2017/05/31

«Transformative Use in Software»



Stanford Law Review @StanLRev, Volume 69, Issue 5, May 2017. Essay by Clark D. Asay, Associate Professor of Law, BYU Law School.

Numbers belong to the notes at the end of the text.

PDF



«Fair use is copyright law’s most important defense against claims of copyright infringement.1 Major corporations depend on it to pursue a variety of technological innovations;2 universities rely on it for a number of educational purposes;3 and innovative parties frequently resort to it in creating works that build upon the creativity of others.4 In short, fair use is an essential limitation on the rights of copyright holders that helps copyright fulfill its constitutional purpose of “promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”5

»In determining whether Party A’s use of Party B’s copyrighted work is a fair use, courts primarily consider four statutory factors.6 Within that inquiry, whether the use is “transformative” has become one of the most important considerations.7 In fact, if a court deems a use to be transformative, the court often either discounts the other factors or finds that the transformative nature of the secondary use heavily influences how to assess them.8

»In what may prove to be one of the most important software copyright cases in decades,9 a jury recently handed Google a victory by concluding that Google’s use of some of Oracle’s Java software in its Android platform constituted fair use.10 Oracle has appealed the decision, claiming, among other things, that Google’s use of its software cannot be fair use because it does not involve a transformative use.11 This is so, according to Oracle and its amici, because Google uses Oracle’s software as software.12 In other words, because Google uses Oracle’s software to perform the same computing functions for which it was originally designed, Google’s use cannot be transformative. And if not transformative, the use can hardly be fair.

»This Essay contends that accepting Oracle’s argument would mean that fair use rarely if ever applies in the software context. Software’s functional nature, after all, means that reuses of software will inevitably involve the software carrying out the same functions for which it was designed. But if that reality alone forecloses the possibility of a fair use defense, it means the productive balance that fair use helps strike between copyright holders and follow-on software innovators may be imperiled.

»This Essay first provides some background on fair use and the transformative use component of the inquiry. It then lays out more fully Oracle and its amici’s argument that uses of software as software are nontransformative and, accordingly, not fair uses. The Essay counters this argument, suggesting that accepting it would largely eliminate fair use as a defense in the software context, thereby threatening robust software innovation. It concludes with some thoughts on how best to apply the transformative use inquiry in software cases.



»I. A Fair Use Primer

»Copyright’s fair use defense excuses activities that would otherwise infringe a party’s copyright. It does so in order to “avoid rigid application of the copyright statute” in ways that “would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.”13 Hence, fair use helps “ensure that subsequent authors and the public may build upon the work of earlier authors”14 in cases where doing so is deemed to promote creativity overall without unduly harming the original author’s economic prospects.

»The genre of parody, in which a party uses another’s work to comment on or critique it, is a common fair use example.15 But fair use goes beyond parody. The Copyright Act’s Section 107, which codifies the fair use defense, lists a number of examples that may qualify, such as “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . ., scholarship, or research.”16 The statute then goes on to specify four factors courts should assess in determining whether any particular use of a copyrighted work constitutes fair use: 1) “the purpose and character of the use,” 2) “the nature of the copyrighted work,” 3) “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole,” and 4) “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”17

»With regard to the first factor, “the purpose and character of the use,” modern courts frequently focus on whether the use is transformative.18 If the use is not considered transformative, the defendant faces an uphill battle winning a fair use defense.19 But if a court determines that the use is transformative, it becomes very likely that the fair use defense will prevail.20

»What is a transformative use? In the Supreme Court’s words, it is a use that “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the [original work] with new expression, meaning, or message.”21 Hence, it is not transformative to merely repackage the original work. Instead, the party claiming fair use must have used the work in a different way than the original party. For example, the Second Circuit found that it was transformative to use images originally found on Grateful Dead posters and concert tickets in a coffee-table book.22 The court considered this use transformative because the creator of the book placed the images in a different setting with a different purpose: rather than marketing the Grateful Dead, like the original images had, the book used the images alongside explanatory text and additional artwork to chronicle the Grateful Dead’s history.23

»Having found the use transformative, the court proceeded to hold that it was fair use even though some of the other factors, in isolation, arguably cut against that conclusion.24 For instance, the images were clearly creative, meaning that the second fair use factor—nature of the work—favored the copyright holder.25 Furthermore, the coffee-table book maker included the images in their entirety, which also typically pushes against fair use based on the third fair use factor (the amount and substantiality of the work used).26 But where courts find transformative use, they frequently find fair use no matter how the second and third prongs of the fair use test come out.27 The same is not entirely true of the fourth fair use factor. This factor focuses on whether the use negatively affects the market (and potential markets) for the original work.28 Some view the fourth factor as the most important factor within the fair use inquiry.29

»But while the fourth factor remains important, courts often assess it based on how they answered the transformative use inquiry.30 In other words, when a court deems a use transformative, it frequently finds that the use has no relevant impact on the original work’s market. This is so because the transformative use goes beyond the original work’s purpose and is thus geared toward a different market than the original work. Hence, for instance, because the Supreme Court considered 2 Live Crew’s rap parody of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” transformative, it concluded that the parody did not harm Orbison’s market for “Oh, Pretty Woman”; the parody had a different purpose than the original song and thus targeted a market to which Orbison’s heirs were not entitled.31

»In sum, if a court finds a use to be transformative, that finding often dictates the rest of the fair use analysis. Factors two and three are not strong enough to overcome it, and factor four, while still important, typically favors fair use because a transformative use purportedly does not negatively affect the original work’s market. Conversely, if a court finds a use to be nontransformative, the fair use inquiry often moves in the opposite direction.32 Factors two and three obtain renewed status,33 while factor four is more likely to push in favor of market harm since the nontransformative use is more likely to act as a substitute for the original work.34 As such, winning the transformative use battle is of vital importance.



»II. Oracle’s Arguments

»For this reason, Oracle and some of its amici spend a great deal of time arguing that Google’s use of Oracle’s Java software application programming interfaces (APIs) in Android is nontransformative. Their primary argument on this front is that Google failed to use Oracle’s APIs for a new purpose.35 Instead, Google uses the APIs to perform the same functions that they perform in Oracle’s Java platform: to identify computing functions that other parts of the platform carry out.36 In the language of the Supreme Court, Google’s use merely “supersede[s] the objects[] of the original work,”37 rather than adding “something new, with a further purpose or different character.”38

»Consequently, according to Oracle and its supporters, this nontransformative use has significant negative effects, both actual and potential, on the market for Oracle’s APIs. Because Google uses the APIs in its competitive Android platform but gives away Android for free, Oracle claims it is unable to find willing buyers for Java.39 And Google has or is in the process of saturating a variety of computing markets with Android, including phones, tablets, desktops, wearables, cars, and others, thereby depriving Oracle of additional licensing revenues.40 Hence, according to Oracle, Google’s failure to put the APIs to a transformative use has destroyed Oracle’s current and future ability to market its copyrighted APIs.41 As a result, Oracle and its supporters argue, both factors one and four of the fair use inquiry—by far the most important within that inquiry—favor Oracle.



