Intellectual Property: Sell/Buy/Deal
Pricing IP
As a practical matter, prices in IP transactions are set
more by haggling and tradition rather than rigorous economic analysis. Two
factors encourage this haggling. First, there is no observable market for
high-end technology licenses or patents, and there is a fundamental lack of
objective price models. Thus, dealmakers rely on emotionally driven opinions and
behavior. The valuation process becomes one of determining value to the parties
to the transaction- a negotiation. Negotiation is the usual means by which the
parties’ emotions, forecasts for future use and internal values are resolved.
But all this begs the question: How do you find the appropriate negotiation
range for closure?
We assist deal makers to determine value of their IP and
negotiate price in IP transactions. We focus on
SBVC Innovates IP Risk Management
One of our innovations is to enable mismatched risk
tolerances of buyer and seller to be identified and matched by offering
multiple, equivalent deals. Focusing on risk matching advances the business
practices associated with negotiating IP deals. For example, some buyers prefer paying royalties to
upfront fees, and sellers frequently prefer upfront fees to royalties. Using our
approach of finding multiple kinds of deals with the same net present value,
each side has multiple choices at the same time, with all choices having the
same risk. We design deals to tradeoff upfront fees, option exercise prices
(another of our innovations in licensing), per design fees and royalties. Thus,
by selecting from various different but equivalent offers, each side can smooth
their differences and close a mutually acceptable deal. Examples and more detail
are presented in our briefing on
Design Licensing.
Design Licensing
presentation.
Our approach called "Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous
Offers (MESO)" has been researched by V. H. Medvec and A.D. Galinsky, professors
at the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University. As reported in
Negotiation newsletter (Vol.8, number 4, APRIL 2005), published by the
Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, negotiators using this MESO
technique get better outcomes than those using sequential, single offers,
without sacrificing relationships or losing credibility.
|