SEO Werkt!

If you live on Malibu’s 21 miles of coast, chances are that you’re in spitting distance of a property owned by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison.

Ellison divides his time between dozens of homes around the world. The Wall Street Journal once referred to him as the nation’s most avid “trophy home buyer.” Ellison has spent hundreds of millions on top-shelf properties, and currently owns a Hawaiian island, and mansions in Rhode Island, San Francisco, Japan, and Woodside, California, to name a few.

Ellison reportedly owns nine properties on Malibu’s Carbon Beach

But the Los Angeles Times reports that the world’s third richest individual has set his sights on Malibu, and may have dropped anchor in the neighborhood. He reportedly scooped up at least nine beach front homes on Carbon Beach, spending an estimated $200 million to $250 million.

If that wasn’t enough, Ellison also purchased a wooded estate in a gated retreat, an inland tennis club, Casa Malibu Inn, and coastal restaurant property, according to a public real estate search. The chief executive owns at least 22 properties in the beach community.

It’s not entirely clear what he intends to do with his purchases, but in a rare interview with CNBC, Ellison revealed plans to turn one of the properties into a small art museum.

Why the obsession with Malibu? Aside from the perpetually sunny weather, now in his late 60s, he may intend to spend more time with his kids. Daughter Megan is the Hollywood producer behind indie hit Zero Dark Thirty and son, David, is also in the movie business.

Carbon beach photo credit: Gypsy D via photopin cc

Filed under: Business

Editor’s Note: Semil Shah (@semil) is currently an EIR with Javelin Venture Partners.

There was a time in the United States when federal and local governments could initiate and orchestrate big, sweeping infrastructure projects. One of the most notable was the establishment of the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration, a post-war public works project to connect an enormous nation and bolster its defenses. It also helped unlock a new era of interstate commerce. Decades later, the government tried again with the creation of Amtrak, but for a host of reasons, well, that hasn’t really worked out. Instead, success came in aviation, which further accelerated economic growth, and the rise of the American (and eventually global) automotive industry, which created many jobs, ignited technological progress, and fueled the country’s renewed investment in building more roads and settling more suburban areas, all the while selling more cars as part of the new American dream.

The country’s transportation-related feats are impressive, in many regards. We can freely drive coast to coast in a few days, with relatively cheap gas along the way. Passengers can fly to virtually any part of all 50 states within a day. While rail has been either neglected or the victim of politics, it’s no matter — the nation has put a man a moon and, just this week, engineered a system to land full-fledged roving vehicle on the surface of Mars! Yet, on Earth, on American soil, the nation can no longer make basic transportation connections or improvements. It took years for the New York City metro area to figure out how to “efficiently“ connect its subway system with its two airports. The region with the highest road traffic density — the Northeast Corridor, from NYC to Boston — had their plan to retrofit rail to handle high-speed cars stopped by individual land owners protecting private property rights. In the Bay Area, we simply can’t link Caltrain to BART in the city’s downtown area. The public wants cheap transportation and access for all, but either no one wants to pay for it or they don’t want to give up their property to see it happen. And, here we are…

A decade into the 21st Century, oftentimes it feels easier to get from JFK to LAX than it is to get from the upper west side to JFK itself. The transportation choices for citizens, especially on an intra-city basis, are far from optimal. Combine that with a sagging economy, a struggling domestic auto industry, rising gas prices, and dangerously attractive auto financing terms, and consumers are going to start experimenting with alternative means of getting from point A to point B. And it is here where entrepreneurs have been creating new behavioral models around transportation, leveraging social data, mobile devices, and marketplace inefficiencies to reinvent how we get around.

Car-sharing as a peer-to-peer transaction is fueling the charge. Ever since Zipcar emerged as a new model to give consumers an access to a predetermined fleet of cars, the public, especially in dense urban areas, have begun to see car ownership not only as a financial burden and logistical headache, but also as something that is harmful to their local environments. As a membership-based company, Zipcar’s success even motivated incumbent car rental companies to experiment with different rental models, as well as paving the way for an entire fleet of new companies trying to create innovative solutions in the space.