Oracle and some of its amici spend a great deal of time arguing that Google’s use of Oracle’s Java software application programming interfaces (APIs) in Android is nontransformative. Their primary argument on this front is that Google failed to use Oracle’s APIs for a new purpose. Instead, Google uses the APIs to perform the same functions that they perform in Oracle’s Java platform: to identify computing functions that other parts of the platform carry out. ...

»III. Negatively Transforming Transformative Use

»But Oracle’s argument has several significant problems. Most importantly, it implies that fair use should have little if any applicability to software reuses. After all, software by definition is functional; software code is written to carry out specific, preassigned computing functions, so reuses of software will typically implicate the very same functions. Hence, software reuses are constrained by the functional nature of software itself. One can certainly imagine theoretical reuses of software for nonfunctional purposes (e.g., software source code as wallpaper). But those uses are rare and, even when they occur, have limited social value. Nevertheless, the implication of Oracle and its amici’s arguments is that only such nonfunctional reuses of software should be eligible for a fair use defense.

»In fact, carried to its extreme, this argument threatens even statutorily delineated fair use examples. As mentioned, the statute lists uses for “teaching,” “scholarship,” and “research” purposes as likely candidates for a fair use defense.42 Yet reuses of software in educational and research settings would still typically implicate a software program’s functionality (i.e., the software, when used, would perform the same functions for which it was programmed). But under Oracle and its supporters’ arguments, such functional uses would not qualify as transformative uses. And if not transformative uses, the uses would face extreme difficulty winning a fair use defense in modern courts for the reasons discussed above.

»The far-reaching implications of Oracle’s arguments can also be seen when considering how those arguments influence analysis of fair use’s fourth factor. There, Oracle and its amici argue that because Google’s use of the Java APIs is nontransformative, that use undermines Oracle’s ability to monetize its software in every computing market.43 In other words, because the functional purposes of software are identical in all computing environments, Oracle claims market harm in each and every one of those environments.

»If accepted, these arguments would mean software fair use is effectively dead. But fair use plays an important role in fostering innovation and creativity and should continue to do so in the software world. The next section briefly explores ways in which courts might adapt the transformative use inquiry in the software context to ensure that fair use continues to play such a role.



»IV. Reconceiving Transformative Use in Software

»As mentioned, transformative use has gained momentum over the years as one of the most important factors in determining whether a particular use of copyrighted material is fair. But it is important to remember that the transformative use inquiry need not dictate the entire fair use analysis—indeed, courts have found fair use even in cases where the use was deemed nontransformative.44 Hence, one way to solidify fair use’s position in the software reuse context is to deemphasize the importance of the transformative use prong in light of software’s unique characteristics.

»For instance, factor two, the nature of the work, should carry greater weight in software fair use cases. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]his factor calls for recognition that some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others,”45 with the implication being that works farther from that core enjoy thinner copyright protection and are subject to a broader scope of fair use.46 Software’s functional nature situates software farther from the core of intended copyright protection than other types of works.47 Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act reflects this principle by making clear that despite software being eligible for copyright under Section 102(a), in no case should that protection extend to “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied” in the software.48 In other words, software’s functional nature means that Section 102(b)’s limitations are highly relevant in restricting copyright protection in software.49 Hence, the more limited nature of software copyright means that the scope of fair use should be broader under factor two when dealing with software reuses.50

»Courts should also more carefully consider factor three, the amount and substantiality of the work taken, in light of software’s functional realities. In general, it can be difficult for courts to properly determine what constitutes the software work from which the third party borrowed (and thus how much borrowing actually occurred).51 For instance, any distinguishable part of a larger software program might be viewed as a separately copyrighted work, meaning that borrowing even just that part weighs against fair use because the party copied the copyrighted work in its entirety. In fact, in its earlier decision in Oracle v. Google, the Federal Circuit appeared to view the APIs in this way, i.e., as separately copyrightable works distinct from the software that implements the computing functions that the APIs specify.52 Viewing the APIs in that light, it becomes difficult to argue Google’s use of them in Android is fair, since it borrowed the entirety of thirty-seven separate works.

»Yet the APIs’ functional, interdependent nature means that they have no practical reality absent the software that implements their specified functions. Unlike other types of copyrightable works, they have a solely functional purpose that is only realized once paired with other, implementing software.53

»Hence, courts applying this third fair use factor in software contexts should carefully assess the functional relationships of the different software components in determining the appropriate baseline against which to assess how much of the original software work was copied. In the Oracle v. Google case, the more appropriate unit of analysis is the larger Java platform, rather than the individual APIs themselves.

»Choosing the appropriate unit of analysis under factor three also has ramifications for how courts should assess the fourth fair use factor in the software reuse context. For instance, parties often claim market harm based on a third party’s use of some portion of their larger software program, but in many cases that market harm claim is dubious because the portion used has no real market of its own. This is precisely what happened in Oracle v. Google. Oracle claims Google’s use of the APIs destroyed the market for them.54 But that claim is suspect precisely because the APIs have no real market of their own.55 Instead, their functional, interdependent relationships to other software mean that the APIs’ only real market is as part of a larger software platform such as Java or Android.56 And while Android certainly competes with the Java platform, according to leading Ninth Circuit software fair use precedent, that type of competition is arguably permissible (and even desirable) under copyright law.57

»Software’s functional nature also means that courts should carry out the transformative use inquiry itself differently in the software context than in others. Oracle and its amici, for instance, rely heavily on mostly non-software fair use cases to support their claim that reusing a work for the same purpose is not transformative and therefore not a fair use.58 But analogizing between software and nonsoftware cases can be dangerous because software’s functional characteristics make it unlike other copyrightable materials in key respects—the most important of which is that any given software component by definition has a singular computing purpose.

»In fact, leading Ninth Circuit case law has found that reusing software for the same basic computing functions can be transformative and, more generally, fair use.59 In reaching this holding, the Sony court reasoned that, despite the “similarity of uses and functions between” the plaintiff’s and defendant’s software products, the defendant’s software was “modestly transformative” because it was a “wholly new product” consisting of significant amounts of code the defendant had written.60 Furthermore, the defendant’s software product enabled those similar computing uses and functions in a new computing environment.61 Google’s reuse of the Java APIs in Android is similar. While Google copied thirty-seven of 166 possible Java APIs into Android, it wrote its own implementing code, virtual machine, and other APIs for Android.62

»This “wholly new product”63 also employed the APIs in an innovative smartphone platform, a venture in which Oracle and the APIs’ earlier owner, Sun Microsystems, had failed even before Google used the APIs in Android.64 In sum, software’s functional nature should play a considerable role in how courts assess each factor within the fair use inquiry, including the transformative use component. Of course, software’s functional realities have long challenged courts to reconcile copyright law doctrines developed in other creative contexts with software’s functional realities.65 But Oracle’s transformative use arguments, rather than attempting to reconcile fair use with software’s hybrid nature, instead seek to bring about an effective divorce between the two.

