Well it looks like eBay v. Tiffany & Co. is finally over and eBay has come out on top. This is a huge case for the web and internet commerce. The ruling means that eBay (and other web based marketplaces like Craigslist)  can continue to rely on trademark holders to monitor their site for knock-off items. Back in 2004, Tiffany’s sued eBay for damages incurred from sales of knock-off Tiffany’s jewelry being sold on eBay and wanted to limit the number of Tiffany items any one seller can have for sale at one time. While a ruling in the favor of Tiffany’s would probably never registered on eBay’s radar screen, an avalanche of money hungry plaintiffs would have followed and the precedent would have been set that eBay could be liable for trademark infringement in regards to counterfeit goods. If any damages were awarded, hypothetically, any brand that has ever had a knock-off item sold on eBay would have stood to get some cash.

In 2001, the landmark case of ecommerce, Hendrickson v. eBay, the court found eBay to not be liable for stolen or counterfeit items sold on its site. The site was found to be in the safe harbor of the DMCA, and differentiated from the classic case of the flea market proprietor found liable for selling stolen goods. eBay was found to be in the safe harbor, including robust terms of service and links for users to flag inappropriate content. At the end of the day, Hendrickson required manufacturers to be on notice and proactively search and flag stolen goods on eBay. This was a big change from the flea market paradigm of the past, but there were a lot of strange things happening in 2001. Conversely, after Hendrickson, Napster & Grokster came through, which were about copyright but pondered a similar unchartered realms of e-commerce and trade. Napster couldn’t keep 100% pirated work off the site per court order, and were forced to shut down.

If eBay had lost the case and been put in a position where they needed to comply 100% a la the Napster Trajectory, they would have been put in an extremely difficult place, because while it is easy to recognize a NBC TV clip, it is not so easy to recognize a knock-off Tiffany & Co. ring by looking at a grainy photograph. This distinction may have been what in the end saved eBay. However, while Hendrickson and Napster both made trademark claims, they were overshadowed by the copyright issues in the cases which call to the DMCA. Tiffany’s claim was strictly within trademark.

Additional coverage: AP, Marketwatch, Reuters, NYT, CNET

Back in November of ‘07, MySpace announced the future launch of “SelfServe by MySpace” which would “allow advertisers to directly purchase, create and analyze the performance of ads throughout the MySpace network.”  It was supposed to be in beta for two months then launched in early ‘08.  It didn’t happen and ClickZ reported last month that SelfServe may launch in later summer or early fall.  MySpace is being left in the dust by Facebook Social Ads and LinkedIn DirectAds.  Now Orkut, Hi5, Bebo, Ning and the others need to step up to the targeted advertising plate as well.

LinkedIn DirectAds
LinkedIn has quietly launched a beta version of a dynamic CPM text advertising platform called LinkedIn DirectAds. No formal announcement of the launch was made on the LinkedIn blog or elsewhere. According to the DIrectAds FAQ, advertisers will be able to dynamically target ads by age, gender, geography, educational institution, industry, and seniority. Minimum order size for an advertisement is $25, with the minimum number of impressions dependant on the targeting audience chosen by the advertiser. The rate that you pay for a CPM (1000 impressions) changes as you add or remove targeting options from your ad. Apparently the product will give click-through rates to advertisers, but billing will be based on CPM. In a unique twist, ads will also include the advertisers name and a link to their LinkedIn profile in hopes of “increasing transparency and visibility into the advertiser.” Much like the Facebook SocialAds platform, advertisers must have a profile on the network to launch an ad, although LinkedIn says they are limiting advertisers by completeness of profile, number of connections, date of profile creation and a number of other factors. I was unable to access the platform through my profile.

The DirectAds platform will bring LinkedIn closer to Facebook’s Social Ads technology, with these two leaving Bebo, MySpace, Plaxo, Friendster and the rest of the social networking world behind for now. I hope to be able to try the LinkedIn platform soon and give a head-to-head comparison. LinkedIn will continue to extract a premium on their advertising, as it seems they will be setting the price per CPM internally. A true market (e.g. Overture/pre-Panama Yahoo) or partial market (e.g. Google quality score) influence on price would likely result in prices lower than they would like, and they are clearly avoiding a CPC model for a reason since they are measuring CTR anyways. I think this slow transfer is very smart on their end especially considering their pre-IPO status, but as an advertiser I wish they would switch to a free market faster. Their ad margins will likely be lower than what they were getting with their rate card (although perhaps not), but the volume of advertisements will definitely spike upwards as you no longer have to go through a traditional advertising salesperson process to launch a targeted ad on their network.