In the past few years, serious new enterprises have formed to tackle this overall problem with a variety of models. Uber, which started as Ubercab, is probably the most high-profile of the new breed of transportation-related startups, and recently expanded its offerings from providing private black town cars on demand to electric vehicles (and ice cream trucks). A few months ago, their newest product, UberX, came after a San Francisco-based Sidecar became more known to the city’s inhabitants, which offered a new kind of smartphone-enabled car service with a fleet of private citizens, vetted by the company, who would use their own vehicles as taxis. At the same time, Zimride, a ride-sharing company already serving many key corridors such as SF to LA and SF to Tahoe, launched a new product, “Lyft,” which is quite similar to Sidecar except that Lyft drivers are asked to place big, pink, furry mustaches on the grills of their cars for easy identification. (Note that Sidecar and Lyft use community-driven “donation” models for paymens, and like Uber, allow both driver and rider to rate each other.) While Zimride was launching Lyft, yet another startup - Ridejoy - was posing competition on social ridesharing routes.

We’re not done yet. So far we’ve covered services where someone else drives you around. But, what about when you want to take the wheel, sort of like Zipcar? Well, you’re in luck, because there are great new companies opening up these new markets, too. In no particular order, you have Wheelz, a marketplace for people to book or list other peoples’ cars; Getaround, similar to Wheelz, which wowed crowds last year by announcing that Berkshire Hathaway would cover driver insurance and built their own mobile app-powered remote locking system ; RelayRides, which is also similar with a slightly different revenue model; and a slew of international players in this space, such as Whipcar in the United Kingdom. And, if you want to get around with a slightly different style, there’s Local Motion, Scooter Networks, and while I haven’t seen them all, I’d bet there are ways to rent out your bike, skateboard, or even rollerblades.

Initially, I was skeptical of these models. But after some time, it all became clearer to me. This summer, I’ve been commuting more from downtown Palo Alto to SOMA in San Francisco via Caltrain, and then have to lumber up to the Embarcadero. I chronicled the different services I’ve used here, but all in all, in six weeks so far, I haven’t used a cab or Uber town car all summer — I just Lyft, Sidecar, or walk. I haven’t used cash for any of these, either, and most often, these rides are about 40% less than what a typical taxi would have charged, and just 2-3x what it would cost on public transit. I’ve yet to try the car-rental models like Getaround and RelayRides, but after suffering through a few traditional rental car experiences this summer, and considering the listings on these services are increasing, I’m sure I’ll be both a consumer and provider on these marketplaces. I’ve even thought of listing my car on Airbnb as a place to sleep at night, as its legal to sleep in a car in Palo Alto, as I hear real estate here is going through the roof.

Speaking of Airbnb, these fleetless car-sharing marketplaces are really similar to the big apartment and home-listing site. In the few months I’ve been a consumer and preparing myself to list my 10-year old European sedan, consumer mindset seems to have shifted slightly. It turns out that many folks are totally OK with getting a ride by a stranger in that stranger’s car, or renting out their car to someone for a few hours or a few days. In many cases, it turns out, it’s easier than hailing a taxi in San Francisco and dealing with a rental agency and their archaic rules. And, investors in these companies are actually using them, too, most notably a Getaround investor who made a few thousand per month listing his two cars and a RelayRides investor who actually bought a nice used car exclusively to list on the site, calculating he could actually make money over time after paying off the car.

The potential of these markets are huge, though getting to the promised land won’t be easy. As Uber has learned, these new models, while providing more choices (and cheaper prices) to consumers, can also stoke fears among those entrenched interests who have the most to lose. A few years ago, Airbnb had to fight off the hotel lobby in various cities who were threatened by the enormous market the young company was opening up. In a similar way, city medallion holders and car rental companies may, over time, see some of their markets threatened by companies who don’t manage fleet inventory but rather route supply to demand and take a cut of the transaction.

At the end of the day, yes, there will be roadblocks, but I’m bullish on this consumer trend, especially considering how congested many cities are becoming and governments’ overall inability to gather enough consensus (or funds) to actually build sufficient infrastructure. Just using some of these services over the past few months has impressed upon me that these aren’t just new markets, they’re actually movements. It’s strangers coming together, it’s new opportunities for work, it’s helping other people out, and it’s extracting rents from assets that would otherwise be laying dormant. Nearly every Lyft or Sidecar driver I’ve had, in addition to being genuine and courteous, was either trying to supplement income during a job transition or had just moved to the city to start their careers. They found it was a good way to pass the time, to meet people, to learn the city, and help make rent. If citizens can’t get the transportation systems they need from governments, we’ll have no choice to make new ones ourselves. That is sort of what’s happening, and as a transportation junkie, it’s just awesome to watch unfold.

Photo Credit: Creative Commons Flickr / Ansalve

At the end of the day, your business comes down to numbers — low overhead, high revenue, increasing net profits, and even expanding social media reach. A valuation is an incredibly attractive number that intimidates competition and attracts potential investors, but how can entrepreneurs accurately value their business when it’s still a fledgling startup?

