcell have a granted UK Patent GB2457891B of a broad scope and are moving forward with protection worldwide. This will help ensure that they can adequately capitalise, from a commercial perspective, on the (literally) years of design and testing that went into the product. Both White Design and Modcell are a fine example of the kind of technological and commercial thinking that can help address the seemingly intractable problems of climate change and dwindling resources. Also being a Somerset lad, I am always glad to see straw used in novel ways. Take a look at White Design’s website for examples of the kind of buildings where this technology may be used in the future. If you are familiar with Bristol and the South West you will probably recognise their structures.

Friska Logo from Friska Website Linda was followed by Griff Holland of Friska Food, a take-away/restaurant/sandwich shop on Victoria Road in Bristol. Griff offered a different perspective on sustainable business practices. Even though food is a rather low-tech industry, Griff had important lessons on how to make clients and customers feel good about themselves by incorporating sustainable (or “green”) thinking into the heart of the business. An illuminating example was how customers liked to sort their recycling; at first allowing this would seem somewhat counter-intuitive – surely customers do not want the extra burden? However, what Friska observed was that customers had become used to sorting recycling from their homes and felt good about making some contribution, however small, to offset their impact on the world. A similar example was provided with fridges – by having doors on the fridges much electricity was saved and customers were happy opening and closing the doors (as opposed to open fridges), especially if they were told their slight inconvenience was good for the environment. Friska had big plans for growth over the coming years; more outlets like them are only a good thing for a sustainable UK.

The case studies were followed by a presentation by Amy Robinson, Network Director of Low Carbon South West (LCSW) who explained the myriad of accreditations and organisations to support (and somewhat confuse) business in the South West. LCSW are a trade association with a mission to promote growth in environmental technologies and sustainable services in the South West of England. They are the recent offspring of what was Bristol Environment Technology Sector Initiative (BETS) and a Low Carbon group from Bath University. Amy explained how LCSW are happy to offer assistance to individuals and companies as to how to navigate this confusing landscape and gain the right advice and services from the right people.

A lesson that emerged from the presentations and resulting round-table discussions was the need for long-term thinking and investment coupled with effective client/customer communication. Laying the groundwork for a sustainable business unfortunately often involves higher initial investment (and possibly higher product cost). However, this investment may pay off several years down the line when you find the market shifts and your business turns from fringe player into market leader, with your competitors struggling to retrofit their own practices to keep up. In a way this reminded me of Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma, wherein the disruptive innovation may be sustainable practices. Effective communication then becomes important to attract and maintain early adopters in the market that are may be better placed to afford the initial green /cost trade-off. A given example was that of the premium hotel market – they were prepared to pay a little extra for sustainable printing as this paid off in terms of better marketing for the hotel.

The next BEN Event is a free allday event: Investability at HP Labs Bristol on 29 March 2011.

The Third Culture Sparkles in Bath

BathSpark is a new event that brings together the people of Bath who work in technology. Its stipulated aims are “to create opportunity, encourage diversity and spark new ventures”. It is described as “social networking (for real) with local digital people enjoying a drink, and talking about what they love”. It grew out of previous informal tech people meet ups under the organising eye of The Filter’s CEO, David Maher Roberts.

The inaugural meet-up was held on 23 February 2011 in the Market Bar (http://www.marketbath.com/) and was a roaring success. Around 100 people attended and there was a great range of people eager to chat about all things tech/creative-based, from start-up CEOs to coders to publishers to freelance types. It was good to see many dialogues between the two cultures. Some good contacts were made and information exchanged. I think many were surprised at the level of underground activity in the area. Many found it useful for locating talented Bath individuals for entrepreneurial projects. Comments from attendees can be found here: http://www.bathspark.co.uk/events/16327966/?eventId=16327966&action=detail#comments.

Eden ventures kindly sponsored the bar, Future Publishing provided a magazine subscription prize and RipeDigital (http://www.ripedigital.co.uk/) did an amazing job producing laminated name cards (complete with Twitter usernames). Even though the ale ran out the bottles and pizza kept flowing to fuel the conversation.

The next meet-up is scheduled for 23 March 2011 but the date is not set in stone yet. 57 attendees have already signed up.

Case Law Review – T 1841/06

Case:

T_1841/06

Claimed Subject Matter:

Integrated multilingual browser

The claimed method is essentially characterised in that the source documents are automatically translated on-the-fly at the time the user requests access to the source documents (main request), or in that the web page retrieved is translated and cached on the web server before being sent to the user (auxiliary request).