LinkedIn Research Network
Additionally, on Thursday of last week LinkedIn quietly launched the LinkedIn Research Network, a product the company first mentioned back in February. No formal announcement of the actual launch was made on the LinkedIn blog or anywhere else, but the Research Network product page is live and linked to from the Premium Product footer, along with job, corporate, and upgrade links. Also linked is a 2 page product summary PDF. The product page outlines what is essentially a premium version of InMail (pdf). A Research Network subscriber can send send 20 InMails at once, and no monthly or daily limits are mentioned. Previously, LinkedIn BusinessPlus subscribers had the most InMail access and were limited to 10 InMails per month, so this is a dramatic increase in potential InMail volume. In the past advertisers could send targeted InMail blasts through LinkedIn’s advertising platform at $1 - $5 per recipient.

The LinkedIn Research Network is an attempt to move into the expert network industry and will be sold primarily to hedge, private equity and venture funds. According to a recent Integrity Research Associates report, there are roughly 25 expert networks in existence today. Aside from my company KnowledgeBid, every other expert network service operates on a subscription model. LinkedIn is likely gunning for the fat subscription fees that players like the Gerson Lehrman Group are pulling from investors (+$50k for access to one industry vertical of experts for 6 months), but the product they have launched is far more like the resume search/direct email services offered by Monster, HotJobs, CareerBuilder, Dice, etc. than an expert network. Perhaps down the road LinkedIn will try to facilitate the actual expert matching, but this iteration of the product just enables subscribers to send a large volume of cold emails to potential consultants. Additionally, the product page makes no mention of facilitating consultant payment and the only compliance functionality mentioned is a “research history”. Legal compliance is arguably the largest issue faced by expert networks today, and something that expert network users have come to expert from service providers. It’s possible that LinkedIn is intentionally not involving themselves with payment of experts in an attempt to remove themselves from the chain of liability if their service were to be used to facilitate insider trading or the like.

Congrats to LinkedIn on the product launches. I’m glad to see them competing with Facebook on the advertising technology side of things (let’s see an API guys!) and will certainly be keeping tabs on these products as they mature.

Facebook continues to quickly and quietly improve their advertising platform. In yet another innovation launched without formal announcement, Facebook now allows advertisers to target ads based on professional titles in user profiles. Previously ads could only target by keywords listed in users’ “interests” field. Now Facebook has indexed professional titles and allows for dynamic targeting through the Facebook Ads platform. Perhaps the recent launch of the advertising feedback function was in anticipation of an aggressive move towards monetization via heightened ad targeting? We’re still waiting on the Facebook Ads API but LinkedIn is still using a massively inflated CPM rate card despite their recent $1B valuation and and MySpace still uses Google adwords, putting Facebook miles ahead of the rest of the social networking pack when it comes to advertising technology.

ImportGenius is an innovating new company organizing the extremely valuable and historically unorganized world of import records. One of the first hedge fund managers I spoke to when researching KnowledgeBid mentioned that he liked to talk to shipping container brokers about utilization rates and import/export trends. I’m sure ImportGenius will have no problem finding customers in the investment community. TechCrunch coverage here (yes, Mac fanboys will like it too). Yet another company taking a unique approach to accessing information value. Good luck!

The Facebook advertising platform continues to advance ahead of the rest of the social network pack. We’re still waiting on the API, but they’ve recently snuck out a feature that allows users to indicate whether they like or dislike an ad served up to them. Where previously there was just a link for “more ads”, there are now StumbleUpon style thumbs. Clicking on one of them pops up a window with feedback options. Screenshots below. The fact that Facebook is implementing these kinds of features before they launch an Ads API shows that they are approaching mass advertising very carefully. They know that they need users to make ads have value, and the better the ads are the more valuable their ad space will be. Also, it’s quite possible that having some interaction with ads beyond just clicking them will incentivize users to click more ads. The Facebook advertising platform continues become more and more interesting.

Fred Wilson has a great post looking back on his career and how he got into venture capital.  The title “I Got Lucky” pretty much sums it up.  This is the meatiest part:

If you want to be a top tier venture investor, you must be recognized as one of the experts in the field you invest in. When I was at Euclid, I used to watch in admiration as guys like Bill Kaiser worked the enterprise software business or Paul Ferri worked the communications equipment business. They knew the business cold and if you wanted to start a company in their area of expertise you went to them first. That’s what you have to get to if you want to make top tier returns in the venture capital business.

