Back to Influence

I have been spending more time lately on my patents, the one realm of intellectual property I think I might one day be able to leverage for the betterment of humanity (by getting rich and having more influence - doing well by doing good).

Many folks underestimate or overestimate the value of patents (and other forms of intellectual property) to their businesses. I say businesses rather than companies here because there is a difference. A company is a legal entity, while a business is something we do, often in the context of a company, but often a business spans many companies.

The value of patents seems to me to typically lie in 3 areas; offensive (monetization), defensive (freedom to operate), and influential (credibility).

• Offense: The monetization of patents has to do with the ability to keep others from operating against you. It offers some level of exclusivity when honored by others and the ability to use the legal system to force licensing (get paid) when they do not honor the associated rights. The barriers to entry and stickiness that come with increased liability for competitors and reduced liability by customers for use ultimately go to a risk equation that favors the patent holder.
• Defense: When others come at you to restrict what you do, patents can act in two ways to assure freedom to operate and counterclaim in legal actions. If you have patents they are violating and they have patents you are violating, the cost of the legal action will typically outrun the value it might bring. Litigation is expensive, time consuming, and favors the lawyers and expert witnesses over any of the litigants in most cases.
• Credibility: For executives seeking investment, sales people seeking easier closings, marketing people looking for something to brag about, implementers looking for guideposts on what to implement and how, and others in their various roles, a patent brings a level of credibility that if often viewed more favorably than other sorts of claims. After all, a patent has been reviewed by the government(s) and given an exclusive (if you can keep it) in a method, system, process, combination of matter, or design. It reflects long-term dedication, a legal framework and basis for claims, and proof beyond what you merely claim about what you have or do.

But that is not really the subject of this article

These are all examples of how patents may influence different people in your favor. However, the specific patents I was working on recently are continuations, at least in part, and follow-ons from a patent (US 8,095,492 B2) called:

When I first invented this method and/or system I decided to market under the claim that I was "peddling influence". This is something that, hysterically in my view, was viewed historically, as somewhat nefarious. Technically, it is illegal to peddle influence, in some legal contexts:

According to Law Insider: "Influence Peddling means the deliberate act of (i) giving, offering or promising to any person (including any Public Official), or (ii) yielding to any person (including any Public Official) who solicits, at any time, directly or indirectly, any offer, donation, gift, invitation, reward, or anything of value, for themselves or for others, in each case to abuse or for having abused their real or supposed influence with a view to obtaining from a Public Official any favorable decision or undue benefit."

20 years later

Of course today, it's called "lobbying", is done by lawyers who get the lawmakers to make the laws so they can peddle influence without breaking the laws - usually.

And the concept of influence tactics is increasingly well known and applied through AI techniques in social media platforms, to advertise, to help you sell to others by advising you on what tactics, words, etc. to use to move sales forward, helps you befriend people, and so forth.

So now that influencing people using computers has become acceptable, my aging patent (issued Jan 2012 but expiring in something like 2028, seemingly, has gained a lot of value. Which I now intend to monetize.

As a strategy, not a tactic

If you are going for a quick hit building a business, or if you are looking for an exit in 5 years, the patent strategy would seem somewhat problematic:

• I filed for the patent in 2006 - 18 years ago: so as a tactic for quick monetization, it would seem to be problematic. Of course this is not true of many patents that are more focused on specific issues rather than attempts to found a new field of endeavor. It takes time for new fields to emerge, and in my case, usually longer than I ever expect.

• The technology has worked ever since, but...: working technology does not translate into a product market fit. I like patents because I have a long history of coming up with things that aren't seemingly as important as they later become. My early work on Computer Viruses is an example where I probably should have patented what I had and did in the early 1980s, but "that's water under the bridge" so to speak.

• Using influence to sell influence: At the time of the patent, I didn't have any clear path to success with it, and I had other things to do in my life. It took 6 years for the patent office to issue it, and I couldn't use the fact of the patent over that time frame, only a pending patent, which is a possibility but not a reality. Of course if I was smart about it, I would have used the techniques of the patent and its implementation to license the technology. Instead, I used the technology and what I learned through the process of inventing it to help me succeed in other things.

I am older now

My latest patent, about to be issued perhaps this week, is about cognetics and cognology. You can read all about it as soon as the patent is officially issued. But this patent was "made special", a term of art in the patent business, for expedited in its handling. You can now pay for that service, but the other way to get it is by being old enough. I guess the government figures that a 20-year exclusive doesn't do as much good when you are too old to survive to get to the end of it. The cognology patent was submitted as a provisional to the US patent office in May of 2023, made pending in August of 2023, and it will be issued just about a year later.

Of course the technology in this area is coming faster today than it was in 2006, and the advances in areas related to cognitive computing and the use of AI for cognitive processing has started to accelerate. As a result, I hope to start a series of companies over the coming years to address what I think are increasing needs in the marketplace related to properly controlling influence operations, helping to guide and influence cognitive methods used for and against people, and ... well, perhaps you can come up with a business idea that's worth funding and can use these patents to help move the world forward in beneficial ways?

A call to action

If you want to discuss ways we can start companies in the influence arena, or just to present, discuss, and listen to others, in this or any other area of mutual interest, join our monthly

and we can try to influence each other to mutual benefit.

In summary

Influence: it's like catching smoke; it can make you choke, but if you're a good bloke, you won't go broke.

Patents: Only time will tell...

Want to start a company in the influence arena? Join us.