New York City law may soon impact small businesses and entrepreneurs

Late last year, the New York City Council passed the “Freelance Isn’t Free Act.” The act will go into effect in May of this year. The act provides that: “If a business hires a freelancer for $800 or more worth of work over six months (for either one project or a cumulative series of projects), a written agreement must be put in place,” and provides for several terms that must be placed into the written agreement. (Article). It also creates a complaint process and government body to hear the complaints, and includes penalties for flouting the law. Id. 

Since small businesses and entrepreneurs can often be well-served to use freelancers, as opposed to hiring a new employee, see, e.g., here and here, such business owners must take note of the new law, and should have a plan for hiring freelancers after the law goes into effect. It will be interesting to see how the new law plays out, and if other cities or states decide to follow New York City’s lead in passing this law.

Gift and Curse of Being an Entrepreneur

This article notes what the author calls the “gift and curse of being an entrepreneur.” The author asserts that “An entrepreneur’s gift is being an innovator,” while his or her curse is that that “same drive” will “take over everything [they] do.” Essentially, says the author, the curse boils down to the old maxim that “it is lonely at the top.” The author then offers a few possible lessons that entrepreneurs can use to alleviate themselves of this “curse.”

I think this article can help us in our practice in two different ways. First, it can give us some insight into what our entrepreneur-clients are going through as they build their startup company. It can help us emphasize with them, and can let us be better lawyers for our clients.

Second, this article reminds me of problems that plague the legal profession. A simple search of Above the Law shows us what we already know: lawyers are quite bad at maintaining a work-life balance. Being aware of this fact, and trying to be conscious of it, perhaps can help us in our own lives, regardless of what type of law we practice or the size of organization in which we practice it.

Falcon Dubai 100

http://www.falconandassociates.ae/en/our-work/article/dubai-100

I came across this initiative through conversations with friends about this class and the various projects we’ve looked at throughout the semester and thought it was absolutely fascinating. The initiative is aimed at entrepreneurs who have created or are in the process of creating innovation in the world of digital health. This program acts as an incubator in that it basically just brings the innovators to Dubai and gives them 100 days to focus on launching their ideas. Everything from travel costs to housing to basic capital to start the project is given to these innovators with the caveat being that the project must be ready for investors in 100 days. I found this to be quite impressive because most times when you ask entrepreneurs what their biggest obstacle is they usually say something along the lines of lack of budget or lack of expertise, and this program brings both these things right to them.

 

Lean Startup Is Dead — Long Live Lean Startup

Link

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tendayiviki/2017/03/19/lean-startup-is-dead-long-live-lean-startup/2/#4018249b6ce4

Interesting article that argues that the lean startup movement actually benefits large companies the most if they adopt innovative startup methods. The author predicts that the coming “Third Wave” of technology involves products and services that the are costly to make and heavily regulated by the government, such as healthcare and education. Thus, if large companies can apply the lean startup model to their business model then they have the most potential for growth in the new era of technology.

3 Approaches to Get Your Patent Application Moving Much Faster

This article gives tips to obtaining a patent faster. The process itself is interesting and this article gives more context to the presentation earlier this week.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/290429

3 Approaches to Get Your Patent Application Moving Much Faster

Got a great idea? Expediting it through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may cut the chances that it will be copied or stolen.

3 Approaches to Get Your Patent Application Moving Much Faster

Image credit: Shutterstock

The typical patent applicant at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can expect to wait, on average, two years or more after filing, before that coveted U.S. patent comes through: USPTO statistics show that applications in the semiconductor field, for example, take an average 23.1 months from filing to issuance; and applications in the computer architecture field take an average 29.5 months.

Related: Before You Crowdfund an Invention, Consider Patent Protection

Such time frames are not ideal, considering that ideas get stolen or copied all the time. However, there are three approaches that savvy applicants can take, to expedite their applications through the agency, and get a U.S. patent in their hands within 12 to 18 months after filing.