»Yet the fair use inquiry, with its flexibility, provides courts with an important opportunity to achieve reconciliation. The fair use doctrine, after all, is meant to be a flexible tool that courts can use to do copyright justice.66 In the software context, copyright justice would, at a minimum, recognize that (1) software’s functional nature means that reusing software inevitably involves performing the same functions for which the software was designed, and (2) this reality, on its own, is insufficient to foreclose a transformative use finding and, more generally, a fair use finding. Instead, software’s functional nature means that transformative software reuses can and in most cases will involve reperforming the very same computing functions for which the software was originally designed. In what computing context, in conjunction with what other content and technology, should then become the more pressing questions.



»Conclusion

»Software reuse is an important means by which to spur robust software innovation. Copyright law’s fair use defense is one important means of enabling such reuse. Yet parties such as Oracle are pressing fair use arguments that, if accepted, would largely eliminate fair use as a viable defense in the software context. This Essay urges courts to reject such arguments and instead apply fair use as intended—in a flexible way that promotes, rather than inhibits, innovation and creativity.



[Text Notes]

»1. MARSHALL A. LEAFFER, UNDERSTANDING COPYRIGHT LAW 495 (6th ed. 2014) (indicating that fair use is “by far the most important defense to an action for copyright infringement”).

»2. See, e.g., Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 425, 427, 442 (1984) (finding using VCRs to copy entire copyrighted programs for time-shifting purposes to be fair use).

»3. See, e.g., Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232, 1237, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2014) (discussing professors within the Georgia university system relying on fair use to make digital excerpts of copyrighted texts available to their students).

»4. See, e.g., Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694, 698 (2d. Cir. 2013) (finding Richard Prince’s reuse of copyrighted photographs was fair use in part because he added his own creativity to the photographs).

»5. U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 8; see also Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994) (“From the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright’s very purpose, ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . .’” (alteration in original) (quoting U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 8)).

»6. See infra Part I.

»7. Matthew Sag, Predicting Fair Use, 73 OHIO ST. L.J. 47, 55 (2012).

»8. Id.

»9. See Klint Finley, The Oracle-Google Case Will Decide the Future of Software, WIRED (May 23, 2016, 7:00 AM), https://www.wired.com/2016/05/oracle-google-case-willdecide- future-software.

»10. Jack Nicas, Google Wins Java Copyright Case Against Oracle, WALL ST. J. (May 26, 2016, 7:03 PM ET), https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-wins-java-copyright-caseagainst- oracle-1464294647.

»11. See infra Part II; see also Scott Graham, 5 Takeaways from Oracle’s Appeal of Google’s Jury Win, LAW.COM (Feb. 14, 2017), http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/02/14/5- takeaways-from-oracles-appeal-of-googles-jury-win-2.

»12. See infra notes 35-41 and accompanying text.

»13. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994) (quoting Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 236 (1990)).

»14. 4 WILLIAM F. PATRY, PATRY ON COPYRIGHT § 10:2, Westlaw (database updated March 2017).

»15. See, e.g., Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579.

»16. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2015).

»17. Id.

»18. Sag, supra note 7, at 55.

»19. Id.

»20. Id.

»21. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).

»22. See Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 607, 615 (2d Cir. 2006).

»23. Id. at 608-09, 615.

»24. Id. at 615.

»25. Id. at 612-13.

»26. Id. at 613.

»27. See Barton Beebe, An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978-2005, 156 U. PA. L. REV. 549, 605-06 (2008) (“[I]n those opinions in which transformativeness did play a role, it exerted nearly dispositive force not simply on the outcome of factor one but on the overall outcome of the fair use test.”).

»28. 17 U.S.C. § 107(4) (2015).

»29. See, e.g., Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 566 (1985) (“This last factor is undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use.”).

»30. See, e.g., Beebe, supra note 27, at 621 (“[T]he actual doctrine of the fourth factor consists in practice of a few propositions of law that judges should keep in mind as they synthesize the various factual findings that they have made under the previous factors.”).

»31. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 583, 592 (1994). The one possible exception, which the Court remanded for consideration, was with respect to nonparody rap derivatives of the song. Id. at 593-94.

»32. See, e.g., Sag, supra note 7, at 76-77 (“[A] plaintiff can expect to win a clear majority of cases where there is no indication of transformative use, but otherwise expect to lose all but 38% of the time”).

»33. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579 (“[T]ransformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, . . . . [But] the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors . . . that may weigh against a finding of fair use.”). In other words, the other fair use factors weigh more heavily when a work is not transformative. Id.

»34. Id. at 584-85, 592.

»35. See, e.g., Opening Brief & Addendum for Oracle America, Inc. at 29-37, Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc., Nos. 17-1118, -1202 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2017), 2017 WL 679347.

»36. Id. at 29-30.

»37. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 576 (quoting Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342, 348 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)).

»38. Id. at 579.

»39. Opening Brief & Addendum for Oracle America, Inc., supra note 35, at 47-52.

»40. Id. at 56-60.

»41. Id. at 47-55.

»42. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2017).

»43. Opening Brief & Addendum for Oracle America, Inc., supra note 35, at 47-52, 56-60.

»44. Beebe, supra note 27, at 605.

»45. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 586 (1994).

»46. Id.; Apple Comput., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding that the functional nature of Apple’s software meant that the Apple operating system was “entitled to only limited protection”).

»47. See Pamela Samuelson, Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of its Protection, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1921, 1923 (2007) (“Congress intended for § 102(b) to codify the principal holdings of [Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880)] and its progeny to limit the scope of copyright protection in functional writings, such as [computer] programs.”).

»48. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2015); Samuelson, supra note 47, at 1923.

»49. Samuelson, supra note 47, at 1923.

»50. Clark D. Asay, Software’s Copyright Anticommons, 66 EMORY L.J. 265, 317 (2017).

»51. See generally Margot E. Kaminski & Guy A. Rub, Copyright’s Framing Problem, 64 UCLA L. REV. (forthcoming 2017) (discussing the general difficulty courts often have in determining what constitutes the copyrighted work).

»52. See Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

»53. Asay, supra note 50, at 319-22.

»54. Opening Brief & Addendum for Oracle America, Inc., supra note 35, at 47-52.

»55. One may argue that Google’s use of the APIs suggests there is, in fact, a market for them. But though courts have sometimes engaged in this type of circular reasoning, other courts have refuted it. See, e.g., Ringgold v. Black Entm’t Television, 126 F.3d 70, 81 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Since the issue is whether the copying should be compensable, the failure to receive licensing revenue cannot be determinative in the plaintiff's favor.”).

»56. In fact, though Oracle’s predecessor, Sun, and Google discussed a license to use the Java APIs before negotiations ultimately failed, those discussions were with respect to the entire Java platform, rather than the APIs alone. See Order Denying Rule 50 Motions at 18, Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2016 WL 3181206, at *11 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2016). This reality makes sense since the APIs have no real use in isolation. The same reality also explains why Oracle has no licensing program with respect to just the APIs. Instead, they license Java-based software platforms that incorporate the APIs. See Opening Brief & Addendum for Oracle America, Inc., supra note 35, at 48-52, where Oracle makes clear that the purported market harm is with respect to its Java-based platforms, rather than the APIs in isolation.

