Re: [projectvrm] The Google-Moto deal: does it matter?

[Devon Loffreto < >]

I guess it depends on what vrm is. If it is a crm spin, it matters. If it is its antithesis, it is irrelevant.

Patents are not about innovation. They are defensive weaponry. What leverage is sought in these massive patent holdings? Your definition of vrm will orient your perspective on these leverage scenarios.

Our patent system is a huge legacy system. The problem with legacy systems is in their inability to adapt and respond to instantaneous innovation and "strategic newness". I think this correlates to topics like defense spending and strategy in orgs like Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin. They are also huge legacy systems.

The innovation and strategic newness of autonomous drone technology makes these legacy systems look and feel like liabilities operationally. Independent distributed forces can operate these autonomous tools with more efficiency than large legacy orgs can. Fighters can operate at near zero cost, where legacy orgs must support the structure of work with salaries and benefits factored in. These two perspectives don't scale equally. Seeking competitive advantage through volume and size of tech deployment only further highlights the legacy disadvantage. 7 million drones require 7 million pilots. 700 drone attacks create 700 systemic liabilities that can not be congruently addressed by both perspectives.

The confidence of an inherently new and disruptive vrm tech is in its structure. Structure yields its own results. Legacy structure is vulnerable to startup structure, and this should be the primary leverage employed by vrm startups. Legacy systems will try to fight against vrm newness by distorting the meaning of vrm to orient to a new crm perspective...and if all else fails, presumably will use their patent weaponry to kill innovation that reorients markets.

So in the end... this is standard operating procedure we are witnessing. The opportunity of vrm is unaffected. The entrenchment of legacy patents and their reorientation within new corporate structures only matters to the degree that they define what these new structures operate as in the future.

Can Google be new and old at the same time? Can they be crm and vrm at the same time? Can they be good and evil? How will they leverage their weaponry? Time will tell.

Devon Loffreto

On Aug 16, 2011 8:00 AM, "Doc Searls" < "> > wrote:
> I've had a lot of conversations in the 24 hours that have passed since Google dropped its bombshell, and have put up two long blog posts in the midst:
>
> <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2011/08/15/google-buys-motorola-and-its-giant-patent-portfolio/>
>
> <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2011/08/15/what-happens-when-google-buys-sprint-too/>
>
> Some of those conversations have been with some of you. And this morning I find myself wondering whether or not this Big Deal has heating effects, chilling effects, or neither.
>
> At one extreme, some are saying "Yay! Google is engaging for real in the patent war that's going on, and that will unlock far more development in the mobile space than before."
>
> On the other extreme, some are saying, "I didn't care about patents before. Now maybe I should. But if I do, that will slow us down. Oy vay."
>
> But those are just from people I've talked to. Most of you I haven't, so I don't yet know what you think.
>
> Could be this is all a Nothing, as far as VRM development is concerned. But I'd like to hear from some of you, since my main interest here is encouraging VRM development and helping move it forward.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Doc