It goes without saying that a speed-up like that helps entrepreneurs turbo-charge their patent-portfolio development and score some quick wins — to increase their company’s valuation in preparation of a funding event, perhaps, or to more quickly obtain patent protection for a soon-to-be marketed product.

Here are those three approaches:

1. Pay a premium.

The easiest and most potent way to expedite examination is to use the USPTO’s Prioritized Patent Examination Program (also known as “Track One”). Under the program, an applicant pays an extra fee (ranging from $1,000 to $4,000, depending on the applicant company’s size). That lets the application jump the line and be examined by the USPTO ahead of earlier-filed applications.

The USPTO’s stated goal is to see Track One examinations completed within 12 months, making this route highly appealing for applications in technologies that typically wait a long time to get through the USPTO.

But speed isn’t Track One’s only advantage. In certain technologies, it provides the additional benefit of yielding a higher average allowance rate than does conventional processing. For example, in the computer gaming field, Track One reduces the average pendency (time from filing to issuance) by more than 10 months and increases the average allowance rate by about 18 percent.

Gamblit Gaming and Game Play Network, for instance, have used Track One with impressive results, outperforming the overall gaming sector averages at the USPTO with average pendency times of 14-to-17 months (compared to the gaming sector’s average of 27 months) and allowance rates of more than 90 percent (compared to the gaming sector’s average of 70 percent).

Related: The Craziest Patents by Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google and More

2: Get face time with the examiner.

Speaking with the USPTO examiner reviewing your patent application can be a simple but effective way to reach the issuance stage faster and more reliably.

While most communications between the USPTO examiner and the applicant occur in writing, the limitations of the written form can be both frustrating and inefficient for the applicant. For example, he or she might want to explain in person some nuanced distinction between the invention and what existed before; and there are times when fluid dialogue is far superior to time-consuming back-and-forth written communications.

Recognizing the inherent limitations of the written form, the USPTO allows applicants to speak directly with the USPTO examiner via telephone, web conference or in-person interviews.

The resulting interviews can prove tremendously helpful because they give the examiner a human face to associate with the application. Examiners are less inclined to make a flimsy or off-the-wall rejection of the application in a face-to-face meeting.

It can also be especially valuable to have the inventor participate in the interview, when, for example, the technology is complex, or there’s a compelling story regarding how the invention was conceived or the problem was solved. Examiners, from their perspective, are usually glad to meet inventors in person, too, since inventor participation signifies the importance of the application as opposed to one that’s run of the mill.

Interviews conducted early in the process can further help prevent misunderstandings that otherwise might result in a longer and more expensive patenting process. For example, using the USPTO’s First Action Interview pilot program, an applicant can request an interview before the examiner makes an initial full evaluation of the application. This gives the applicant the opportunity to influence the examiner’s understanding of the invention right from the start.

3: Hit the highway.

Another way to expedite a patent is to use the USPTO’s Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) to leverage positive results from an examination that has already been performed by a foreign patent office. Under PPH, the USPTO fast-tracks the examination of U.S. patent applications with claims already allowed by a foreign patent office in a corresponding patent application.

Currently, the foreign patent offices eligible for PPH review are those in Canada, China, Europe, Japan, Korea and the United Kingdom, as well as about 30 others.

While the USPTO still makes its own independent evaluation of the application, the PPH program can yield improved results over conventional processing. For example, in the computer-gaming sector, the PPH program reduces the average pendency to about 18 months, with an increase of the average allowance rate by about 10 percent.

The PPH program can be a particularly effective tool for companies with foreign patenting activities that are looking to take advantage of their successes in foreign patent offices to more quickly obtain the same scope of patent protection in the United States.

Related: Low-Cost Patent Search Options for Inventors on a Budget

Overall, few U.S. patent applicants will ever describe the patenting process as either quick or easy. But by using one or more of these methods, applicants can accelerate the process and increase their likelihood of achieving their patenting goals.