The way you do that is you work for at least ten years in the industry, getting operating experience, building a killer rolodex, and learning how the business works from the inside. Then in your mid to late 30s, you can make the move to the venture capital business, as a partner, not as a wet behind the ears associate who doesn’t know anything other than how to push numbers around a spreadsheet.

I did it all wrong and got lucky. I don’t recommend anyone reading this to try it the way I did it. If you choose to get an MBA, get a real job out of business school. Help to build a few businesses in an industry sector you really like. Become an expert in that industry. Then try your hand at venture capital. You’ll be much better at it than I was my first ten years in the business.

It’s tough to say if I like his or Warren Buffett’s career advice more.

TEDTalk with Frank Gehry covering a number of topics, including leaks. And if you understand what was so bad about what the Harbor Master said, leave a comment and fill me in.

The Times recently ran an article by Michael Fitzgerald on the red hot cloud computing trend. Fitzgerald defined cloud computing to be “obtaining computing resources . . . from someplace outside your own four walls, and paying only for what you use.” The concept of cloud computing makes perfect sense: instead of paying for massive amounts of computing capacity to be ready for spikes in usage, site owners pay only for what they need, when they need it.

Fitzgerald’s definition illustrates the parallels between cloud computing and what we’re up to at KnowledgeBid as well as, in a larger sense, a growing trend in the professional services space. Like cloud computing services, KnowledgeBid provides services on an as needed basis, the difference being that instead of tapping into a cloud of computational power, KnowledgeBid facilitates access to a cloud of expertise and information.

A new lean breed of professional service companies is maturing with similar operating models, silently taking market share from the incumbent players. These firms have minimal office leases on their balance sheets and aren’t burdened with massive annual partnership payouts. They offer customized, lower priced services and often have broader offerings than their traditional competitors. The management of these firms plays a new and rapidly evolving role, combining matchmaker, headhunter, temp agency, accounting firm, compliance officer, and human resources department.

One of the hottest of these new breed is Axiom Legal Solutions, Inc. Founded in 2000 by Mark Harris and Alec Guettel and backed by Greenhill & Co., Benchmark Capital, and Panorama Capital, Axiom is disrupting the legal world by working closely with the in-house counsel at major corporations to fuel them with niche, qualified attorneys on a contract basis. Axiom “combines the flexibility of outside counsel with the best attributes of a sophisticated corporate law department”, collecting fees on attorney hours but without the weight of partner payouts and massive office leases. Axiom “is not a law firm” and “does not provide legal representation or advice” but does interview attorneys, hire them full-time, then place them directly with clients for specific engagements. Their clients include American Express, Bank of America, Cisco, Dow Jones, Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, New York Times, Nokia, Sun Microsystems, and Viacom, among others.

The most advanced segment of these new service providers is arguably the web development and design sector. Dominated by oDesk and eLance, these companies give customers access to a global network of developers, designers, and database architects. They don’t hire service providers directly but serve as a platform for clients to screen, interview, monitor and compensate service providers. These companies have seen explosive growth thanks to the web 2.0 boom. The chart above shows the number of hours worked through oDesk by month since 2003.

Running a similar model in the engineering space, Exponent, Inc. hires professionals on full time and staffs them with clients according to their specific needs much like Axiom. Exponent has been around in one form or another since 1967, and has morphed several times. It’s currently a publicly traded company and employs over 500 engineering and scientific professionals, covering 20 practice areas including biomechanics, buildings & structures, civil engineering, construction consulting, ecological & biological sciences, electrical & semiconductors, environmental & earth sciences, health sciences, chemical registration, food safety, epidemiology, biostatistics, computational biology, toxicology, mechanistic biology, exposure assessment, public health, industrial hygiene, industrial structures, mechanical engineering, materials science, statistical & data sciences, thermal sciences, and vehicle analysis. Exponent does have significant lease liabilities (~$5M in ‘07) but most/all is non-premium warehouse and laboratory space. The company saw solid growth vs the S&P last year.

At the end of the day these companies all provide value by making connections and managing relationships. As the world becomes more and more connected, I think this trend will continue. The professional services cloud will become more accessible, and the companies that facilitate access to it will gain market share at the cost of traditional professional service providers.