RIM Shot

March 2, 2006 | Filed Under Tactics, Technology, In the News 

The raging dispute between RIM and NTP over BlackBerry has been prominent in the news for weeks.

Some of the reports use the recent federal court hearing in Richmond, VA as a pretext for railing against the alleged failings of the patent system. The Wall Street Journal did this yesterday in an op-ed ($) piece. Matt Buchanan cogently rebuts some of the “let’s blame the lawyers” tone of that editorial; as do the Patent Baristas.

I think what’s really going on is that NTP has a good case, and RIM knows it. RIM could have settled the case for cents on the dollar years ago (reportedly +/- $20 million). RIM tried to settle for $450 million last year, which fell apart. NTP’s price had allegedly increased to $1 billion late last year.

In trial vernacular, when RIM can’t argue the facts (jury verdict), and can’t argue the law (attempted nine-figure settlement), they bang on the podium.

Two other signs that this case isn’t just about legal principles come from a W$J article last week (sorry, no link available). The first takes a bead on the mind of RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie:

Inside RIM’s headquarters in Waterloo, Ontario, Mr. Balsillie’s battle strategy is being driven by indignation at the U.S. patent system and a determination to defend a principle. Mr. Balsillie, like many high-technology executives, says U.S. patent laws let parasitic little firms hold up innovative companies for ransom. “Is it appropriate to play Russian roulette with the system every day in the courts, where one claim can shut down the whole industry?” he asks.

The other is from an industry observer (Ken Dulaney) doing what they do best, observing:

The belief among RIM staff that the company has been wronged “borders on religion,” Mr. Dulaney says. “They’re going to lead the crusade.”

In my GC experience, when a company starts framing commercial disputes with terms like “principle” or “crusade,” inside counsel brace for one wild ride and outside counsel buy waterfront properties.

At last Friday’s hearing, U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer expressed frustration that the case hadn’t settled. In the meantime, Treo is gaining on BlackBerry. Have you noticed that Verizon’s ads for the Treo 700w are everywhere, including on primetime shows like “Lost?” (Thus implying that one would help you get “Found?”).

RIM is probably banking on the high cost of switching as a built-in protection against competitors like Treo. Press reports this morning indicate that the cost per user to switch could exceed $800.

But if Judge Spencer really wants a settlement, he has a rather large club at his disposal: enter an order granting NTP’s motion for an injunction against the infringing use by RIM of BlackBerry, and make it effective in 31 days.

Then it’s go time. RIM implements the workaround, or pays NTP the going rate for settlement.

What’s more likely is that RIM appeals the order and the case drags on. I am amazed, however, that RIM continues to ensure that their media branding revolves around words like “shutdown” and “workaround.” All part of a crusade, I guess.

Good to Great with SOX?

February 13, 2006 | Filed Under Tactics, Governance 

I guess a sign of the pervasiveness of the law is the idea that Sarbanes-Oxley savvy can jump-start a career.

Fortune notes five ways to hasten the ascent up the corporate ladder. Number 2 with a bullet is:

Embrace Sarbanes-Oxley. If you haven’t already, take a course or two on Sarbox and its myriad implications. (The American Management Association, trade groups and most colleges offer them.) Says exec coach Bill Morin: “If you want to get ahead, you have to talk intelligently about this stuff.”

Knowledge of SOX is important; but the other four ideas resonate more clearly with me. My fave for the GC trade is #3, “Stay squeaky clean,” since that provides a strong platform to lead in all areas.

Part of talking intelligently about SOX is being aware of its shortcomings. Professor Ribstein notes that SOX is under attack in the courts, for some very strong legal and policy reasons.

Email Karma

February 7, 2006 | Filed Under Tactics, Technology 

Do you think before you hit “send?”

Merlin Mann of 43 Folders provides a greatest hits version of tips to arm yourself in the war of the inbox.

What I found especially helpful were the hints related to writing effective email messages.

My personal favorite? Composing a great subject line. With a few people I correspond with, I never have to open the message. I can also copy the subject and put it in my calendar. By my calculations:

Shorter messages = read quicker.