Companies failing to see value of their intellectual property

This article addressed the importance of remembering intellectual property in business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/13/companies-failing-see-value-intellectual-property/

Companies failing to see value of their intellectual property

BAE systems
The warning came from companies including BAE Systems Credit: EPA

Bosses at some of the world’s most innovative companies, including BAE Systems, Siemens, Philips and Bayer, have warned that intellectual property (IP) is being neglected by the business world.

Research by patent specialist Aistemos has found that many opportunities are lost and innovation stifled because of systemic IP problems. The majority of respondents claimed that boards in their industries see IP as a cost center or a risk, with just a fraction admitting that it adds value.

They also stated that most business decisions are being made with a lack of understanding of the relevant IP. When it comes to research and development, collaborations, and even mergers and acquisitions business leaders only “sometimes” have the IP data they need to make an informed decision.

IP is often vital to a company’s future.

Defense giant BAE Systems, for example, currently owns more than 1500 inventions and has filed close to 250 patents per year for the last 5 years, ranging from lasers to augmented reality devices.

The new report highlighted several issues including a lack of transparency over who owns what IP, and a number of incomplete and inaccurate records.

Many businesses accidentally infringe others’ patents while innovation is stymied because companies are unable, or unwilling, to collaborate due to IP risk.  Joerg Thomaier, chief executive of IP at Bayer, the life sciences giant, who took part in the research, said: “Greater transparency on the patents covering a product would avoid situations where companies inadvertently infringe our patents. But for this to work, the whole industry will need to embrace the idea, and not all companies are open to greater transparency.”

Aistemos’s report warned that, with no universal method for including IP on the balance sheet, many investors were in the dark about the value of IP. Hywel Ball, a managing partner at professional services giant EY, said: “Given that more than half enterprise value is represented by intangible assets, for some companies up to 80 per cent, I worry that this value is not being represented by financial statements. This means that when you look at the stock market, the real value of those companies isn’t visible.”

Intangible assets, which tend to include IP, make up 53 per cent of the total value of the FTSE 100. Nigel Swycher, Aistemos founder, said: “The impact of technology and innovation across business of all types, from pet food to autonomous vehicles, means that there is no business large or small that can afford not to consider the implications of IP across the entirety of the business.”

Qualcomm is again under attack for living large off its patent portfolio

This article is interesting. Qualcomm is making money from licensing its products, but companies that use their products, including Apple, have filed suit. The licensing agreements have shown to be lucrative for Qualcomm and a bit much for the companies paying for the license.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21715705-its-biggest-customer-apple-suing-it-1bn-qualcomm-again-under-attack-living?zid=317&ah=8a47fc455a44945580198768fad0fa41

Qualcomm is again under attack for living large off its patent portfolio

Its biggest customer, Apple, is suing it for $1bn

“SHOULD five per cent appear too small, be thankful I don’t take it all.” The Beatles wrote “Taxman” in 1966 to protest at Harold Wilson’s exorbitant “supertax” rates. Critics of Qualcomm, the world’s biggest chip-design firm, would say the lyric is a clue to the company’s business practices. Its methods have attracted a barrage of legal complaints. The latest came on January 25th, when Apple, a smartphone maker, sued it in China for abusing its clout in mobile processors and demanded 1bn yuan ($145m) in damages. Just days earlier Apple had filed a similar lawsuit in California asking for $1bn.

America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a separate complaint against the firm this month. In late December, the equivalent body in South Korea fined it a whopping $853m, which hurt its quarterly results, announced this week. These cases follow two similar ones in 2015: Chinese regulators imposed an even higher fine, of $975m; and the European Commission raised formal objections about how Qualcomm was selling its chips.

Qualcomm is no household name, but most people with mobile phones use its technology. It is estimated to provide up to four-fifths of essential types of baseband processors, the chips that manage a device’s wireless connection. These and other chips generated two-thirds of the firm’s revenues of $23.6bn in 2016. But the secret to its profits of $5.7bn is the way it licenses its intellectual property (see chart).