Comments:

According to the claims as interpreted by the appellant, all web pages requested have been translated into the selected language before being sent to the user; this serves the aim to present to the user only the translated versions of web pages.

This aim and object of the invention is at best the result of balancing various mental preferences of the user but it is per se not a technical problem. Having the option of choosing between an original language and the preferred language might be felt as an inconvenience by one user but as an advantage by another. The invention brings about a mental simplification and subjective advantage for some users but it does not provide any objective advantage nor any technical advance in any field of technology. Such purely subjective preferences like any other non-technical aspects of an invention do not form a valid basis for a technical and inventive contribution over the prior art (for a summary of the practice of the EPO in dealing with non-technical subject matter, see for example the EPO-publication “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office”, sixth edition, European Patent Office, July 2010, chapter I.D.8.1).

The computer implementation of the claimed methods requires only minor changes to the machine translation system of document D7. In the W3-PENSÉE type 2 system (see figure 4), for example, only the step of sending the original data need be omitted (the box in the middle of the flow diagram); then the subsequent step shown in the right box at the bottom of the flow diagram (see document D7, figure 4) fully meets the aims of the present invention. These changes to the prior art system do not involve any inventive step.

It might be argued that in the type 2 system the web pages translated are cached but not in a cache on the web server. However, it is an obvious alternative to locate the translation cache at any appropriate place in the World Wide Web other than between Internet and client. Such an alternative arrangement is shown, for example, in document D7, figure 1 in connection with the WWW server type.

Multiple Desktops on Multiple Monitors: How to Cope with Screen Overload

So. Your office is now paperless. Your desk is (mainly) clear of paper. You feel proud of embracing the future.

However, over time, slowly but surely, your old paper clutter infects your digital world. You have multiple applications, email clients, web browsers; multiple cases, matters and tasks. Your monitor becomes a confusing tangle of windows upon windows and your newly gained productivity slowly drops again. What do you do?

Multiple Monitors

A first step is to get extend your desktop onto another monitor. You can pick up a 21-inch USB monitor for around £139 (at the time of writing). Also many offices now have a glut of old 15-inch LCD monitors floating around; a second graphics card to give you a second VGA port will cost around £30. (You can also use any additional ports, e.g. DVI/HDMI to add further monitors). One screen can be used for “always-open” applications such as email or a web browser; the other can be used solely for work products (e.g. office-applications, CAD programs, IDEs etc).

Multiple Desktops

Those who have been smugly using Linux operating systems (e.g. Ubuntu) for ages will understand the usefulness of multiple desktops. Basically, a little icon in the corner of your screen or on your task bar allows you to have multiple instances of your desktop that exist simultaneously. You can switch between each instance using the mouse or assigned hotkeys. This effectively gives you multiple computer workspaces.

Windows has been slow to get involved in the multiple desktop party. To my knowledge no native Windows tool exists. However, through my travels I have come across a variety of third party tools that provide multiple desktop functionality:

For XP there is a small Power Toy called Virtual Desktop Manager (see link for download) that provides up to four desktops with links on the taskbar and a handle preview feature. I started using this but found it a little slow and buggy.
There is also a small Sysinternals tool called Desktops (see link for download) that provides similar functionality (up to four desktops). It also has a handle system bar icon. However, I found that applications crashed quite often when using it.
Finally, I came across VirtuaWin, which is a freely distributed program and is licensed under the GNU General Public License. It supports all versions of Windows (I have only tried XP) and offers a usable portable version to avoid install conflicts. It is by far and away the fasted and most stable tool. I have the Windows key and the arrow keys set up as hotkeys to switch between the four offered desktops and the system bar icon offers a handle one-click representation of your open programs across the desktops.

I now have two monitors and four desktops working nicely with each other. One quantifier for Windows is that a relatively heavy duty machine is required (however, most multiple core Intel machines with GBs of RAM should be fine). I can have a dedicated desktop for each matter I am working on and move all distractions to other desktops. Productivity is restored.

Bath: Software City?

Bath. Well known for this kind of thing:

Not, however, so well known for this kind of thing:

While the professional, scientific and technical, and information and communications, industries make up 13% of Bath’s workforce, they contribute 27% of the total gross-value-added (GVA) contributions (see page 24 of BANES’s Economic Strategy publication). The future of this area was the subject of a talk at the Octagon, Bath as part of the Treasure & Transform exhibition. The Chimp was in attendance (any factual errors in the reportage are my own, for which I and my hastily iPhone-typed notes apologise).

