//
you're reading...
IP, Patent, RPX

Free Rides, Acquisitions And Sustainability After The RPX IPO

Monday’s post about the RPX IPO attracted some great comments from Kyle Jensen (of PriorSmart) and Ron Riley (of Professional Inventors Alliance) with thoughts on the sustainability of the patent aggregation business model, and RPX’s problem with potential “free riders” (see post: Why Is RPX Going Public? Ask Willie Sutton).  Fundamentally, the vesting nature of RPX’s membership scheme squarely puts securing membership renewals in direct conflict with cost control.  RPX recognizes this in their own SEC filing.  Further, this leads to a potential “free rider” problem, amplified by RPX’s promise to “never” use its patents offensively. Naturally, RPX also recognizes these problems, but the solutions may raise other problems (including potentially attracting the attention of law enforcement). Ultimately, this high stakes gamble may not pay off.

The “free rider” potential is recognized by RPX itself, as it cites “reduced incentive for companies to become clients because we do not assert our patent assets in litigation” as as known business risk.  The risk can be tempered by a catch and release acquisition strategy. If RPX gets a reputation for divesting patent assets to enforcement entities, naturally companies would be more easily convinced to join. However, those memberships would be useless to mitigate risks associated with already divested patents, so RPX would have to present a realistic threat of additional relevant patents that may soon go on the auction block.  Of course, this brings up another business risk identified by RPX–public perception over whether their business model would change to one that relies on patent assertion.

Beyond that, to close a deal, RPX likely needs to convince clients that identified threats are both real and imminent.  This might mean identifying specific patents, explaining the risk proposition (i.e. explain how the client is known to be infringing), and at least suggesting that there are interested buyers, perhaps among enforcement entities that regularly RPX regularly conducts business with.  So, with all due respect to RPX’s claim that its service is “analogous to insurance,” my State Farm agent never once suggested that, if I didn’t buy their product, he might leak the location and description of my car to a known chop shop.  Nevertheless, unless anyone knows of any specific examples, RPX has yet to “release” any of its catch, so this discussion may be a bit premature.

RPX’s other way of addressing free riders is through the purchase of sub-license rights rather than buying patents outright.  In the sub-license acquisition model, RPX would only buy the right to grant non-exclusive licenses to its members, as well as the right to provide additional licenses for an additional fee, while the ownership of the patent would remain with, perhaps, an enforcement entity.  This is one way for RPX to simultaneously control acquisition costs while encouraging membership.  When Joff Wild specifically asked RPX about “piggy backing,” John Amester reportedly said “you should not count on it.”  Amester went on to explain the sub-license concept:

Amster cited the theoretical example of a litigation involving 10 companies – five of which were RPX members, five of which were not – up against an NPE asserting a patent. “We might well buy a sub-licence to the technology for our members and leave the other five to their own devices,” he explained. It would not be something RPX would always do, and there are reasons why they would not want to do it, but it is there as an option.

No free ride in battle against patent trolls, says RPX co-founder, via IAM Blog.

While this may be, as Amester says, “an option” rather than their regular practice for acquiring patents, the sub-license purchase is “an option” it has used in half of  RPX’s purchases. This, coupled with the “release” pitch could end up spelling trouble for RPX, and anyone they do business with, but more on that later.

Turning to Ron Riley’s comments, he suggests that RPX’s success depends on exploiting uninformed patent owners, and also hints at a study of how aggregators operate:

It seems to me that patent aggregators cannot protect their clients from any inventor who is smart enough to seek out patent enforcement entities.

Once we publish our findings I think that aggregators will find it much more difficult to buy IP far below it’s real value. Their business model only works when they are dealing with inventors who lack information.

I do not think that as structured that their business model is sustainable.

Ron does have a point. It is very easy to strike a favorable deal when you know more than your adversary.  However, the information disclosed in the S-1, not to mention the regular reporting on RPX’s activities should provide a lot more insight into how these types of companies operate. Over time, any informational advantage RPX holds could be eroded away.  In other words, RPX cannot continue to count on keeping purchase prices low, and will increasingly rely on other means for encouraging membership while controlling costs.

 

Donnie Brasco, the licensing executive?

