First things first: StartupCamp Australia was never meant to be a place that would create viable businesses. It's primary goals are education, networking and fun. As Elias said: Infecting people with the startup virus. Showing that it's not as hard as all the "talkers" make it out to be. To promote the "just do it" approach. We also want to encourage people to create cool, exciting, useful, awesome, innovative projects. As Guy Kawasaki puts it: "If you make meaning, you'll probably make money. But if you set out to make money, you won't make meaning and you'll probably won't make money either." http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=1171
Having said that, beyond my expectations, some projects on the weekend could actually be viable businesses, which all the more proves to me we should talk less and do more... viable businesses can be created in a single weekend. Not to mention StartupCamp itself as a project. Two weeks ago we decided to do it. Spend a few hours here and there making some calls and sending some emails and an awesome event was born. Now the IP issue. Knowing that people love to talk and talk and talk some more, esp about how to split a pie of vapourware, we only gave the teams 5 minutes to discuss this. I believe this needs to be a total non-issue at StartupCamp. If anyone comes to StartupCamp with the goal to make money, they should plan something else instead. If anyone brings in an existing idea, you give up the idea to the group. If you truly believe that the idea alone has incredible value, don't bring it to StartupCamp. Instead, come to StartupCamp and do another project, learn from it, meet great people, maybe even a business partner and build your idea outside of StartupCamp. So at the next StartupCamp there will again only be 5 minutes to discuss equity. One thing we noticed is that once the weekend is over, and there is a level of success, different founders will have different expectations, some of them unrealistic. This makes getting initial investment very hard. One option teams can use to structure their equity at the next camp might be to have 30% of the startup unallocated and have it auctioned of 3 days after the weekend to the highest bidder. It can be $10, it can be $100.000... this way the market valuation will be exactly correct as it is determined by the market. This would allow for easy early investment into ideas that do require fast and good execution to succeed. If you can build it in a weekend, someone else can too. So you'll have to stay ahead of the rest by executing quickly. It also takes away endless discussions amongst founders. It's just an idea at this point, we'll put it to some investors and get some feedback. But again: StartupCamp is a place to learn, network, create something cool and have fun. People with $$$ in their eyes have no place there. On Sep 9, 9:35 pm, "Elias Bizannes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for that analysis Mark! Solid thinking. > > It boils down to this: if you created it in a weekend, don't think someone > else can't do it either. Success is about execution, and yes, the idea > matters as well (back to the discussion the other week) but the fact your > idea is now out there means people can simply copy it less the hard work you > hard to conceptualise it in the first place. So the only factor saving you > is the execution - dependent on the people (a bunch of randoms you've never > met) + other factors like pace of innovating, brand, etc. > > I wish the Ut.ag the best of luck - it's innovative. But it's revenue model > is based on traditional banner advertising, with google contextual ads that > work best in transactional settings (ie, searching to buy or book > something) not informational settings (people sharing links to some > entertainment). It's a crowded market, and the costs of replicating the idea > are minimal. > > If it's one goal I would like things like startup camp to do, it's this: > infect you with the virus, of one day starting up your business or > innovating in your company or community. If ownership drives motivation, > maybes let's be quiet and let them play it out. I just hope people can > realise you don't need ownershp to get benefits :) > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Mark Neely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Geoff, > > > Absolutely agree with your thoughts re: 'something I built myself'. I was > > referring only to co-created IP (i.e. IP which doesn't have a single > > originator - which was only produced due to the collaboration of > > individuals > > on the day). > > > Having a vehicle available is one option, but it assumes that all > > co-creators are in agreement. The key issue my proposed approach is aimed > > at > > is heading off the problems that arise when they are not in agreement. In > > particular, the main issue that very frequently arises in co-creation > > activities is what to do when every participant thinks their contribution > > was the most valuable, or at least as valuable as everyone else's, and no > > one can agree with how to split/share ownership. > > > Let me give you a concrete example. > > > There was a recent experiment in the US conducted by a psychologist (Sven > > Vanneste) and legal scholar (Ben Depoorter) into IP monopolies and 'IP > > anti-commons'. > > > They found that when people own something that is necessary to the success > > of a venture, even if its contribution is small, they will tend to ask for > > an amount close to the full value of the venture. Since everyone else in > > the > > venture is pretty much in the same position (i.e. they feel they deserve