We asked 10 young entrepreneurs for their top tips for putting an accurate valuation on an early-stage company. Here’s what they had to say:

Forget the potential

Devesh Dwivedi, @Break9to5Jail, Breaking The 9 To 5 Jail

Your business is pretty useless for valuation purposes because you can’t put a value on it, or even say with a certain degree of confidence that it will grow as big as its potential. MySpace and other players in social networking had the same potential as Facebook, but today, each of them have different valuations. Look at facts and capacity, not potential.

Ask around!

Stephanie Kaplan, @stephaniekaplan, Her Campus Media

As an early-stage startup, you’re probably not going to be valued based on revenues or other typical metrics used for valuing larger companies. Your valuation is going to be much more subjective. To get a sense of what it might be, ask different players what they would value you at — VCs, angels, advisors, big companies — and see if the figures gravitate towards a similar number.

Consider the ramifications

Doreen Bloch, @DoreenBloch, Poshly Inc.

Entrepreneurs in early-stage firms can benefit from low valuations. When your stock is cheap, it benefits new employees and investors who can still get in at the ground level. Before pursuing a 409A or other formal valuation of your firm by an accounting or advisory company, make sure you speak with advisors and understand the implications of getting your firm formally valued.

Be reasonable and relative

Nathan Lustig, @nathanlustig, Entrustet

Look around and see what other companies similar to yours are being valued at. If you’re in Chicago, you need to look at other Chicago companies, not the latest and greatest in Silicon Valley. Then pick a number that’s justifiable to both you and your potential investors. Make sure not to make it too high, or you will scare off investors or risk having a down round later in the process.

There’s no such thing!

Matt Mickiewicz, @sitepointmatt, Flippa

Valuations for early-stage companies are all over the map. Tech startups always demand higher premiums than retail companies. Businesses with traction and paying customers are usually better valued than mere concepts, and the history of the team and even their geographic location can impact valuation by up to three times. It’s more important to have the right investors than the right valuation.

Read up on intellectual property

Thursday Bram, @thursdayb, Hyper Modern Consulting

Most of the value in a startup is the intellectual property, but the average entrepreneur doesn’t know enough about the topic. Since you can’t copyright an idea, you need to know what your company owns that you can put a dollar value on.

Speak up!

John Hall, @tweetJohnHall, Digital Talent Agents

Don’t be scared to ask for help. Turn to a mentor or advisor who has a background in valuations. Accurate valuations could have more variables than you would consider. Someone with more experience in the industry and in valuing companies is less likely to miss a material influencer in value.

Comparables are key

Nicolas Gremion, Foboko.com

Comparables are essential. Base your valuation, and support it, using industry comparables. The closer they represent your company — not only in model but also in size — the better. It’s the most accurate comparison you can make.

Are your projections valid?

Brent Beshore, @BrentBeshore, AdVentures

Be reasonable. Investors are looking for returns, so the higher the possibilities, the less ownership they will have to take for the same amount of money to generate a higher return. Your job is to convince them that your projections are valid.

Free cash flow to the firm

Lucas Sommer, @audimated, Audimated

I see a lot of entrepreneurs value their company based on future values, invested time and money, emotion, and other unsubstantial metrics. The only thing that matters (besides patents and intellectual property) is your free cash flow to the firm — what does the firm make when all of its expenses and obligations are paid? That’s the number you want to use in your valuation.

The Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC)is an invite-only nonprofit organization comprised of the world’s most promising young entrepreneurs. The YEC recently published #FixYoungAmerica: How to Rebuild Our Economy and Put Young Americans Back to Work (for Good), a book of 30+ proven solutions to help end youth unemployment.

Image via gingerbeardman/Flickr

Filed under: Entrepreneur, VentureBeat

Old advertising on barns is an acquired taste, but once acquired people can become passionate about an installment, as if the work in question is public art, not advertising for a product no longer available. Maybe it is art. It’s certainly collectible, that part goes unchallenged.

Such is the case in Cottage Grove, Oregon, where fans of barnvertising have attempted to save the “Dr. Pierce Barn,” unsuccessfully, so far.

Now, the barn is for sale. Here’s the listing from Craigslist in Eugene:

This historic barn was built in 1900. The Dr. Pierce’s Pleasant Pellets advertisement was originally painted in 1912. This barn is currently on the register of historic places but I have a valid demolition permit issued by the City of Cottage Grove in hand. The barn is not safe to enter at this time but could be restored with some work.

