INFORMATIONISM: Intellectual Property, Strategy & Valuation

The Right To Know

The California Legislature shot down a "Right to Know" law that set Silicon Valley against Consumer Advocates.  Basic question: Does a consumer have the right to demand any report that an on-line data aggregator compiles and sells about him?  

The argument is straightforward.  

The "pro" side believes that I have a right to know what others know--or think they know--about me.

The "con" side notes that such a requirement would be cumbersome, would complicate business, and would likely lead to further regulation and litigation.

This issue will not fade soon for a simple reason: They are both right.

A Bit More on Bitcoin

Bitcoin, the digital currency, continues to generate interest.  Today's WSJ weekly interview with Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin's lead software developer, provides a teriffic quick summary for those not yet up to speed.

But it also provides all of the information necessary to appreciate why the grand claims that some make for its future are pipe dreams. 

Evidence or the lack Thereof

My amicus brief in the Myriad case continues to attract interest.  Some folks at the University of Pittsburgh Law School invited me to submit some thoughts.

Republicans on Copyright. Or at least, Some Republicans on Copyright.

An interesting story pulled together a couple of my different worlds last week:  The Republican Study Committee (RSC) posted an analysis of copyright law. 

My Comments on Trade in the Los Angeles Times

Hard to believe that I forgot to link to the article, but it came out November 7 and I was a bit preoccupied.

Career Advice - or a Lesson from my Past

In 1987, I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on heuristic search.  My specific topic was the use of statistical decision-making in two-player games.  I drew concrete examples from Othello and Chess, ran simulation studies, and provided a theoretical (mathematical) proof of my thesis.

My basic thesis was simple: In the parts of a game that are too complex to search in their entirety, the best move to make against an expert opponent is the same as the best move to make against a random player.

Statistically speaking, it boils down to "If you can't be certain about the future, maximizing expected value is a good idea."

The chess programming community was up in arms.  The mere concept that random play and expert play bore any similarity to each other was heretical.  The luminaries of the time, including much of the team that trained the Deep Blue team, insisted that it could not possibly be true.  (Personally, I thought it was too blindingly obvious to warrant a Ph.D., but I guess I was wrong).  They insisted that only deep, chess-specific knowledge could defeat a champion.

Turns out, they were wrong.  Statistics and I were right.

See here: Why Bruce was Right (not the actual headline).

Lesson of the day: When conventional wisdom runs against mathematics, stand with conventional wisdom if you want to get promoted.  Stand with mathematics if you want to be right.

Antitrust Implications for Accountable Care Organizations

Cross-posted at Accountable Care Law & Policy

It is hardly a secret that the American health care industry is in a state of flux.  Over the past few years, numerous innovative proposals claiming to increase access, to reduce costs, or to do both, have been floated.  Some of these innovations made their way into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), widely known as Obamacare, which became law in 2010 but has yet to take full effect.  As a result, health care providers—along with their patients, investors, strategic advisors, and legal counsel—are struggling to understand the new terrain.  This brief article outlines some considerations of one body of law relevant to one PPACA innovation: the antitrust implications of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).

Why Quality Expert Witness Work Matters

So Oracle won its big battle with Google.  Sort of.  In Phase I of the fight over whether Android made inappropriate use of Java, a jury ruled today that Google did, in fact, use Oracle's copyrighted products without authorization.  The jury could not, however, determine whether Google did anything wrong because it could not rule on fair use.  Was it fair or improper for Google to use Java as it did?  We don't know.  And since what Oracle really wanted was damages, it's not clear how to proceed with the damage assessment phase (which might be Phase II, or might be deferred until after the patent component of the case).

If the jury couldn't determine the fair use issue, it stands to reason that the two sides were equally persuasive--or unpersuasive.  Whose job is it to get this information out?  Typically, that task falls to an expert witness.   

TROLLS, WIZARDS, AND THE PITFALLS OF PATENTING

Cross-posted at Breitbart.com.

 

Patents are back in the news.  In the past few weeks alone, Microsoft bought AOL’s patent portfolio for $1 billion, then resold much of it to Facebook for $550 million. Twitter pledged to use its patents only defensively, and to give its employee-inventors a say in the company’s future patent litigation strategy.  Controversial trials, appeals, rulings, and awards continue—prompting the Wall Street Journal to publish Andy Kessler’s call for curtailing the rights of non-practicing entities (NPEs), also known affectionately as “trolls.”

App Development and Aftermarkets

Cross-posted on Forbes.com.

Zynga made news last month when it announced its new gaming platform. The asserted goal is to make social gaming easier. The actual goal is to wean Zynga’s gamers away from Facebook.

Understanding this actual goal is critical. The tense but symbiotic relationship between Zynga and Facebook epitomizes the contemporary software industry. Facebook, along with Apple (the iPhone), Google (Android), Microsoft (Windows), and perhaps a few others, build platforms. Almost all other software companies—including, until now, Zynga—develop apps that run on top of those platforms. In economic terms, these app developers operate inaftermarkets that exist solely because of the platform developers. What many app developers fail to realize, however, is that aftermarkets also operate at the sole discretion of the platform developers.