[kictanet] Article - Protecting Ideas: The Government Whitebox is out

Tue Oct 23 17:46:25 EAT 2018

Thank you Patrick for a comprehensive look at the cons of the Whitebox. We
have seen so many of these "innovation harvesting" competitions, hackathons
and organisations, we should have learnt something by now.

Having been part of an award winning team at the Pivot East conference, I
can tell you what it takes to "impress" the judges. To get that the winning
idea to escape gravity is where the work is. Then, VCs were not serious. I
don't know about today. But one thing that has remained the same is the
rhetoric.

I expect whitebox to spectacularly fail. The guys with good ideas are
executing them against all odds. If we don't fix the virtual infrastructure
like "idea/innovation protectionism" and get everyone to understand this
requires all sectors to pull in the same direction, let us at the very
least grow the human capital through the Andelas and Moringas of this world.

One day we will build everything here, constantly innovating and iterating
to stay ahead of the sharks. Right now, I imagine that trying to bring
innovators into a cooperative group is like herding cats. We are not ready
yet.

Patrick has given us very good ideas. But execution ...

Regards,
Jimmy Gitonga
@afrowave

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:05:01 +0000 (UTC)
> From: "Patrick A. M. Maina" <pmaina2000 at yahoo.com>
> To: "kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Article - Protecting Ideas: The Government
>         Whitebox is out...
>
>
>  So what now?
> In my previous message, I discussed Pipeline commoditization, an
> exploitative model used by VCs / large corporations to mine ideas cheaply
> at the expense of Innovators, and which relies primarily on "greyzone
> ethics" application of behavioral science principles (e.g.?opportunity
> baiting in poor countries).
> Remember, you are NOT "the chosen one". There is no such thing. It is an
> *illusion* created to trick you into acting against your own interests.
> In a given "innovations competition", even if just 100 submissions are
> made, your odds of being the "chosen one" are terrible at 1/100. In many
> cases, more than 1,000 submissions are made and it is more likely you will
> be among the 980 hopefuls who don't get chosen.?
> This doesnt mean that the "chosen ones" end up with a better deal (many
> regret) because they often get taken over and the local founder is turned
> into a "ceremonial CEO"; a pseudo-employee with no real decision making
> authority and a seriously compromised ownership structure (can be kicked
> out of own business).?
> What REALLY happens behind the scenes in such competitions is that the
> sponsors get a *free* brainstorm of 1,000 creative ideas (the real prize
> for them), from our best, albeit gullible, minds, while being only loosely
> obligated to pay a tiny amount ($10K-250K) for a tiny fraction of them
> (typically 1-20) under conditions if total subjectivity.
> As many founders have already observed, the concept of "judges" or "idea
> evaluators" in such competitions is utterly ridiculous. There is no one on
> this planet who is capable of identifying great ideas/businesses by relying
> on pitches (or even with the benefit of traction data). Such a person would
> already?be a GAZILLIONAIRE with his/her *own money* (and hence have no time
> nor inclination to judge competitions).
> Way forward:
> 1. No matter how tantalizing the opportunity, the odds for all of us
> improve *only* when we *unite* and negotiate with *one voice*.
> 2. Let's build leverage:
> a. Innovators ought to be well represented in the boards that
> conceptualize these ideas / programs so that their interests are considered
> from the onset as key stakeholders.
> b. IP policies and laws need to be contextualized and indigenized to level
> the playing field for indigenous Innovators. Some partial aspects of this
> issue were very well articulated in a recent article by Dr. Bitange Ndemo.
> c. The time has come for innovators form a *collectively owned*
> cooperative society whose primary mandate will be to *aggregate* and
> *commercialize* indigenous innovations through *licencing* partnerships
> with Gov and Corporate entities.
> In addition to direct partnerships with Innovators, our cooperative entity
> will partner with willing incubators as well, offering a solid "next step"
> after incubation/PoC.
> It will act as a formidable shield for Innovators (protecting them from IP
> predators) which will result in massive negotiation leverage and help
> create numerous *jobs* as well as *wealth* (which will incentivise more
> innovation).
> We can start by forming a core team (abt 3-5 people max) right away, to
> get started with the formation, structuring and popularisation of such an
> entity.
> [Permission is granted to anyone interested in republishing this in
> tech/innovation blogs, forums, periodicals or media with attribution. Would
> appreciate if you let me know when you do so and send me a link.

> Thanks.
> Patrick.
>

>     On Tuesday, October 23, 2018, 2:12:24 PM GMT+3, Patrick A. M. Maina
> via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>
>   Sounds good in theory but in practice our IP landscape is woefully
> inadequate because it is a copy-paste framework that lacks local context.
> 1. As a poor country it is a given that most of our Innovators? will be
> starved for (and thus easy to bait with) capital.?
> 2. The lure of easy cash / validation is powerful and irresistible. It
> short-circuits even the most brilliant minds, causing each participant to
> individually fantasize that he/she is the "chosen one". Yet even if just
> 100 submissions are made, your odds of being the chosen one are terrible at
> 1/100.?
> This is classic *Game Theory* in action where self-interest decisions by
> individual actors result in a less favourable outcome for all.?
>
> 3. When you don't have leverage (e.g. something that *only you* can offer)
> you can't negotiate. No one will sign an NDA with you. I call it pipeline
> commoditization. If, by applying game theory principles, a healthy flow of
> unprotected ideas can be guaranteed, why would anyone sign a true NDA with
> an innovator? Ideas are not "worthless", they are the most crucial
> ingredient for execution (otherwise why did cash-rich execution King
> Waymo/Google go after Uber for alleged theft of AV ideas, which they valued
> at $500M???)!
> Pipeline commoditization relies on *brainwash* and *capital baiting* to
> unfairly swings the odds in favor of capital gatekeepers... Come on, play
> our idea lottery and Win! Win! Win! Are you "the chosen one"? We have
> "judges" who have never invented/innovated anything, many of whom are
> career employees with zero startup experience, which makes them PERFECT
> experts in judging great ideas/startups. These experts will decide who
> proceeds to level 2. Gamble with us and WIN BIG!
>
> We have to shift this model from a gambling / lottery system to a business
> negotiation system. My next message will have some concrete ideas on how to
> do this.
> Patrick.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20181023/68e97756/attachment.htm>