The price in the heading ($35,000) is for the barn with sign ONLY. This price does NOT include the property on which the barn sits. The barn must be completely removed from the property by October 1st, 2012. (barn dimensions = 45′ long, 32′ wide, and 25′ high to the peak of the roof). Purchaser is responsible for removal costs.

If you are interested in purchasing the sign ONLY the price is $25,000 and the sign must be removed by October 1st, 2012. (approximate sign dimensions = 28′ wide x 12′ high). Purchaser is responsible for removal costs.

If you are interested in purchasing the barn AND the 1.3 acre lot on which it sits (inside the Cottage Grove city limits) the price is $135,000 and closing must be final by October 1st, 2012.

These prices may be subject to some negotiation.

SERIOUS INQUIRIES ONLY – Please call 541.953.4879

It’s not an old Frank Lloyd Wright for sale, but (at the right price) there’s a buyer for everything.

Hat tip: Historic Preservation League of Oregon

ShareTweetBuffer

When police raided Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom’s home in January, there were questions as to why one man charged for copyright infringement warranted so much force. Now we have video of the absurd raid featuring a helicopter, dogs, and semiautomatic rifles.

Dotcom has become a bit of an Internet folk hero because of his tribulations and is vigorously fighting government charges related to copyright. His file-sharing service Megaupload was shut down in January by U.S. and New Zealand authorities as part of a massive sting operation against sites that allegedly enabled copyright infringement.

Besides showing the unnecessary force used on Dotcom and his property, the video above also features Dotcom testifying about the raid. He says the FBI had already locked down servers related to the Megaupload charges before the raid, so there was no risk of Dotcom deleting evidence that it would later use in court.

The raid was later ruled partially illegal, but New Zealand authorities are trying to overturn that ruling.

Filed under: mobile

It’s an interesting time for the real estate industry in the United States. Some places are super hot, while other areas remain down in the dumps. Meanwhile, the traditional property sale and rental market has been dealing with disruption in itself from the web, with information that was previously available to only real estate agents now being accessible to the masses.

So it was good to sit down with Spencer Rascoff, the CEO of leading real estate search website Zillow, while he was visiting San Francisco this past week. Zillow is now a publicly traded company — its next earnings report is slated for tomorrow — so Rascoff couldn’t get too in detail on the specifics of Zillow’s financials. But there was still a lot more for us to discuss.

One very interesting thing we discussed was how the larger move toward mobile is affecting Zillow. Last quarter was the first time that more homes were viewed on Zillow through a mobile device or a tablet than on a desktop. Now, Zillow is not at all a unique company in experiencing this shift, but what is unique is that it is actually has the immediate ability to make more money because of it — web firms such as Facebook and Pandora are notoriously having trouble monetizing their growing mobile user bases. Rascoff explained:

“We’ve tipped toward mobile in usage and that’s really quite startling and new for us, since just last quarter… We have welcomed it with open arms because this is a great boon to the business, and a catalyst that frankly has dramatically propelled our financial results. A user of Zillow on a smartphone for example, or a mobile device, is three times more likely to contact a subscribing premier agent, [which is] one of our advertisers, than a user of Zillow on a dekstop. So, we actually monetize in terms of contacts per visitor quite a bit better on smartphones or on mobile devices than on desktop.

So, this is a great trend for us and we welcome it… most other companies aren’t so lucky.”

Watch the video embedded above to see Rascoff dig in a bit deeper on mobile, talk about Zillow’s increasing focus on the rental real estate market, dish on what the next industries ripe for disruption could be, and more.

Apple and Steve Jobs’ strategy of obtaining intellectual property protection for every and anything possible may be about to pay big dividends in the “patent trial of the century” that is currently taking place in a federal courtroom in San Jose, California. Apple is seeking over $2 billion in damages (which can be trebled if Samsung’s infringement is found to have been willful) and an injunction barring the sale of certain Samsung smartphones and computer tablets in the United States.

Most patent trials can be tedious and boring affairs involving complex technologies and the construction of difficult to understand utility patents. However, by protecting its well-known products using all types of intellectual property, including design patents, Apple has been able to turn what could have been a month-long patent litigation trial involving a number of highly technical patents into what it hopes is a simple referendum on whether Samsung copied the appearance and graphic user interface of the iPhone and iPad. Considering the similarity of Apple and Samsung products, Samsung may have a difficult time convincing the jury that there is more than meets the eye and that Samsung should not be held liable for infringement.