The Panel

The talk was in the form of a panel discussion chaired by Simon Bond, Director of Bath Ventures Innovation Centre (University of Bath). The panel featured the cream of Bath’s software industry: Paul Kane, CEO of CommunityDNS, Richard Godfrey, Director and Founder of i-Principles and Shaun Davey, CEO of IPL.

What Makes Bath Good for Software?

First up was a discussion of the attributes that make Bath attractive for software and high-tech companies. This included:

Excellent local universities (e.g. Bath & Bath Spa) providing a stream of talented people.
Great quality of life, especially for families.
Unique concentration of creative skills, e.g. in publishing, design and the arts.
A culture of quality, of building things well.
A good (if not affordable) transport link into London.
A concentration of affluent people, e.g. for investment.

What Difficulties do Businesses in Bath Face?

Next, the talk moved on to the difficulties faced by software and high-tech companies in Bath. These included:

Transport problems; e.g. high cost of train travel, difficulty getting into the center of the city; unpredictabiltiy of traffic; congestion and pollution.
Lack of office space suitable for software firms. Many offices were converted houses which were not suitable for the kind of open plan offices needed to allow productive brainstorming and idea sharing.
Communications infrastructure: outside of Bath University’s JANET link high-bandwidth connections were rare (although we were told BT are looking to install fibre in Kingsmead, mainly for residential customers). Also poor wi-fi (and 3G) coverage.
Cost of housing (I wholeheartedly agree with this one!): this prices out talented young people, e.g. between 18 and 40; who find other areas more affordable.

How Can Bath Improve?

Having looked at the difficulties, ways in which Bath could improve its position were discussed:

Stop non-city-centre traffic from needing to pass through the city centre (this would need lobbying of the Highways Agency on a national level).
Lobby BT/Virgin to upgrade communications infrastructure. Innovative ideas such as laying fibre along the river/canal tow-path or in existing drains and/or providing wi-fi from the hills were put forward.
Develop world-class conference venues. International conferences were a great way for Bath to attract talented people and become a thought leader (this was thanks to Muir Macdonald, MD of BMT Defence Services).
Continue the recent co-operation between the public and private sectors; consultations were always welcomed.
Use SMEs in Bath for local services; there are many companies in Bath that outsource services to London-based firms when local equivalents exist.
Increase promotion of high-tech industires in Bath. High-tech industry has often been the poor relation to the tourism industry when it comes to press coverage and marketing, which needs to change.

My Two Cents

Comparisons were made with Old Street (so-called “Silicon Roundabout”) and Cambridge (so-called “Silicon Fen”). I have worked in (and with) software and high-tech comapnies in both these locations. Bath can learn certain lessons from these areas:

Bath needs more innovation centres. The current Innovation Centre is at capacity and the awkward location in the bow of the river in the city centre is not great for commuting. BANES has earmarked the Bath City Riverside (where I will soon live) as sites with potential for development. These industrial areas on the edge of the city (Twerton / Newbridge), with easy road access, would make ideal (and cheap) sites for incubation centres that would solve the office space problems discussed above. Cambridge have recently opened their Hauser Forum in a similar edge-of-city location, which complements sites such as St Johns Innovation Centre (where I have worked). These buidling provide more than office space, they enable like-minded talented young people to mingle and connect, building a network effect that results in real growth and GVA.
The panel discussed attracting highly-educated, young 18-30-somethings to Bath to work in the high-tech industries. It was amusing listening to the ideas put forward, because the Chimp falls exactly within that demographic. For the Chimp the greatest difficulty coming to Bath is a lack of affordable family housing; if you were employed in Bath on a good yet (business-wise) affordable salary you would not be able to afford any 3-bed property outside of the estates in the south-west of the city. There are more affordable properties outside of Bath, but this means you will need to drive into Bath, and thus face the traffic problems discussed above. Here real brave thought and leadership is required, not only from the public sector, but from the more conservative and outspoken Bath public who often put a blanket ban on talk of development.

Summary

I will leave you with a corruption of Paul Kane’s ad-libbed marketing soundbite:

High-tech businesses in Bath thrive.

That they continue to thrive will be down to a continuation of the brave public-private partnerships and investments exemplified by the Treasure and Transform exhibition and seminars.

Image thanks to electricinca / Flickr

Image: Idea go / FreeDigitalPhotos.net