I know it sounds uninformed of me or even rhetorical to ask the question to my readers, but in my experience I’ve found the obvious often gets overlooked.  My children have been constant, if not refreshing, reminders to ask the obvious because sometimes things just aren’t THAT obvious to the uninitiated.

I don’t know who buys Innovation.  There I admitted it.  I know who I would like to buy or license the innovations that I represent for my F500 clients.  My segmentation of buyers are small to mid sized Independent Software Vendors (ISVs).  My research indicates they are: most likely to look at licensing as an alternative to M&A; are nimble enough to do it; and have the chops (capital or an experienced VC who does standing behind them).  I also have a very good read on whom within these entities I should target.  Not bragging, but I also have a proven message that gets my phone calls and direct mail responded to at a much higher rate than traditional direct marketing.  Twenty years in tech will do that for you.

So fine, my marketing 101 accomplished I am still feeling unfulfilled.  And then it hit me.  The obvious!  Where do the buyers or prospective buyers of innovation get to speak or represent?  In a mature market, say CPG, buyers vote with their dollars in such high volume we understand their language.  When a CPG Mfg. want to go deeper - enter Gallop, JD Powers, Nielsen to complete the equation with billion dollar primary research projects.

When it comes to Innovation acquisition - technology, patent, et al - where can I go to hear from the Buyers in the collective?  I know IP licensing, tech transfer, patents is a multi-billion dollar a year industry.  So my unscientific research ( a handful of calls to clients and buyers) suggests that: a) the market is hugely fragmented when it comes to innovation licensing, b) buyers are likely “one and done” meaning they do a single deal and that’s it, c) there is no reporting “agency” to accumulate the random acts of licensing that happen all over the globe.  Further, IMO, the heritage of licensing centered mainly in the patent space was closed door, back office negotiations with terms not disclosed.

Open Innovation runs counter to that.  Full disclosure is the actual fuel that empowers the concept.  If IBM secretly licenses their photo-voltaic patents to a green energy start-up where my “green” solar panel voltage regulator could have been a perfect fit the process is neither Open nor did (full) Innovation break out.  (author note: IBM was quite clear and public with their solar panel patent intent - license away).  Suffice it to say I’m not going von Hippel on anyone, but without appropriate disclosure or accumulation of knowledge of the deal we only fulfilled part of the promise.

There is plenty of push in Open Innovation from the Sellers.  Buyers need to be pulling on Innovation.  And someone needs to help them do that.  That much is obvious to me.

Tom