»57. See Sony Comput. Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596, 607-08 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding fair use in spite of the defendant using the plaintiff’s software to create its own, functionally-equivalent software that competed with Sony’s PlayStation gaming console); Sega Enters. Ltd., v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1525 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding fair use even though the defendant used Sega’s software to enable its own games to function properly on Sega’s Genesis gaming console, thereby potentially competing with Sega’s own games).

»58. Opening Brief & Addendum for Oracle America, Inc., supra note 35, at 29-37 (citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 591 (1994); Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 237-38 (1990); Gaylord v. United States, 595 F.3d 1364, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 530 (9th Cir. 2008); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007); Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 817-19 (9th Cir. 2003); Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video, 349 F.3d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 2003); Worldwide Church of God v. Phila. Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000); Micro Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107, 1113 & n.6 (9th Cir. 1998)).

»59. Sony, 203 F.3d at 609.

»60. Id. at 606.

»61. Id.

»62. Oracle Am. Inc. v. Google Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 974, 978-79 (N.D. Cal. 2012), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

»63. Sony, 203 F.3d at 606.

»64. Larry Dignan, Google: Oracle, Sun Blew It on a Java Smartphone, CNET (Apr. 18, 2012, 5:46 AM PDT), http://www.cnet.com/news/google-oracle-sun-blew-it-on-a-javasmartphone.

»65. See generally Pamela Samuelson et al., A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 COLUM. L. REV. 2308 (1994) (reviewing software’s unique characteristics and concluding on the basis of them that software should have a sui generis legal regime).

»66. See, e.g., Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., Fair Use and Market Failure: Sony Revisited, 82 B.U. L. REV. 975, 977 (2002).»





Innovation and ideas

2017/05/30

«Dealing with cyber breaches in the supply chain»



Financier Worldwide @FinancierWW



«Given that many multinational corporations have a presence in both developed and emerging markets, it is imperative that they have a robust and well maintained supply chain management structure in place.

»Though supply chains can be hugely beneficial to organisations, they are also a potential liability. All modern supply chains face almost constant risks; from environmental disasters to terrorism, and from global financial crises to political risk, supply chains must be robust and flexible enough to be able to cope with the challenges they face every day. A single broken link in the chain can create a bottleneck which slows or halts production, and have a domino effect on the company’s operations.

»Yet, despite the risks, technological developments have made supply chains more efficient and cost effective. By integrating new technology, companies can improve communication and coordination across thousands of miles and multiple languages. However, managing global supply chains is challenging in its own right, and the added complexity of integrating technology can create myriad risks and potential paths to compromise. Arguably, the reliance of many multinationals on their supply chain is a fillip for cyber criminals, who see the massive financial incentive of breaching a company’s defences. As such, the physical and cyber security elements of supply chains need due care and attention. Failure to address this could be catastrophic.

»One of the most important aspects of supply chain management is a cyber breach containment plan. Many companies’ cyber provisions are often found wanting; a situation exacerbated by the increasing intensity and frequency of cyber attacks. According to a recent Bitglass report, cyber attacks affected 87 percent of organisations in 2016, costing firms billions in fines and lost revenue. Cyber criminals are resourceful, resilient and widespread, capable of causing considerable damage.

»Breached businesses may incur financial penalties and legal costs, as well as reputational damage, a loss of consumer confidence and a possible fall in stock price as their customers also feel the impact of the breach.

»Organisations are putting their faith in outsourcing key backroom functions, often to emerging markets, in search of operational efficiency. Some are outsourcing complex information and communication technology services to help secure their networks and systems in an increasingly threatening cyber landscape. As more companies outsource their software development, acquire open source software products and extensively share their digital information with suppliers, they expose themselves to malicious forces. As a result, supply chains are frequently under attack, becoming infected with malware and facing advanced persistent threats and cyber terrorism.

»Companies must do more to assess the risks they face and protect their assets. This process should include expanding security procedures to include vendors, partners and even customers. Most companies only consider the safety of their own networks, software and digital assets. Protecting these assets must be a priority, but third parties should also be assessed. Further, data protection methods must be extended as far as possible, taking in staff, processes and technology solutions. A company’s cyber security provisions, much like its supply chain, are only as strong as the weakest link. Effective and coordinated provisions are essential.



Organisations are putting their faith in outsourcing key backroom functions, often to emerging markets, in search of operational efficiency. Some are outsourcing complex information and communication technology services to help secure their networks and systems in an increasingly threatening cyber landscape. As more companies outsource their software development, acquire open source software products and extensively share their digital information with suppliers, they expose themselves to malicious forces.

»Emergence of threats

»Supply chains present malicious actors with myriad possible attack vectors. For many breached organisations, the attack that penetrated their defences is often not aimed directly at them, where their resistance is likely to be strongest, but through a back door in their supply chain. While cyber attacks can come from different angles and may have varying motivations, there are huge financial rewards for stealing data. Be it credit card information, medical records or company intellectual property, data is a key driver of cyber crime. With more companies developing and relying on computer systems, and with the Internet of Things becoming a reality, offering much greater of levels of interconnectivity, cyber criminals will continue to innovate and develop new attack vectors.

»For example, the breach of US retailer Target, which allegedly resulted in the loss of up to 110 million records and cost the company millions of dollars in settlements, originated with a third-party supplier in the company’s supply chain. Fazio Mechanical Services, a supplier of heating, ventilation and air conditioning services, was breached, reportedly allowing the malicious party to gain access to Target’s network and, ultimately, its data.

»“Most companies only consider the safety of their own networks, software and digital assets. Protecting these assets must be a priority, but third parties should also be assessed.”

»Supply chains are more reliant than ever on new digital technologies, and more data is shared between organisations electronically every year. According to a November 2016 Cisco report, cloud data traffic is likely to increase 3.7 fold by 2020, up from 3.9 zettabytes (ZB) per year in 2015 to 14.1 ZB per year by 2020. While the migration of data to the cloud offers advantages to big businesses, it also represents a huge challenge for IT and security professionals.

»New technologies, such as machine-to-machine connectivity, remotely guided vehicles and digitally linked smart products, make supply chains easier and cheaper, but they also create new security risks. New technologies often require access to a company’s internal workings, as well as its order lists, customer contracts and other valuable data. To protect their data, companies must thoroughly vet their employees and third parties, restricting access to essential data where applicable.

»Third-party suppliers are a cyber security blindspot for many organisations, particularly as supply chains become more dynamic, growing in size and complexity. Disgruntled or rogue employees in third-party organisations may access data, compromise the supply chain and cause untold damage.

