Comments for LightBulb - On-line Forum http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com A single idea can change the world. Unfortunately many obstacles exist today which stiffle the advancement of important innovation -- thereby hindering our economic growth and quality of life. We seek, with your help, to identify and eliminate these obstacles. Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:48:08 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Patent Reform Act of 2007 Would Stifle Growth by FeapseWace http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/patent-reform-act-of-2007-would-stifle-growth/#comment-18 FeapseWace Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:48:08 +0000 http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/patent-reform-act-of-2007-would-stifle-growth/#comment-18 Tahnks for posting Tahnks for posting

]]> Comment on Angels and VCs find Common Ground by The Angelsoft Blog » Angels and VC’s: So happy together… http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/angels-and-vcs-find-common-ground/#comment-17 The Angelsoft Blog » Angels and VC’s: So happy together… Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:25:54 +0000 http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/angels-and-vcs-find-common-ground/#comment-17 [...] National Venture Capital Association and Knox Massey of the Angel Capital Association authored an article that was posted on David Spreng's blog Lightbulb.  The article discusses how VC's and Angel Groups [...] [...] National Venture Capital Association and Knox Massey of the Angel Capital Association authored an article that was posted on David Spreng’s blog Lightbulb.  The article discusses how VC’s and Angel Groups [...]

]]> Comment on Angels and VCs find Common Ground by Divya http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/angels-and-vcs-find-common-ground/#comment-16 Divya Mon, 12 May 2008 11:24:26 +0000 http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/angels-and-vcs-find-common-ground/#comment-16 Could you please elaborate how the ACA and NVCA are working together. We are a VC and are looking to create an inclusive network of angels and VCs in India Could you please elaborate how the ACA and NVCA are working together. We are a VC and are looking to create an inclusive network of angels and VCs in India

]]> Comment on Angels and VCs find Common Ground by Gus http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/angels-and-vcs-find-common-ground/#comment-15 Gus Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:40:48 +0000 http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/angels-and-vcs-find-common-ground/#comment-15 Interesting Interesting

]]> Comment on The University of Minnesota May Have Cracked the Code by Graeme Thickins http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-university-of-minnesota-may-have-cracked-the-code/#comment-11 Graeme Thickins Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:23:13 +0000 http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-university-of-minnesota-may-have-cracked-the-code/#comment-11 Great post, David. As a U of MN guy myself, and (as you know) a longtime tech startup consultant here in our state, I've been waiting for our great local research university to break out of its technology commercialization slump. I applaud Doug Johnson's efforts. And thanks for spreading the word beyond Minnesota. cheers, Graeme Great post, David. As a U of MN guy myself, and (as you know) a longtime tech startup consultant here in our state, I’ve been waiting for our great local research university to break out of its technology commercialization slump. I applaud Doug Johnson’s efforts. And thanks for spreading the word beyond Minnesota.