There are two general categories of patents that can be obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, utility patents and design patents. Utility patents are the most common type of patents and generally involve the way an invention is used and works and may be granted to anyone who invents a new and useful method, process, machine, device, or any new and useful improvement of the same. In this case, Apple is asserting that Samsung infringed three Apple technical utility patents involving features of a multi-touch user interface.

While design patents are litigated far less frequently than utility patents, and many companies do not even seek design patent protection, infringement of a design patent may be far easier for a jury to understand. A design patent protects only the ornamental appearance of an invention, not its utilitarian features. The general test for infringement for a design patent is relatively simple: Does the alleged infringer’s product design appear substantially the same as the patentee’s design? While a patentee can buttress its evidence of the similarity of designs through the testimony, for example, of industry observers, consumers, and business partners, jurors can use their own eyes for a side by side comparison and decide for themselves if the products look substantially the same. It certainly does not depend on understanding highly complex technical matters.

In addition to the utility patent infringement claims, Apple has accused Samsung of infringing a tablet design patent and graphical user interface patent for the iPhone. Thus, instead of having to convince the jury through highly technical evidence that Samsung infringed a number of utility patents, Apple can argue to the jury that the products are so physically similar that Samsung must have copied the designs from Apple and that the jury can make this determination with its own eyes.

In comparison to the relatively easy-to-understand Apple design patents, Samsung’s counterclaims against Apple involve Samsung’s patents covering the inner workings of cellphones. Such claims are technologically complex, and two of Samsung’s patents are “standards-essential patents,” which protect inventions that are incorporated into broader technology that an entire industry has agreed to use. Samsung alleges that it offered to license two standard-essential patents to Apple on fair terms, as legally required but that Apple refused and used the technology for its iPhones anyway.

While the law in this area is unclear, a recent decision by an influential jurist suggested that remedies for claims of infringement of a standard essential patent are limited.

The Apple-Samsung trial is expected to take a month. Both sides are expected to offer evidence supporting their claims and defenses from a variety of sources. Much of the evidence will be highly technical, and despite the best efforts of the attorneys on both sides to make the technical details comprehensible to a jury, the outcome may come down to simply whether the jury believes with its own eyes that Samsung copied the appearance of the iPhone and iPad.

Peter Toren is an intellectual property litigator and computer crimes expert with Weisbrod Matteis & Copley in Washington, DC.

[Image credits: Apple, Samsung]

Filed under: mobile, VentureBeat

A French t-shirt company has brazenly picked a fight with one of the world’s fiercest hacker groups. Anonymous, known for crippling the world’s most secure websites (including the FBI’s), has vowed revenge against apparel company, Early Flicker, who registered the hacker group’s logo as their own intellectual property.

“Their arrogance and ignorance of what they have done will not go unpunished,” promised Anonymous, in a YouTube video (below). “Anonymous will take down any business they have going on the internet and the ninety nine per cent will not stop until the registration has been revoked and a public apology has been made. The name of Anonymous will not be the whore of the world.”

Even if E-Flicker managed to escape the wrath of hackers, the logo is already registered under a Creative Commons intellectual property license, according to a tweet from an Anonymous account:

To these copyright trolls: About all #Anonymous logos are already licensed under creative commons. So good luck with getting a trademark.

— AnonymousIRC (@AnonymousIRC) August 1, 2012

We doubt Anonymous will wait for a cease and desist notice. Just remember not to blink, fight fans, this knockout could come quicker than a bout between Mike Tyson and Richard Simmons.

A French t-shirt company has brazenly picked a fight with one of the world’s fiercest hacker groups. Anonymous, known for crippling the world’s most secure websites (including the FBI’s), has vowed revenge against apparel company, Early Flicker, who registered the hacker group’s logo as their own intellectual property.

“Their arrogance and ignorance of what they have done will not go unpunished,” promised Anonymous, in a YouTube video (below). “Anonymous will take down any business they have going on the internet and the ninety nine per cent will not stop until the registration has been revoked and a public apology has been made. The name of Anonymous will not be the whore of the world.”

Even if E-Flicker managed to escape the wrath of hackers, the logo is already registered under a Creative Commons intellectual property license, according to a tweet from an Anonymous account:

To these copyright trolls: About all #Anonymous logos are already licensed under creative commons. So good luck with getting a trademark.

— AnonymousIRC (@AnonymousIRC) August 1, 2012

We doubt Anonymous will wait for a cease and desist notice. Just remember not to blink, fight fans, this knockout could come quicker than a bout between Mike Tyson and Richard Simmons.