»While malicious employees can be a grave security risk, innocent employees can also, unwittingly, jeopardise supply chains. Staff members may be unaware of potential risks, or unsure of how to defend against them. According to a joint study by Experian Data Breach Resolution and the Ponemon Institute, 55 percent of companies surveyed have experienced a security incident due to a malicious or negligent employee. Further, 60 percent of companies surveyed believe their employees are not knowledgeable or have no knowledge of the company’s security risks. Worryingly, just 35 percent of respondents reported that their senior management believe that employees should be knowledgeable about how data security risks affect their organisation. Acts of negligence or simple human error are highly likely to be the root cause of a cyber breach.



»Mitigation techniques

»So what can companies do to deal with breaches, and hopefully reduce their vulnerability to attack?

»Auditing potential vulnerabilities, though on the surface a daunting task, will provide companies with a valuable insight into their cyber preparedness. Considering potential weaknesses is clearly beneficial.

»This auditing process should be extended throughout the organisation. To withstand cyber breaches, companies must know the intricacies of their own networks. Companies should know what data they hold, where it is stored and who has access to it. Backups of data should be made and access restricted.

»Introducing supply chain risk management processes throughout the corporate structure is a vital step. This process must form part of a ‘big picture’ approach to cyber security. It starts at the top; the c-suite and the board of directors have to establish their approach to cyber risk management. Cyber security is no longer a concern for the IT department alone; entire organisations must take ownership of the issue and strive for greater collaboration. This includes supply chain partners.

»Access to systems and data should be granted on a case-by-case basis, depending on a party’s function within the supply chain. These access privileges should be regularly reviewed. No employee or contractor should be granted access to data or systems beyond what is necessary.

»Data encryption is another valuable tool. It should be adopted on an end-to-end basis, adding another layer to data protection provisions. Data encryption processes should complement overall IT security management. Organisations should also consider services that provide supplier risk ratings or rankings.

»Password and account management policies should be rigorous. Firewalls and network access controls and intrusion detection systems should be in place.

»Companies must also consider keeping some suppliers and other third parties at arm’s length. Forbidding some partners from integrating their systems into the supply chain can be vital for reducing threat vectors. In order to operate such a policy, however, companies must be fully aware of the size of their supply chain. Auditing vendors and suppliers should also determine which third parties they deal with. The only way by which companies will be able to shore up their cyber defences is by knowing exactly who resides within their supply chain.

»In recent years, the cyber liability insurance market has matured, offering companies a variety of viable products. Though insurance is obviously not a deterrent to attackers, and will not protect a supply chain, it should still form part of a company’s cyber management plan. Cyber insurance can help a company to recover financially when breached; the right policy will cover costs associated with responding to a breach, including investigation, notification and legal costs.

»If companies are to fully benefit from a cyber policy, however, they need to understand their insurance needs before they apply. Data auditing will help the company get its house in order.

»Security is the responsibility of all of the constituent parts of the supply chain. All elements within the chain need to come together and implement effective security measures. If vendors, sub-contractors and other third parties are unable to meet the necessary security standards, they are a liability that should be removed.

»Companies need to ensure that third parties’ security policies and procedures are codified, validated and certified. They must clearly define the standards and practices to which they expect their vendors to adhere. Questions around the allocation of liability in the event of a breach must be factored into contracts, along with breach notification requirements.

»Realistically, companies are never going to completely remove cyber security threats from their supply chain. Cyber criminals are resourceful and persistent. However, companies must take the right steps to mitigate this threat wherever possible. The c-suite and the board of directors must know their company’s operations, their supply chain and its vulnerabilities. Ultimately, the challenge of dealing with cyber threats in the supply chain involves managing people and processes. Malicious actors are bold and sophisticated. Though it has delivered cost savings to many organisations, the digital revolution is jeopardising the modern supply chain. As such, it is imperative that companies match the growing ambition and ingenuity of cyber criminals with appropriate resolve. Failure to properly consider key factors will leave organisations, irrespective of their industry and size, open to attack.»





Innovation and discourses

2017/05/29

Newsletter L&I, n.º 150 (2017-05-29)




n.º 150 (2017-05-29)

TAG: # estandardização # estandarización # standardisation
# standardization
L&I Media
L&I Scholar
L&I Blog



Index


TAG: # estandardização # estandarización # standardisation
# standardization


Liderar Inovando BR
Discursos e inovação | Ideias e inovação | Invenções e inovação | Recursos e inovação

«Alain Guiraudie: "Na Vertical" é o meu filme mais queer» [link]

«GE aposta em produtos voltados para Pequenas Centrais Hidrelétricas» [link]

«9 itens simples e criativos que todo carro poderia ter» [link]

«China desenvolve veículo policial capaz de reconhecer criminosos instantaneamente» [link]



Liderar Inovando PT
Discursos e inovação | Ideias e inovação | Invenções e inovação | Recursos e inovação

«Eficiência Energética: Um desafio para as empresas» [link]

«Este carro elétrico pode ser construído em sua casa» [link]

«Em Portugal, são ainda escassos os projectos estruturados e integrados» [link]

«Vem aí o 5G, a rede que vai colocar as máquinas a falar umas com as outras» [link]



Liderar Innovando ES
Discursos e innovación | Ideas e innovación | Inventos e innovación | Recursos e innovación

«VESA crea un grupo de estandarización para las tecnologías de realidad virtual y aumentada» [link]

«Director del IDAC confirma estandarización del sistema aeronáutico nacional» [link]

«La estandarización de IoT llama la atención de Sigfox» [link]

«Cooperativas piden estandarización de normas vitícolas entre Mercosur y la UE» [link]



Mener avec Innovation FR
Discourses et innovation | Idées et innovation | Inventions et innovation | Ressources et innovation

«Poietis lance une nouvelle plateforme de bio-impression et lève des fonds» [link]

La guerre numérique analysée par un ancien agent secret et grand policier. Eric Meillan : « Une attaque peut avoir nécessité plusieurs années de préparation, mais elle va se dérouler à la vitesse de la lumière » [link]

«Harmonisation des normes alimentaires à l’ordre du jour de l’Union africaine» [link]

«La France va développer une filière industrielle de nanosatellites» [link]



Leadership & Innovation EN
Discourses and innovation | Ideas and innovation | Inventions and innovation | Resources and innovation

«To grow business, standardize and automate» [link]

«Offshore Technology Conference OTC 2017: R&D Collaboration, Standardization Are Key To Lower Offshore Costs» [link]

«Standardization Needs Room for Innovation» [link]

«Advertising, Consumption and Standardization in Cuba» [link]




Liderar Inovando BR Liderar Inovando PT Liderar Innovando ES
Mener avec Innovation FR Leadership & Innovation EN


L&I Media


Goiás na liderança da produção industrial brasileira segundo @ibgecomunica. @marconiperillo:"Sou governador do Estado que mais cresce no Brasil" | @diariodegoias [link]

Mercedes-Benz procura 125 talentos para inovar em Lisboa | @ComputerworldPt [link]

"El Vall d´Hebron es mucho más importante que Forbes": César Velasco @Medicinaglobal | @redaccionmedica, Laura Díez [link]