Turning attention back to the methods described above, RPX can encourage continued patronage of its membership services by offering protection from the possibilities that it will (1) sell its patents to enforcement entities keen on suing RPX’s potential clients and/or (2) only acquire limited sub-license rights, while NPE’s aggressively pursue non-members like an unblocked, free rusher tearing after a quarterback.  As it engages in these activities, RPX’s relationships with patent enforcers should be closely scrutinized. A gentle suggestion to a potential client that a specific NPE has expressed interest in a patent (as well as the client) might trigger enough suspicion to warrant inquiry into RPX’s relationship and control over the NPE.

 

An enterprise offering to sell protection from a threat that it simultaneously imposes might be interpreted as a racketeering enterprise (18 USC 1952 (b)(2)), the operation of which is subject to both civil and criminal penalties.  Doing business with such an enterprise is not without an element of risk in itself, as transactional partners might be interpreted as participants or co-conspirators.

In a team sport, a player commits the foul, and the team is penalized.  Often times, business is no different.  When it comes to patent risk management, the difference between a perfectly legal licensing business and an illegal racketeering enterprise may be subtle nuances in execution of the day-to-day operations, rather than the stated policies and objectives of the organization.    Words mean nothing. Its the actions that count.

About these ads

Discussion

13 thoughts on “Free Rides, Acquisitions And Sustainability After The RPX IPO

  1. As I mentioned in a previous post I had not spent a great deal of time closely scrutinizing patent aggregation businesses.

    Patrick’s comments on this blog have led me give patent aggregation businesses much more thought.

    The more I have considered this it occurred that my previous observation that the business model relies on ignorance of inventors and it seems that in many respects that the business model is similar to a pyramid model.

    Unless the business model evolves a great deal I am left wondering if the payoff is upfront in the IPO. Will investors end up with a worse off than inventors?

    Businesses which last do so by equitably sharing profits. Patent aggregators do not appear to me to be building business on equal mutual profit. They are not designed to build lasting relationships. They are more like a one night stand or even rape than a lasting relationship.

    Ronald J. Riley,

    President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org

    Other Affiliations:
    Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
    Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
    President – Alliance for American Innovation
    Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
    Washington, DC
    Direct (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 9 pm EST.

    Posted by Ronald J Riley | February 4, 2011, 7:13 pm
  2. Ever since Intellectual Ventures finally started suing, I no longer believe the claims of any entity that it is obtaining patents for “defensive purposes only.” Will RPX be able to resist the siren song of patent litigation?

    Posted by patent litigation | February 7, 2011, 5:56 pm
    • It is very easy to keep the letter of their agreement while totally trashing the spirit. And even if they did keep the spirit of their pledge if they ever fail all the IP will be released and enforced.

      The only way for big companies to solve their litigation problems is to stop unauthorized use of others IP. They must start acquiring legitimate rights to use. Both they and inventors will prosper. This is how the system is supposed to work.

      Inventors do not like litigation, but as it stands we have no choice.

      Ronald J. Riley,

      President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org

      Other Affiliations:
      Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
      Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
      President – Alliance for American Innovation
      Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
      Washington, DC
      Direct (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 9 pm EST.

      Posted by Ronald J Riley | February 8, 2011, 5:26 am
  3. Seems to me that companies are pushing harder than before to compete with competitors without doing the actual work of inventing new things rather just building on the work of others I think as this trend continues so will the cases of patent enforcement and patent litigation increase.

    Posted by Jared | March 1, 2011, 2:22 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Is Patent Aggregation A Good Investment For The Shareholder? Analyzing the RPX IPO « Gametime IP - February 14, 2011

  2. Pingback: RPX IPO: Patent Aggregation, Terrorists and Goldilocks « Gametime IP - March 9, 2011

  3. Pingback: Digitude’s New Patent Monetization Plan – Friend Or Foe To Inventors? « Gametime IP - March 21, 2011

  4. Pingback: Patent Licensing Firm Acacia Offers Public Equity « Gametime IP - March 28, 2011

  5. Pingback: RPX IPO Wednesday; Own A Piece Of Patent Monetization For $16 « Gametime IP - May 3, 2011

  6. Pingback: Are Patent Assertion Companies In Business To Litigate? « Gametime IP - May 6, 2011

  7. Pingback: Patent Aggregator RPX Accused Of Extortion, Racketeering & Wire Fraud « Gametime IP - May 31, 2011

  8. Pingback: RPX Winning Over Investors One Soul At A Time « Gametime IP - July 29, 2011

  9. Pingback: Digitude Patent Monetization Effort Bombs – RPX Picks Up The Carcass « Gametime IP - April 6, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 313 other followers

%d bloggers like this: