By James Lyons-Weiler
Time for an IP Share Market?
Direct investment in market-valued intellectual property could drive translational
success.
Thirty years of investment in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and life
sciences industries have yielded returns that fall short of their potential. The
prognosis is even worse: Investors' confidence rests on massive consumption of
products and services made available by today's investments, but it is impossible to
predict where the winners will arise.
Investors take myriad risks. They do not know the future value of the
company's stock or how their investment capital will be used, and while they may
believe forward-looking statements about the priorities and direction of a company,
they have no real idea whether the use of their investment will match their
motivation to invest, or be used to take the company in another direction.
Such risks would be lessened by investment in IP (Intellectual Property)
rather than in companies. There are no significant technological barriers to the
development of a highly granular, information-rich IP Share Market.
The IP Share Market would be a public investment market for direct investment
accounts in specific IP. Investors would be able to search a database of IP
opportunities that would list applications and advantages over existing IP and track
the value over time, allowing decisions to be based on standard investment criteria.
This type of market is substantively different from existing IP Markets, where
individuals and companies list their IP for licensing or sale. Companies
participating in this market would be bound to apply the revenue to the development
and translation of the specific IP in the proposed application areas.
While the democratizing of investment revenue use might be anathema to
existing corporate dogma, it does make sense. Companies would generate revenue for
their best ideas, and would benefit from embedded free market research on which
programs are perceived to be most important and valuable. Potentially, they would
have input from thousands of consumers on their ideas and technologies, well before
bringing the product to market. Knowledge of the market value of their IP would also
enable value-based licensing.
The IP market could change the relationship between consumers and companies,
for example, the dialog on drug prices might be affected by mass investment in the
most promising specific IP. Companies could measure rates of returns on specific
projects even as they are developed, turbo-charging programs towards profitable
translation, and possibly reducing the price of the final product. Contrast this
with current R&D funding decisions, which are uninformed and speculative, or
based on expensive market research.
Acquisitions and mergers are violently transformative processes. Knowing the
market value of specific pieces of IP will allow companies to engage in processes
that, in the past, seemed impossible. With an IP Share Market, companies with
capital could more easily license or purchase outright missing pieces of their
strategic integrated product because the market value of the IP would be
established. Combinations of orphan IPs could be brought together to generate new
approaches. Relatively painless, outright equitable IP swaps can be envisioned. An
IP Share Market would counter divisive forces that prevent synergy by allowing
companies to compete for collaborations, via licensing, or outright purchase, of
market-valued IP. Overall, an IP Share Market would dramatically increase the rate
of development and tech transfer in a revenue-driven manner.
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors could serve as a model for all
IP-rich technology sectors, generating wealth and placing it in the hands of
individuals with the ideas and visions to drive their programs forward, and securing
a healthier future for us all.
James Lyons-Weiler is the Director of the Bioinformatics Analysis Core at the
University of Pittsburgh and Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Biomedical
Informatics.
Advertisement
Rate this article
Rating: 3.96/5 (25 votes )
Not insider trading by Charles Smith
[Comment posted 2012-02-03 07:19:49]
Trading IP on an exchange will actually increase transparency so that other market participants can see the trades of employees of companies that have awareness of their company's IP development. As it is now, any scientist could buy or sell his company's stock based upon his awareness of the success or failure of a IP development project. Trading on an IP exchange would permit other investors to see this direct investment, and it could be mandated that such trading on an IP eschange be disclosed to the SEC just like insiders stock trades.
IP Share Market is the IDEA of the moment by Sharbaaniranjan Kundu
[Comment posted 2009-02-27 00:26:44]
Two decades back I went to a shop selling bakery products. I commented something to the elderly shopkeeper regarding his method of doing business or some such thing. The elderly shopkeeper opened my eyes by saying: "What is there in selling? It is an IDEA that sells." I have never forgotten that statement. In fact he opened my eyes to the world and how it runs. Ditto business, finance, and I dare say, life! It is an IDEA that invents, innovates, runs industry, gives power and authority. Today Intellectual property is driving economies. IP share market is the IDEA of the moment. It will innovate society, drive economies, create wealth and result in well being of earth's populace and I dare say save this earth too from the throes of wanton destruction which mankind in overenthusiasm of S&T mantra has pushed this planet into. IP Share Market is a brilliant idea which technocrats and industralists should seriously look towards for a holistic approach to economic, social and political activities of our precious world and optimum utilization of its resources.
Reply to: This seems like a petri for insider trading by James Lyons-Weiler
[Comment posted 2009-02-22 18:32:04]
Thank you for the feedback re: the concern that people with more knowledge about complementary technologies could disproportionately benefit from their understanding of the IP they choose to express confidence in by investing.
I'm not at all sure that what is described is the same as insider trading. The concern of insider trading seems to apply to any current model of investment where individuals who work in a company are free to buy & sell shares of stock of that company. If they do so in advance of a precipitous drop (or increase) in value due to the disclosure of bad (or good) news, they can be charged with insider trading. If they are given privileged information about another company and act on it, they are also at risk of being charged.
The IP Share Market would, and I propose should, reward people with the know-how needed to put the translational pieces together. There is, I think, a need. If those with the know-how about pieces X, Y and Z, know enough, as you say, to pre-invest in pieces Y and Z, knowing that X is coming down the line, they still burden the risk of putting their funds into Y and Z. If the R&D in X (or Y or Z) that their investment propels does not work out (for reasons such as no one but they understand how it all should work), then they have tripled their losses. It would be to everyone's advantage, including the company listing IP X, to reveal the potential connections to IP Y and IP Z.
Morever, everything about the IP Share Market seems to bias toward providing open and accurate sharing of all relevant information. Honesty in listing is automatically enforced because IP Listers do not wish to gain a bad reputation. A good reputation (meaning proven, eventual payoff for investors) would be highly coveted.
Either way, as an open market with public trades, the IP Share Market would almost certainly have to be regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
This seems like a petri for insider trading by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-02-19 19:54:57]
This market will be so controlled by those "insiders" who helped develop the newest tech. They would have the ability to pre-invest in complementary industries based on their exclusive knowledge. Currently the platform awards those scientist handsomely based on pure proven performance. For instance imagine all the medications that have had bright futures in the development and only to have them pulled off the market because of known defects. Imagine the gains that would have been made had the investment in the IP market been allowed. Maybe those med's would have had so much bully power from gains in the IP and Stock markets that they would still be on the market.
This idea is controversial.
|