Université d’entreprise : Entretien avec Omar Benaini, Directeur associé de LMS ORH #lms-conseil.co.ma | @lavieeco, Brahim Habriche [link]

Dubai Women Establishment (@Cultural_Office @UAEGBC @DubaiWomenEst @Ashridge_Biz) graduates first class of Emirati women from Innovative Leaders Programme | @Emirates247 [link]



L&I Scholar


Faculdade de Piracicaba promove ciclo de palestras com gestores de RH de multinacionais | @g1piracicaba [link]

Investir para inovar, inovar para internacionalizar | Elisabete Felismino, @ECO_PT [link]

El liderazgo que aburre hasta al mejor empleado | Ivonne Vargas, @ExpansionMx [link]

La generación que transforma a las empresas. La Generación Z crece en México y en el mundo, rompe esquemas organizacionales y construye el futuro de los negocios | Rémy de Cazalet, @Forbes_Mexico [link]

Un cercle vicieux à la tunisienne | Adel Guitouni via @Leaders_Tunisie [link]

Navigating clean energy innovation in the age of Trump | Ron Pernick, @GreenBiz [link]



L&I Blog


Liderança em Tecnologia da Informação | Luiz Dias (Allanis Networks) via Administradores - O Portal da Administração [link]

Inovação e mudança, acompanhando os tempos | Sebastião Feyo De Azevedo via Jornal de Notícias [link]

Conferencia dirigida al sector agrícola presentará innovaciones a nivel mundial. En la cita también se lanzará AGTECH LATAM, el concurso de innovación en nuevas tecnologías en agricultura, alimentos y vinos | Diario Financiero Lab Online [link]

Se Fixer Des Limites Pour Jamais Ne Les Atteindre | Alban Jarry via Forbes.fr [link]

Trois questions à Dave Tang, Directeur général de la division Datacenter de Western Digital | TechTarget, Christophe Bardy @LeMagIT [link]

Incorporating Innovation Into Today's Fast-changing World | Maryjane Wurth (American Hospital Association) via H&HN (Hospitals & Health Networks) [link]





Licencia Creative CommonsLicencia Creative Commons
Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional





Small Singapore has big ideas about innovation culture | @CNBC, @sahelirc








2017/05/26

«Advertising, Consumption and Standardization in Cuba»



Havana Times.org @havanatimes, Rogelio Manuel Diaz Moreno



«The “standardization” process which our country is experiencing is rubbing its impetus right in our face. We don’t have to dig deep into hidden philosophies in order to confirm its progress. The new “normal” flashes its banners, explicit graphic symbols, so as to leave no doubt about it being an irreversible process.

»The images accompany this post are tiny signs of this reality, which had been banished from our country up until recently, but have now become a daily reality. They are the result of the progress that commercial ideology has made, while it has been encouraged. However, very few of us are getting upset by it, less than nobody, pro-government scribes, guardians of a contradictory faith to the extremes of the absurd.

»Commercial advertising was validated by the unfortunate document known as the Conceptualization of the Cuban economic and social model. The tsar of the Cuban economic reforms, Marino Murillo, points out the key to this with a sincerity that is worthy of the best of causes. I heard him speak at one of those Cuban parliamentary sessions broadcast on TV.

»The purpose of a company, Murillo said, “consists of producing a product – or a service – selling it and making a profit.” The local group of free market economists broke out in applause, euphoric. Intermediate level politicians and officials looked to the superior authorities to see what sign would come down. Proof on the street left no room for doubt. In this way, bright ads flourish, with their well-known invitations to consume beer, rum and cigarettes.

»Let’s see if we make sense here. Tobacco is a drug, which causes addiction and health problems which can even result in death. Alcohol, when consumed beyond minimum quantities, does the same thing. For historic and social reasons, alcohol and tobacco are legal recreational drugs, and there are companies which produce and sell them. This is one of the most flagrent examples of the contradiction that exists between individual interest, or a group of individuals’ interest, and that of society on the whole. Business health vs. people’s health.

»Do you remember when our media – government-owned, of course – used to criticize multinational cigarette companies because of their advertising? Is Cuban society going to reproduce this marketing method now, criminally indifferent to human life?

»There is a war of symbols, there’s no doubt about it. Global imperialism makes use of it, parallel to that of rockets and bombs, to crush obstacles to its hegemony. Polychromed Malls, the aesthetic of so many movies and the majority of election mechanisms are just some of the weapons in its powerful armory.

»The then US President Barack Obama came to our country, all arrogant, and gave us a sickly-sweet speech. He certainly made a masterful display of liberalism’s symbolic arsenal. Anyone who was caught off their guard would have had their foot chewed off [1]. Former Cuban president Fidel Castro didn’t like this, and the government’s claque opened fire. “Soft power” tactics as a trick of the US establishment to return Cuba to its back yard were denounced and condemned.

»Nevertheless, capitalist mentalities have been able to take root and establish themselves in our country, despite the government upholding a, seemingly, opposite discourse. The advertising we see isn’t being put out by Ileana Ros [2] and are not funded by USAID.

»The policy makers would argue that this is another way to encourage a boom in a certain economic sector, but it doesn’t allow us to make progress and move towards a healthier and fairer society, the complete opposite in fact. Every time one of these posters is seen, years of appeals, tons of paper and tanks of ink, dedicated to criticizing consumerism, are thrown down the drain.

The “standardization” process which our country is experiencing is rubbing its impetus right in our face. We don’t have to dig deep into hidden philosophies in order to confirm its progress. The new “normal” flashes its banners, explicit graphic symbols, so as to leave no doubt about it being an irreversible process.

»The world of consumerism, idealized and appealing, is thrown into our faces. If, on top of this, the person seeing these ads is a humble, working person with a low income, the publicity compromises their self-esteem and value in society. And to make things worse, the ads aren’t for staple products, but for clearly harmful ones. However, disciples of the reigning ideology will remain selectively close-minded, until one of these ads is placed in the middle of their street.

»In recent days, TV reports have been seen which exhibit the government’s concern about addictions becoming more widespread among Cuban teenagers. They stress the fact that families need to explain more to their youth that such habits are bad. That’s all fine, but they know that today’s youth are seeing these cigarette and alcoholic drinks ads, right?

»Then why don’t they question these ads being put up in public spaces? Are we not as clever as the people in other capitalist countries, who have realized the problem and created laws against these poisonous messages? Could it be that the latter would attack the market and profits of some of us here who take advantage of selling this ill-fated merchandise?

»At the end of the day, everything leads back to Marxism. The mode of property of economic drivers determines production relations, the mentality of society and the moral, ethical principles that are acceptable. As things currently stand, companies are administrated in an opaque manner; they are immune to workers’ control and are targets of systematic embezzlement which the Comptroller’s office denounces but doesn’t manage to reduce it. The working class is being alienated from an economy far from socialist.

»The administrative class, the main beneficiary of these new marketing possibilities, will be provided with private property. A private business class has profit as its main and only objective, in accordance with Darwin’s law of market societies. Public consumerism is the key to its survival and growth and to assure the survival of the system that supports them.

