Ruminations on Russia

It's been a while since I have had the energy or inclination to take on a larger subject. The complexities of IP protection and rights in Russia, and to an extent Ukraine, have been exercising my grey matter for a while. To be clear this is not an attempt to engage in any beneficial lobbying for the software, film, music industries. With both Russia and Ukraine somewhere close to the top of the list of countries that peddle in pirated goods. M$oft, the music and film industries are already effectively lobbying the government. The issue in Russia is not about the law but the enforcement of it. In Ukraine the law needs to be implemented. What this post is about is the region's ability to turn its undoubted mathematical and scientific achievements in product-driven companies that compete in global markets.

So what is the problem that vexes the tiny group of us engaged in financing and developing high tech markets in Russia and Ukraine. The good news is that, in Russia at least, patent laws are well developed and clearly and definitively adhere to international norms. There is even a suggestion that they are actually well written, though that is beyond my competence to judge. As an entrepreneur or academic wishing to protect an invention specifically in Russia it is relatively easy, and cheap, to apply for a patent from RusPatent and subsequently to prosecute believed infringements of that patent. The process of transferring patents and patent applications owned by Russian firms to foreign ones is also very straight forward; as you would expect in a country that has no balance sheet recognition of soft/intangible assets. As with many aspects of Russian law the courts ability to understand and make coherent decisions based on the law may be lacking. As I have written before there are a number of international bodies training Russian judges and lawyers to help them make coherent decisions. As judges remain significantly under-paid they will remain vulnerable to bribery especially at the lower end of the judicial chain.

Russia's domestic firms are not major consumers of technology, and especially Russian developed technology. Nor have they developed the ability of Huawei, for example, to copy and turn out Cisco-like products. The lack of entrepreneurial and management abilities that mean that so much Russia-related technology remains unlocked potential also means that intellectual property theft is fairly low-level and certainly no greater than the usual academic spats over original ideas.

The issue that is frequently insurmountable relates to ownership of ideas. Many of the truly disruptive ideas that we come across in our trawls through the local high-tech universe were born in Universities and other government-funded high tech institutes and firms. The current Minister of Science and Technology has been trying to lay out the ground rules as to how to assign ownership rights but like many reforms they are being roundly ignored at the operating level.

By way of an example. A company which we are doing some background due diligence on, and we have to like it to be doing this work, is based on an invention by a core group of scientists which itself is the subject of a patent which in turn refers to the Institute at which they were working at the time of the invention. This patent was written before the collapse of the Soviet Union and so was the property of the State. No great issues so far. The company on which the invention is founded is willing to cede some ownership to the Institute in recognition of its role in funding the discovery. But as the discovery was funded by the State actually the property belongs to the Ministry of State Property. And that is where the black hole starts and continues into infinite nothingness. The Ministry cannot take ownership in private companies and certainly not in ones that are created in Delaware. It cannot transfer its ownership back to the Institute but continues to insist on its ownership rights. So this would appear to be circular black hole where we continually arrive back at the starting point.

Given what would very likely be a legal opinion that would focus on the inherent negative in financing a company which probably does not own its invention another disruptive technology will probably stay on the shelf.