Qualcomm owns thousands of patents on technology deemed “essential” to build phones compatible with wireless standards. All the cases revolve around the peculiar model of how Qualcomm licenses these patents. It does not make them available to rival designers of chips and other components, but only to device-makers. These usually pay for the entire patent portfolio, rather than individual patents. And Qualcomm typically charges a percentage of the total selling price of a device—5%, according to insiders.

Combined with Qualcomm’s dominant position in baseband processors, the FTC argues, this set-up enables all kinds of abuses. In particular, it alleges that handset brands have little choice but to sign up to onerous licensing conditions in order to get the chips they need. Apple, among other things, claims that per-device royalties mean Qualcomm is taxing its innovation: it must pay up for new features, such as a new kind of camera, even if these are unrelated to Qualcomm’s patents.

Such accusations are not new. In the past Qualcomm has defended itself by arguing that its approach makes life easier for all involved: licensing patents for individual components would be too complex. As for the FTC’s allegation of monopoly abuse, Qualcomm said that it “has never withheld or threatened to withhold chip supply in order to obtain agreement to unfair or unreasonable licensing terms.”

The courts will now have to sort all this out. If legal battles are multiplying now, it is because the world is in a way “done” with smartphones, says Stéphane Téral of IHS Markit, a data provider. Slower growth and tighter margins have device-makers searching for ways to cut costs.

Apple’s cases are the biggest danger for Qualcomm: the iPhone-maker is its largest customer. Stacy Rasgon of Sanford C. Bernstein, a research firm, describes Apple’s lawsuits as an “all-out assault” on Qualcomm’s licensing model. But the firm has shown that it can recover from crises by developing new technology and making clever acquisitions. Although regulators have yet to approve the deal, the firm in October bought NXP Semiconductors, a chip designer, for $47bn, which gives Qualcomm a foothold and lots more intellectual property in two promising markets: chips for cars and connected devices, collectively called the internet of things. The world may be “done” with smartphones, but the taxman is likely to remain a force.

Correction (Feb 8): A previous version of this piece stated that in 2015 the European Commission had found Qualcomm guilty of having sold chips below cost to hurt rivals. In fact, the EU had released its statement of objections, or its preliminary concerns, about how Qualcomm was selling its chips. This has been corrected.

How To Protect Your Intellectual Property The Right Way

This article ties into what we discussed this week, as it relates to protecting your business’ intellectual property.

How To Protect Your Intellectual Property The Right Way

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2017/02/25/how-to-protect-your-intellectual-property-the-right-way/

 

I cover career and personal growth, leadership and women’s issues.

I am a women’s career and personal success coach, writer, TEDx and keynote speaker, and leadership developer dedicated to the advancement of women worldwide. My career consulting firm, Ellia Communications, offers a wide array of assessments, resources, videos, courses and training programs to help women “dig deep, discover their true self, and illuminate the world with it.” In my work and writing, I draw on my former experience as a corporate executive and trained marriage and family therapist, as well as my 11 years of coaching to help professionals break through their current limitations and challenges to build more impactful, rewarding and meaningful lives and work. Along with contributing to Forbes.com, I write on Huffington Post, LinkedIn, and my own blog at kathycaprino.com. My book Breakdown, Breakthrough and my TEDx talk “Time To Brave Up” share what I believe are critical steps to rise up, speak up and stand up boldly for yourself, and transform your life. For more information, visit kathycaprino.com and my TEDx Talk “Time To Brave Up.”

Photo: iStock

Photo: iStock

If you’ve ever developed a new product or formulated a new business idea, you’ve most likely grappled with the question of whether you should to protect it legally in some way.  It can be a confusing issue, for sure, and many of the small business owners and entrepreneurs I meet don’t seem to have a solid grasp of how, why and when to protect their products, or if it’s even necessary.