»This class will justify anything, and impose its criteria about what’s “right” and “wrong”. It doesn’t necessarily need to be linked to foreign capitalism in order to reproduce its shortcomings, but if it has the chance, it will speed up the overall downfall of society.

»The influence of foreign multinational companies will lubricate and speed up the adjustment process to capitalist “standardization”. It’s no coincidence that such investments in alcoholic beverages and cigarettes have been taking place in Cuba for quite some time now. Post-reform Cuba, up-to-date with the modern world, “normal”, which the new class of capitalists conjure up, will be full of posters like these.



»[1] Cuban term, expresses the ability to manipulate or cheat.

»[2] Congresswoman of Cuban origin, an active advocate for sanctions against Cuba.»





Innovation and resources

2017/05/25

«Standardization Needs Room for Innovation»



Light Reading @Light_Reading. Mitch Wagner, Editor, Enterprise Cloud News



«Carriers are pushing the limits of network standardization, but they need to be sure to avoid standardizing too soon and stifling innovation.

»"Extensibility is where the magic happens," Pascal Menezes, MEF chief technology officer, said on a panel here Tuesday.

»Extensibility means standardizing APIs but leaving room to add more information. For example, the industry might standardize APIs for "get account," which retrieves financial information and permissions, but later find that it makes sense to also retrieve social relationships -- the user's connections on social networks. "You need to be sure when you're defining the base you leave room for additional components," Menezes said.

»"There's a lot going on. Standardization tends to freeze things," said Dr. Ron Marquardt, Sprint vice president of technology. For example, a year and a half ago, OpenStack proliferated on the cloud, while containers where just emerging. If the industry had formally standardized on OpenStack, it would have missed out on innovation.

"There's a lot going on. Standardization tends to freeze things," said Dr. Ron Marquardt, Sprint vice president of technology. For example, a year and a half ago, OpenStack proliferated on the cloud, while containers where just emerging. If the industry had formally standardized on OpenStack, it would have missed out on innovation.

»Victoria Lonker, Verizon executive director for network and virtual solutions, agreed. "We don't want to stifle that innovation, and the ability for different companies to offer different solutions that are differentiated for different customer needs," she said.

»Standards are maturing in connectivity, but standardized services via network functions virtualization (NFV) are further away, said Andrew Dugan, Level 3 Communications chief technology officer.

»Open source and formal standards will complement each other, panelists said. The standards process is slow and open source can help inform it, Marquardt said. The industry went from a heavy standards focus, to all open source, and back to the middle, Menezes said.

»Carriers face a challenge when mixing intellectual property with standards and open source. In the US at least, it's difficult to patent software, so it's hard for service providers to share their own intellectual property and maintain competitive advantage, Lonker said. "We're developing our own IP. How do you take that IP and share it but keep it in house so it doesn't hurt your right to get to market quickly?" she asked.

»To watch the full panel discussion, click on the video below





Innovation and inventions

2017/05/24

«Offshore Technology Conference OTC 2017: R&D Collaboration, Standardization Are Key To Lower Offshore Costs»



E&P Magazine @Hart_EPMag, Velda Addison Senior Editor, Digital News Group Hart Energy.



«Pressured by limited budgets and shareholder demands, oil and gas companies are searching for ways to improve returns and better allocate capital, leaving some to wonder whether complex deepwater projects can compete with headline-grabbing, lower-cost shale plays.

»“From our view, the answer is a resounding yes,” Roy Krzywosinski, vice president of global facilities engineering for Chevron, said May 2 at OTC [Offshore Technology Conference @OTCHouston]. “Deepwater resources still represent significant opportunity.”

»But making the most of the opportunity requires R&D collaboration and standardization among industry players, according to Krzywosinski. It’s an area that has seen plenty of action in recent years as the downturn ushered in more partnerships to reduce development costs and cycle times.

»Yet there have been challenges, and they less often concern intellectual property. Collaboration can be time-consuming.

»Krzywosinski pointed out that it has been reported that it can take up to 15 years to develop and deploy a new technology. A fair amount of time is taken before research even begins—establishing the collaborative effort, determining work scopes and building alignment, he said, noting it could take one to three years when the goal should be one year or less. Between five and eight years are typically spent on most of the research, and the lack of a funding model plays a critical role.

»“We need to provide appropriate funding levels to move the research along in a predictable manner,” Krzywosinski added. Deployment could take between three to seven years, but such opportunities should be a focus along the entire timeline.

»While the time line may vary depending on the type of technology being developed, the bottom line is essentially the same—the process takes too long. The cycle time needs to be reduced by 50%, Krzywosinski said.

»“You can’t stand still in this place or you’ll get lost. You don’t want to get in there and play ‘whack a mole’ for one or three years,” he said in response to questions. It’s an area in which the deepwater industry can learn from the shale industry, which has taken a manufacturing approach to operations, shortening drilling times and costs.

»Successful R&D collaboration should take a lean, simplified approach to administration, focusing on quick delivery of solutions with targeted development time lines to address specific business needs, Krzywosinski said. Those involved must also agree on a “clearly defined scope,” which he admitted is easier said than done with the chances of “competing interests coming into play.”

Standardization also has the potential to lead to higher returns in the current price environment.

»“Too often the critical conversation that underpins a successful deployment is held way, way too late in the R&D development cycle,” he said. “In terms of technology, it should go without saying that the more you deploy technology, the higher your return on investment is. If we’re not prepared to implement the technology that we develop then we’re wasting a lot of time, resources and effort.”

»As the industry evolves, its R&D collaboration model needs to as well. He used the DeepStar program as an example. The program, a joint industry technology project focused on deepwater technologies, was formed in 1991. Its creation has given birth to several technologies used today such as steel lazy wave risers and deepwater mooring reliability. But time has brought changes—some operators involved in the project have moved out of the deepwater space, he said. Targeted assets are different, and new technological obstacles exist.

»The environment has led to a new Offshore Operators Committee enhanced program framework. At the framework’s center is a smaller, more focused R&D core surrounded by what Krzywosinski called operator-led “a la carte projects” funded by those needing specific solutions.

»The new framework will be released soon, Krzywosinski said, after announcing the DeepStar is signing up additional operators.

»Standardization also has the potential to lead to higher returns in the current price environment.

»Objectives should include prioritizing the highest value opportunities, developing procurement-ready packages and eliminating preferential engineering, according to Krzywosinski. There is a business case in standardization, although the size of the prize may differ; suppliers can help by helping pinpoint areas where cost-savings are possible.

»Chevron sees standardization along with R&D collaboration as a “critical success factor moving forward.”

»“We need to have, as an industry, a sense of urgency. We’re essentially in a race to make deepwater resources as cost competitive as possible,” Krzywosinski said. “Costs must come down and ultimately recovery must go up. As in the past, technology plays a key role.”»