cheers,
Graeme

]]> Comment on The University of Minnesota May Have Cracked the Code by Brian http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-university-of-minnesota-may-have-cracked-the-code/#comment-9 Brian Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:20:51 +0000 http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-university-of-minnesota-may-have-cracked-the-code/#comment-9 The record of commercialization of technology from R&D hubs such as academic institutions and other similar entities is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than its potential. Our economy and standing in the future of the global economy partially depends on addressing this issue if we are to remain competitive. If left to its current path, it will be one of the reasons we become uncompetitive and fall behind. Traditionally, venture capital wants to put money into companies that have a record of customer traction, revenue, and a strong team.. This traction in a normal environment (other than outliar events such as the bubble) takes many years. Venture capitalists want to invest large sums of money into A rounds and later because their funds are larger and the expectations to LPs have grown with the growing size of the funds. However, there are thousands of opportunities moving towards this path at much earlier stages that stall or fail because of the lack of resources and the funding gap. Some will say the model needs to be completely Darwinian in nature. I disagree. The current direction of venture capital may lead to an inordinate supply-demand problem, with too much capital waiting for "proven" companies, but not enough supply of viable opportunities to fund. The reason...we failed to invest in the infrastructure necessary to make early stage companies viable for that later funding. I like the idea that a CEO needs to be attached to an early stage company. I don't think it solves the larger problem unless it can be expanded significantly, but this specific model will probably increase the likelihood of success for the companies that adapt this approach with the current environment. I think most people in venture capital and those who understand it, realize this industry is going through its own post bubble change, with significant consolidation over the next several years. The landscape will change dramatically as those who raised funds from 1999-2003 look for their next move. I think there are significant opportunities for venture capitalists to do some "out-of-the-box" thinking and shift their models of capital to optimize the potential supply-demand environment that could exist if we enabled more viable companies and opportunities to reach the level of funding viability and self sustainance...obviously enabling new value creation in the overall economy. Let's put our thinking caps on and figure out a way to significantly increase the commercialization success of the R&D expenditure in our universities, corporations, and various other hubs of opportunity. The record of commercialization of technology from R&D hubs such as academic institutions and other similar entities is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than its potential. Our economy and standing in the future of the global economy partially depends on addressing this issue if we are to remain competitive. If left to its current path, it will be one of the reasons we become uncompetitive and fall behind. Traditionally, venture capital wants to put money into companies that have a record of customer traction, revenue, and a strong team.. This traction in a normal environment (other than outliar events such as the bubble) takes many years. Venture capitalists want to invest large sums of money into A rounds and later because their funds are larger and the expectations to LPs have grown with the growing size of the funds. However, there are thousands of opportunities moving towards this path at much earlier stages that stall or fail because of the lack of resources and the funding gap. Some will say the model needs to be completely Darwinian in nature. I disagree. The current direction of venture capital may lead to an inordinate supply-demand problem, with too much capital waiting for “proven” companies, but not enough supply of viable opportunities to fund. The reason…we failed to invest in the infrastructure necessary to make early stage companies viable for that later funding. I like the idea that a CEO needs to be attached to an early stage company. I don’t think it solves the larger problem unless it can be expanded significantly, but this specific model will probably increase the likelihood of success for the companies that adapt this approach with the current environment. I think most people in venture capital and those who understand it, realize this industry is going through its own post bubble change, with significant consolidation over the next several years. The landscape will change dramatically as those who raised funds from 1999-2003 look for their next move. I think there are significant opportunities for venture capitalists to do some “out-of-the-box” thinking and shift their models of capital to optimize the potential supply-demand environment that could exist if we enabled more viable companies and opportunities to reach the level of funding viability and self sustainance…obviously enabling new value creation in the overall economy. Let’s put our thinking caps on and figure out a way to significantly increase the commercialization success of the R&D expenditure in our universities, corporations, and various other hubs of opportunity.

]]> Comment on Patent Reform Act of 2007 Would Stifle Growth by Skip http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/patent-reform-act-of-2007-would-stifle-growth/#comment-5 Skip Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:21:59 +0000 http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/patent-reform-act-of-2007-would-stifle-growth/#comment-5 The post grant opposition is particularly troubling. Leaving the validity of a patent in question indefinitely would no doubt create more infringement and presumably more litigation than we face today. The post grant opposition is particularly troubling. Leaving the validity of a patent in question indefinitely would no doubt create more infringement and presumably more litigation than we face today.

]]> Comment on The University of Minnesota May Have Cracked the Code by Jason http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-university-of-minnesota-may-have-cracked-the-code/#comment-2 Jason Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:54:56 +0000 http://innovationcommercialization.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/the-university-of-minnesota-may-have-cracked-the-code/#comment-2 This seems like a good idea, but is it scalable? If you limit the pool of candidates to world-class CEOs that have managed a early-stage tech company to a successful exit, you have a small group of folks, especially if you're outside of Silicon Valley. Most of the Stanford companies that you list were founded and run by grad students for quite some time before "professional" management was brought in. I think that the hunger of the students and the accessibility of capital for young entrepreneurs is what led to those success stories. I would think that bringing successful entrepreneurs in to mentor and encourage the technologists versus joining as CEO would enable the university to spin out more companies, since it will take hundreds of failure for every large-scale success. This seems like a good idea, but is it scalable? If you limit the pool of candidates to world-class CEOs that have managed a early-stage tech company to a successful exit, you have a small group of folks, especially if you’re outside of Silicon Valley. Most of the Stanford companies that you list were founded and run by grad students for quite some time before “professional” management was brought in. I think that the hunger of the students and the accessibility of capital for young entrepreneurs is what led to those success stories. I would think that bringing successful entrepreneurs in to mentor and encourage the technologists versus joining as CEO would enable the university to spin out more companies, since it will take hundreds of failure for every large-scale success.

]]>