To learn more about the right steps to take to protect our intellectual property, I caught up with Ashley V. Brewer, Business & Branding Attorney at BrewerLong. Her primary practice is the development and management of intellectual property portfolios to help businesses protect their company names, product brands and ideas, along with related licensing, non-disclosure, and non-competition agreements.

Here’s what Ashley shares:

Kathy Caprino: How can business owners know when to protect an idea?

Ashley Brewer: Protect early. Protect creatively. Protect carefully. As soon as you start taking steps to implement a business or product idea, such as incorporating, obtaining state or federal licenses, or securing production of a product, you should identify which aspects of your business and products are protectable by trademark, copyright, patent, or trade secret. Each of these types of intellectual property requires different procedures to protect them from unfair competition and copycats, which is why it is important to consult a professional. You or your attorney will need to research whether anyone else already has exclusive rights to the brand names or products you want to develop. A conflict search should include a thorough search of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) searchable database, or for copyrights, the U.S. Copyright Office’s searchable public catalog.

You should also search your state’s registries, if they have them. For instance, Florida has a searchable online trademark registry, but for California state trademarks, you must call the office of the California Secretary of State and ask them to conduct a search via phone. A thorough search must also include the internet and social media, for potentially competing uses that started before you. Even if they are not registered, they could still have certain rights that supersede yours.

Caprino: What are some of the common reasons why business owners don’t move forward to protect their intellectual property?

Brewer: There are a many reasons people hesitate to make intellectual property protection a priority when they are just starting a new business. They include:

1. It is another startup cost, one which is sometimes viewed as “non-essential,” simply because it is not legally required to operate the business.

2. They are unsure whether the business or product will “take off,” so they think they might not even need it.

3. They don’t anticipate anyone attempting to copy them.

4. They do not know what types of protections may be available for their products or brands.

5. They seek to keep costs down by utilizing free or inexpensive online resources.

Protecting intellectual property correctly is not simple, and many times the examining attorneys at the government agencies have questions or raise unexpected issues on the applications. That is why professional help is so important. It can be costly or limiting in the long run to skip these steps. I have worked with clients who wished they had taken protective steps sooner.

Caprino: Why is it so important to take affirmative steps to protect your intellectual property?

Brewer: First, people do not usually expect that their business name, products, or product brands will be copied, but it happens frequently, and you can lose income from it. Second, sometimes you cannot bring an enforcement action if your intellectual property is not registered. Third, if you do not protect your intellectual property proactively and early, you might have to protect it defensively later.

Caprino: Based on your experience, what are the critical steps to take, to protect your business’s intellectual property?

Brewer: If you are a business owner, be sure your member agreement states that all intellectual property developed by members, shareholders, etc. belongs solely to the company and that members who develop any intellectual property will execute any and all documents necessary to protect the company’s rights. This is particularly important in smaller businesses where the owners are the ones developing most or all of the creative ideas. Also, be sure that any employees and independent contractors who will work with trade secrets sign strong non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, because there is no registration for trade secrets (such as recipes and non-patentable formulas). Trade Secrets are protected only as long as they remain secret.

For example, our firm has done corporate, regulatory, and intellectual property work for almost 100 start-up breweries. We prepare these types of agreements all the time, to protect their beer recipes and formulas. We also register trademarks for their brewery names and beer brands whenever possible.

Also if possible, register it with the USPTO, U.S. Copyright Office, or in some cases, your state’s trademark registry or international registries. In some cases, a trademark is eligible for an early application before your business even opens, so take advantage of obtaining that earlier filing date. Just be aware there will be subsequent filing requirements after your business opens.

Register your copyrights on written works, including computer codes, screenplays, and artwork, and register them early. Statutory damages and attorney’s fees are usually not recoverable in an infringement action if the copyright was not registered before the infringement occurred or within 3 months of publication.

If you developed an innovative product, speak with a patent attorney about whether the product qualifies for patent protection (only attorneys who have passed a separate patent bar exam are qualified to work with patents). If the product does not qualify for patent protection, find other ways to make your product stand out, including through strong trademark branding and enforcement.