an > > equal sum), the venture quickly becomes unviable. See > >http://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/04-53for a copy of the Paper, titled > > Putting Humpty Dumpty Back Together: Pricing in Anticommons Property > > Arrangements). > > > The music industry is a classic case in point. I've had extensive dealings > > with music labels around licensing their music (their IP). Their standard > > licensing terms seek the lion's share of the sale price. They argue they > > should get the bulk of the sale price, given it is *their* IP that is being > > sold. However, when you factor in your costs - technology, bandwidth, > > marketing etc. - the model quickly becomes uneconomical. Their mindset - > > that their contribution (their music IP), even if it is only a modest part > > of the bigger picture of selling digital music online, warrants an amount > > close to the full value of the sale - is a clear case in point of this > > mindset at work when there are co-creators of value. > > > So, back to the co-creation of IP. > > > Even if someone comes to Startup Camp with an idea they've been tossing > > around for a while, on the day, one or more other people are going to make > > some kind of contribution (which may be big or small). In this environment, > > unless there are some very clear guidelines around who owns what, you're > > likely to encounter disputes over who owns the idea/venture *as developed > > on > > the day*, and whether a co-contributor is entitled to $ or equity or some > > kind of monetary reward. > > > At this point I would like to don my asbestos suit and recall the > > discussion > > we had a few weeks ago re: ideas having no 'value'. If you walk into the > > first day with "just" an idea, you don't really contribute anything of > > value. It is the work done on the day - the action around working the idea > > up into a valid business opportunity, developing a working prototype etc. - > > that creates the value. And the people who work along side you in adding > > that value to your idea can deservedly request (IMHO) some sort of > > recognition for their efforts (fiscal or otherwise). > > > Of course, plenty of people won't be motivated to stake a claim - they are > > there for 'the journey': the experience and learnings derived from doing a > > rapid startup. > > > But some people will have other motivations (or may develop them as they > > recognise the commercial potential of what they are working on), and you > > need to be ready to address the challenges this throws up. > > > As you mention, setting up any kind of rules around IP co-ownership may > > result in people holding back their 'best ideas'. This can absolutely > > happen. But I think you can overcome this hurdle through a bit of education > > prior to each event. An idea locked away in your head has no value until > > you > > act on it. Presumably, if you haven't acted on it, it is because you lack > > one or more resources (time, money, skillset, energy etc.) to do so. If you > > don't bring it to Startup Camp, one of 3 things will happen: (i) You will > > never act on the idea (result: no value), (ii) You will act on the idea and > > either fail, or fail to capture its full commercial value (result: nil or > > reduced value) or (iii) You will act on the idea and achieve full value > > (result: good value). > > > Statistically, your odds of working alone and achieving (iii) are > > 'sub-optimal'. There is a fair amount of research which shows that startups > > with 2 or more founders have a better chance of success. > > > All of these reasons, combined, should encourage people to bring their best > > ideas to Startup Camp - or, at least, their best ideas that they haven't > > already started working on themselves. Of course, everyone has their own > > take on this, and different motivations etc., so opinions will vary. > > > It all boils down to the objectives and what Elias and others want to > > achieve around StartupCamp. There is no silver bullet option, and a couple > > of different models that could be customised to suit depending on the > > desired outcome. > > > Regards, > > > Mark > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff > > McQueen > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 September 2008 6:33 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: Startup Camp IP issues > > > Mark, > > > I'm just thinking out loud here, but if I knew that coming along to > > start-up > > camp meant anything I produced would be owned by the "entity", even if I > > built it myself, I might think twice about attending, and certainly about > > putting forward good ideas that I hadn't had a chance to get around to. I'm > > not 100%, but I think ut.ag's idea had been bubbling in one of their > > member's mind for a while but he hadn't had the time to realise it at all; > > getting too heavy with the IP up front may act as a big break on the > > enthusiasm to participate, much like collaborating or doing work with some > > Universities can be. > > > I'd instead suggest having a "vehicle" available if people want to take > > advantage of it is a good idea, or even dictating that that vehicle by > > facilitating startupweekend has rights to 10% of the equity or something > > like that, but anything more will probably turn people off. I'm a big fan, > > however, of getting the association registered so that if an appeal is made > > to someone like TVP, they actually have an entity to write the cheque to. > > It > > can also help to take the weight of Bart's shoulders. > > > Geoff > > -- > Elias Bizanneshttp://liako.biz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