Innovation and ideas

2017/05/23

«To grow business, standardize and automate»



Morningstar @MorningstarInc



«Sheryl Rowling of Rowling & Associates offers her best tips for maintaining quality client service while having a personal life. This article initially appeared on Morningstar's US website from where it has been taken.

»How does an adviser grow business while maintaining quality client service and a personal life? Sheryl Rowling, principal for Rowling & Associates, addressed this question at the 2017 Morningstar Investment Conference.

»The solution is to scale, which Rowling defines as a combination of standardization and automation.

»Many advisers worry that standardization will take away a client's personalized experience. Rowling says the client experience will always be custom.

»"Even if you have the same model for each client, it will be individualized because they will have different goals,” she said. Having standardized workflows enables the head of the firm to focus on clients and less on employee management.

»"If there are standardized workflows in your CRM, then that service model can be duplicated by any number of employees in your company and gives clients a consistent experience," she said.

»Rowling identified four building blocks to standardize and automate a practice: client process, investment strategy, portfolio management, and billing and reporting. Rowling recommends starting the client experience with an intake questionnaire.

Many advisers worry that standardization will take away a client's personalized experience. Rowling says the client experience will always be custom. "Even if you have the same model for each client, it will be individualized because they will have different goals,” she said.

»Understanding a client's expectations enables an adviser to weed out those that will require more time than can be afforded. "You want to screen out people who will be high work, but low fees. You don't want a client coming in saying they're hoping to get a 12% return each year," she said. An investment strategy with a limited number of simple models and no exceptions will save an adviser time.

»Models should have broad categories, and each should produce a significant difference from the other. It's not efficient to have many, similar, complicated models. Rowling chooses to work with five distinct models that are never modified despite a client's preference.

»"I'll have clients that will say they don't want real estate, and I'll say to them your real estate isn't diversified." Advisers shouldn't exclude an asset class "just because a client isn’t comfortable with it. You need to educate them."

»Furthermore, Rowling focuses her time on what she knows. She focuses on fund managers, not individual stocks. She's not trying to add value by beating the market. She believes value comes from return that is risk-free.

»Automation is key for portfolio management, specifically rebalancing portfolios and tax reporting. Rowling argues that using spreadsheets is too timely and error-prone. Automated rebalancing software saves advisors time. "Most [advisers] are rebalancing four or five times a year. Why that schedule? It's a lot of work.

»If you have automated rebalancing, you will see when clients are out of balance and you can modify it in a couple minutes and it will be right and accurate and you're not going to have trade errors." Scaling a business without sacrificing client service and a personal life is possible.

»Standardizing and automating practices will ensure consistency and offer peace of mind. There will be less room for error, increased compliance, and opportunity for continued growth.»





Innovation and discourses

2017/05/22

Newsletter L&I, n.º 149 (2017-05-22)




n.º 149 (2017-05-22)

TAG: # automação # automatización # automatisation # automation
L&I Media
L&I Scholar
L&I Blog



Index


TAG: # automação # automatización # automatisation # automation


Liderar Inovando BR
Discursos e inovação | Ideias e inovação | Invenções e inovação | Recursos e inovação

«Pepe Mujica: “Responsabilidade do Brasil é continental”» [link]

«Sepultura critica ‘robotização’ do mundo» [link]

«Robotização é caminho sem volta, diz executivo da Microsoft» [link]

«Hotéis conectados: confira tendências tecnológicas para o setor» [link]



Liderar Inovando PT
Discursos e inovação | Ideias e inovação | Invenções e inovação | Recursos e inovação

«"Robotização e espaço" são prioridades para o novo Plano Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia» [link]

«Robotização mata o trabalho e reduz o peso dos salários nas economias» [link]

«A digitalização da morte» [link]

«PCP quer criar taxa sobre lucros das empresas para garantir futuro da Segurança Social» [link]



Liderar Innovando ES
Discursos e innovación | Ideas e innovación | Inventos e innovación | Recursos e innovación

«La patronal logística UNO defiende exenciones fiscales para la incorporación de robots en las empresas» [link]

«DHL impulsa la robotización de sus instalaciones» [link]

«Robotización que perpetúa el subempleo» [link]

«La robotización reducirá la ventaja competitiva de los países asiáticos con mano de obra barata» [link]



Mener avec Innovation FR
Discourses et innovation | Idées et innovation | Inventions et innovation | Ressources et innovation

«La nouvelle “classe inutile” ? Comment un millennial sur deux pourrait se retrouver en concurrence avec un robot» [link]

«Prague veut anticiper la robotisation de l'économie» [link]

«Comment l'industrie automobile française accélère sa robotisation» [link]

« Robotisation du travail : les robots mieux que les hommes? » [link]



Leadership & Innovation EN
Discourses and innovation | Ideas and innovation | Inventions and innovation | Resources and innovation

«The economic and social consequences of robotization» [link]

«Robotization Without Taxation?» [link]

«Russia’s Military Robots Are on the Move» [link]

«Restructuring retail: Tens of thousands laid off» [link]




Liderar Inovando BR Liderar Inovando PT Liderar Innovando ES
Mener avec Innovation FR Leadership & Innovation EN


L&I Media


Juegos Miami @juegosmiami vai debater o futuro da regulação na América Latina | @GamesBras [link]

Maioria dos portugueses atribui grande importância à visita do Papa Francisco | @RTPNoticias [link]

Arrancó el primer Foro de Jóvenes Líderes de Pueblos Originarios del Paraguay | @LaNacionPy [link]

Radar de la Innovación | @KWP_ESP [link]

Bimbo, El Pozo y Pepsico, los fabricantes de gran consumo más innovadores. Radar de la Innovación de @KWP_ESP | @elperiodico [link]

Novojob @NovojobM première plateforme de recrutement en ligne en Afrique : Des solutions innovantes | #ElMoudjahid.com [link]

Fair @stancofair brings back empowHER Lounge | @turlockjournal [link]



L&I Scholar


Em busca da liderança perdida | Editorial @Estadao [link]

#NOS.pt distingue empresas com soluções inovadoras | @dntwi, Marta Velho [link]

Buenaventura y Cali abren Mes de Afrocolombianidad con África Global | Paula Marcela Moreno @ManosVisibles via @lasillavacia [link]

Disruption: Destruction ou Construction? | Agnès Gabirout Perron via @letemps [link]

Disruptive Innovation 2.0 | Gina Acosta via @RtlLdr [link]



L&I Blog


Eventos de negócios. Participar de eventos corporativos é uma forma de combinar teoria e prática de negócios | @dconline [link]

Quando os doentes e familiares inventam soluções que a medicina não dá | @observadorpt, Marlene Carriço [link]

La conferencia Emerging Technologies Caribbean (EmTech) reunió en República Dominicana a líderes e innovadores tecnológicos más influyentes | @ElCaribeRD [link]

Dix startups montpelliéraines en déplacement au Maroc | @eMetropolitain, Nadira Belkacem [link]

The 7 Skills Every Millennial Leader Needs to Succeed | @bizzwriter, @Inc [link]





Licencia Creative CommonsLicencia Creative Commons
Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional