Over the past few years, I’ve looked at the emerging market in document collaboration. Changes in attitude along with new technologies are changing how we create, edit, and publish documents. This is an important development because documents lie at the heart of so much business activity. As an analyst, this is obviously important to me; much of our business centers on documents such as briefs and market reports. As much as we like to think in terms of applications, businesses run on reports, brochures, web sites, and contracts, all of which are documents. From a business perspective, document collaboration works the same no matter the technology base. Someone, or more
Software patents have been in the news of late. Just this week, the Supreme Court of the United States (also known as SCOTUS) has taken up the subject once more with Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International. In the world of collaboration, there was also a significant announcement regarding software patents, in this case patent infringement. As part of their ongoing litigation with Box, going back to June of 2013 related to a group of 12 groupware, marketing messaging, and file synchronization patents, OpenText revealed that they would be seeking damages of US$268M. That sounds like a big number but that’s only in addition to forcing Box to stop selling
As many of you know I have more than a passing fancy with intellectual property (IP). Anyone who is in a creative or technical profession should as well since this is the lifeblood of what you do. In fact, IP is what we all do whether we write code or write market reports. Getting up to speed on IP, while important, is a difficult chore for many of us better schooled in bits and bytes than in SLIP opinions and patent disclosures. Seminars are expensive and books are often written for lawyers not business people. A new company, founded by some friends and colleagues of mine, is trying to rectify
Hey followers, leaders, and fans, I’ll be speaking at Informatica World in Las vegas on May 13, 2014 at the Cosmopolitan Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. The topic is Enterprise Test Data Management. While I still focus on enterprise applications that are end-user and customer facing, I’ve been drawn back to the developer community lately. There so much going on, especially now that Agile development methods have taken hold, that it’s hard to not to be interested in it. It’s also just a dynamic community. Anyway, if you are planning to be there and are one of my readers, come to my talk. I’m going to try and
Over the past few years, I’ve looked at the emerging market in document collaboration. Changes in attitude along with new technologies are changing how we create, edit, and publish documents. This is an important development because documents lie at the heart of so much business activity. As an analyst, this is obviously important to me; much of our business centers on documents such as briefs and market reports. As much as we like to think in terms of applications, businesses run on reports, brochures, web sites, and contracts, all of which are documents.
From a business perspective, document collaboration works the same no matter the technology base. Someone, or more than one person, creates a document, it is reviewed, edited, reviewed again, a consensus reached on its suitability for publication, and then it’s published. Afterwards, there may be sharing, comments, cataloging, and archiving as well. What’s interesting is how many different ways there seems to be to manage documents in a collaborative environment.
Looking at the technology landscape for document collaboration, there seems to be four models that have taken hold. They are:
- Cloud file sharing. This is the method favored by companies such as Box or Dropbox. You upload a file from a typical office application and then view, comment, and annotate from within the file repository.
- Social network sharing. This is similar to the cloud file method. Files are uploaded into a enterprise social network group and shared. The difference is that files are placed into a group conversation as opposed to having a conversation centered on the file. Functionally, they are otherwise the same.
- Enterprise content management. ECM products, including Microsoft SharePoint, are starting to look more like cloud file storage and enterprise social networks. They, however, support more formal workflows and have features that insure version integrity such as check-in/check-out.
- Application. By adding social and sharing features to applications themselves, collaborative document creation can be controlled from the point of creation. Google Apps, IBM Docs, and Microsoft Office365 are prime examples of this philosophy. Collaboration takes place entirely in the context of the document creation and editing tools.
There are advantages to each of these model. The ECM offers more control over the production process which is why it is especially important to creative organizations with high output requirements. The cloud file and social network methods favor a looser style of collaboration with conversations taking the place of more formal workflows. The later has the advantage of weaving document collaboration into the context of other types of collaborative work that doesn’t rely on documents or files. The application method is the more likely to be the one that is favored by the actual creators of documents since it keeps the work inside the applications they use most. A key advantage to the application method is the ability to place conversations and comments right next to the actual piece of content that is the topic of the discussion. That makes editing much easier.