Read quicker = act faster.

Act faster = leave earlier.

That’s my story; my name is John.

Suze the Solo

January 12, 2006 | Filed Under Tactics, Organization 

When you find out that a major public figure is really an army of one–you sit up and take notice.

The currrent issue of TIME magazine (with Jack Abramoff on the cover–finally without a hat!) has an interesting group of articles about health and medicine.

One article profiles financial guru Suze Orman, and describes how she ruthlessly gets things done. This article is more of a sidebar to another one that notes some of the perils of multitasking.

This excerpt first caught my eye:

Sure, Orman has the usual battery of electronic devices–in fact, she runs a paperless office but has strict rules for using her gadgets. “When I am writing, I don’t answer phones. I don’t care what else is going on,” she says. She has a cell phone but never leaves it on. “You can’t call me. I only call you. I think you have to stop thinking you are at everyone else’s beck and call.” Silence, she adds, is critical. “You cannot complete your thoughts with everything ringing.”

Then my jaw dropped when Ms. Orman let the staffing model of her growing empire slip out:

The remarkable thing is that Orman is a one-woman show. She has no assistant, no permanent employees. “I’m the one who answers every one of my e-mails,” she says. (Usually with a terse yes, no or “done.”) When she hires people to work on a project, she insists they clear their schedules of other jobs: “I’m not saying they can’t multitask, just not on my time,” she explains. “The people who multitask, I think, do everything to mediocrity at best. While they are getting a lot done, they are getting it done in such an inefficient way that they usually have to do it again.” Orman says she never misses a deadline or needs a do-over. “Once I’ve written an article, it is done.”

Any lawyer reading this would quickly see the obstacles to adopting these tactics in the practice of law. Elsewhere in the article, she mentions that she generally does not respond to email or voicemail messages while on the road. Our clients might not like this–on the other hand, if things were being handled properly, they might be impressed. After all, they’d know we weren’t billing portal-to-portal.

But I really admire two things. One is Ms. Orman’s single-minded focus on the current task at hand. I need to carve out some time every day to do this. The only way I have done this recently is to duck into an unused office in a remote corner of my building for a few minutes once a week and scan my project list before I am discovered.

The other thing I admire is the way Ms. Orman responds to emails. Who among us wouldn’t appreciate that sort of response? It would stand out in a world of “reply all” messages that don’t merely transmit or request information. Rather, they are ongoing chronicles of a peron’s work “life story.”

If Suze Orman can find a way to focus despite constant distractions–do I really have an excuse?

I think her response might be:

no.

Putting Off The First Post of 2006

January 3, 2006 | Filed Under Tactics, Managing 

I had intended to put up a “10 Predictions for 2006″ post today.

However, two things intruded: (a) a fun New Year’s weekend; and (b) a college football mega-dose yesterday. So in honor of not always getting things done, here’s something that caught my eye about a favorite nemesis: procrastination.

Essayist, entrepreneur and ace programmer Paul Graham hit the mark recently with an excellent think-piece entitled “Good and Bad Procrastination.” Here’s the explanation:

There are three variants of procrastination, depending on what you do instead of working on something: you could work on (a) nothing, (b) something less important, or (c) something more important. That last type, I’d argue, is good procrastination.

I’m trying to do more of (a) and (c) in 2006.

Another sample that covers that bane of many living that office life–the interruption:

I’ve wondered a lot about why startups are most productive at the very beginning, when they’re just a couple guys in an apartment. The main reason may be that there’s no one to interrupt them yet. In theory it’s good when the founders finally get enough money to hire people to do some of the work for them. But it may be better to be overworked than interrupted. Once you dilute a startup with ordinary office workers– with type-B procrastinators– the whole company starts to resonate at their frequency. They’re interrupt-driven, and soon you are too.

While I don’t think that all office workers can be categorized thusly, we have probably met more than a few that fit the bill.

We are all challenged with more to do than we possibly can on a daily basis.

I’m 80% sure I could say more, but there’s a 20% chance it would be a waste of your time.

« Previous Page — Next Page »