Some companies have decided to let the user choose. IBM and Microsoft are example of companies whose products support all of these document collaboration styles. Microsoft, for example, has a cloud file sharing and collaboration product (OneDrive), social network (Yammer), ECM product (SharePoint), and, of course, collaboration-enabled applications as part of the Office365 suite.
Document collaboration is one of the most important aspects of business life. For some professionals, it is the central activity. Each type of document collaboration method has its merits but the future will favor the companies that provide which knowledge workers with a choices that match job functions and circumstances.
Software patents have been in the news of late. Just this week, the Supreme Court of the United States (also known as SCOTUS) has taken up the subject once more with Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International. In the world of collaboration, there was also a significant announcement regarding software patents, in this case patent infringement. As part of their ongoing litigation with Box, going back to June of 2013 related to a group of 12 groupware, marketing messaging, and file synchronization patents, OpenText revealed that they would be seeking damages of US$268M. That sounds like a big number but that’s only in addition to forcing Box to stop selling its products. $268 million dollars is nothing to sneeze at but putting a halt to sales is much worse. But wait, there’s more. According to the complaint, OpenText doesn’t just want Box to stop selling their products. They want to them to “recall and collect from all persons and entities that have purchased any and all products”, “destroy or deliver all such infringing products to OpenText”, and “disable all applications providing access to all such infringing software; and destroy all infringing software that exists on hosted systems. Basically, they say they want Box to stop operating.
The defense that Box lays out in publicly available documents is thus: the patents are invalid hence there is no infringement. They claim that the file synchronization patents are invalid due to prior art which means that the technology existed before inventor came up with the idea described in the patents. They also claim that the groupware patents are just ordinary invention and that any competent software engineer could have come up with the idea of combining collaboration applications with a browser delivery model over the Internet.
There are risks here for both parties. A court may find that all of the OpenText patents are either prior art or obvious combinations of prior art. This would invalidate the patents and make for a big win for Box. It would also be a big win for many other cloud technology companies that market similar products. Document collaboration is becoming a major feature of office productivity, enterprise social network, and online file sharing software. Businesses constantly collaborate on content creation, editing, and publishing, and the development of software to facilitate this is on the rise.
It may also be found that all the OpenText patents are valid and that Box is infringing on those patents. If this happens, the OpenText wins big and the court will determine how to compensate OpenText and what to do about the software that Box is selling. OpenText has asked the court to tell Box to stop selling the products it thinks are infringing, effectively shutting down either important features or even the entire business. With so many patents and claims in the mix, however, it’s also possible that the court will decide that Box is infringing on some but not all of the patents. That’s still win for OpenText. They can still claim harm and demand compensation and an order to keep Box from continuing to sell infringing products.
The devastating demand that Box stop selling their product is pretty common language in patent infringement suits. The complainant demands death for the competitor but they end up with a settlement of some sort, often a cross-licensing deal or an on-going royalty payment. A fair monetary settlement that comes short of beating Box to death with a club is in the interest of both parties. In that instance, Box would likely pay royalties in the short term until they could change their product enough that they no longer infringed on the patents. If other technology patent infringement suits are a guide, this is the most likely outcome. On-going litigation, including appeals, only burn cash and harm the market for everyone. It’s in neither company’s interest to have this continue on, especially now that it’s in the open.
The real effect on Box will be to, once again, call into question their viability as a business ahead of going public. They are losing money and now they are getting pounded with an expensive lawsuit. That’s not going to boost their stock price after IPO or raise customer confidence in the enterprise market. That’s a pity since the Enterprise Box product is excellent, combining the kind of features that facilitate document-oriented collaboration. For OpenText,the lawsuit coulr prove to be a distraction both internally and externally. Instead of journalists and analysts talking about their new Tempo line of collaboration products, the news will about this lawsuit. It’s also likely that lots of other companies will start to look for prior art to invalidate the patents if they think OpenText might prevail. A settlement with a royalty stream attached, however, will bolster OpenText’s ability to extract the same compensation from Box’s competitors if they use the same methods. They can effectively slow their competitors’ penetration of the enterprise collaboration market while funding their own entry with the money of their competitors.
That would be a strategic use of their intellectual property portfolio and not just a reflexive move. It might be worth seeing what else OpenText has in its portfolio…