Caprino: How can a business owner protect an unpatentable product from unfair competition and copycats?

Brewer: Only certain, new, innovative products qualify for patent protection, and the shape or design of a product usually cannot be trademarked. So, if your business sells a commonly available product – for instance, athletic wear, smartphone cases, or any of the many handmade items sold on Etsy (where copying is a very common issue) – restricting others from selling the same type of product may not be possible, but you can still make your brand stand out by developing a clever trademark-eligible name for your product, registering the trademark, and always using that trademark name in your marketing and product packaging.

Caprino: When can an owner of copyright or trademark use “notice symbols” on their products, such as ©, ®, or TM?

Brewer: For copyrightable works, the owner can place the copyright designation – the “C in a circle” © – on her work from the moment the work is created, and include the year and her name. For example: © 2017 Jane Doe. A copyright notice can be used whether or not the work is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The notice is not required, but it puts the public on notice of her intent to claim and enforce her copyright.

A trademark owner can always use the “TM” mark on its goods and services, to put the public on notice of his intent to claim and enforce his trademark rights. The “R in a circle” – ® – is reserved only for federally registered trademarks. If you register your trademark with your state trademark registry, but not the USPTO, you may only use the “TM” mark.

I always recommend using the appropriate symbols as soon as you put your product to market. Whether you have registered them yet or not, this gives the public notice that you have considered your intellectual property protections and are prepared to enforce them.

Caprino: When does a business owner not need to worry about registering its intellectual property?

Brewer: There are not many instances where I would suggest a business owner not worry about protecting their intellectual property. If a product is not a new, innovative product, there is no need to worry about a patent, but trademarking the brand may still be critical to compete and stand out.

If a business owner has a local shop with no plans for interstate expansion, and they do not care if someone in another state has a company with the same name, they may be satisfied with their state’s trademark registry, rather than the federal registry. However, an interstate competitor may have other ideas about expansion and enforcement of its own rights. In those cases, it matters who used the name in commerce first, but it also matters who registered the name first. The outcome can result in a geographic split, but these outcomes are usually the result of expensive litigation that could have prevented with earlier planning.

To learn more, visit BrewerLong.com.

For more from Kathy Caprino, check out KathyCaprino.com and How To Unlock Your Most Thrilling Life and Livelihood.

Hacks For Business Tax Law In 2017

Taxes are important to business and business owners. This article was enlightening. Using a platform to handle financial affairs rather than paper and pen is wise advise.

http://taxtrustestatenews.com/business-tax-law-2017/

Hacks For Business Tax Law In 2017
by Jeffrey R. Pittard | February 16, 2017

Business Tax Law Hacks for 2017

The new year promises to bring twists and turns to the business tax law landscape. Although it’s still in the early stages and nothing is certain, experts around the industry are advocating for companies to be prepared.

Stay on your toes

The Trump administration’s promise to create friendlier business taxes has the stock market flying high, but as of now, nothing has been set in stone. Recently, a U.S. Republican lawmaker told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the corporate tax reduction into the 15 to 20 percent range being sought by President Donald Trump will be difficult to pass, according to Reuters.

The lawmaker specifically honed in on the need to pass what’s known as border adjustability. Essentially, for the corporate tax cuts to be passed, the export tariff would have to be erased, while the import tax could see a rise to 20 percent, the source reported. This would have dramatic implications on a number of industries, including automakers and retailers.

A number of other legal bouts are currently being waged, according to CPA Practice Advisor. These include corporate rate reductions and a new tax system where the only income taxed is that which is earned inside the U.S.

“U.S. tax reform is more than just rate reduction, and any plan will likely have winners and losers. Company leaders need to model the impact of various proposals, aggressively engage with legislators and make their voices heard as the process moves ahead,” KPMG’s Jeffrey LeSage told the source.

As nothing is certain just yet, CPAPA recommended all chief tax officers stay tuned in to what’s happening on Capitol Hill so they can be prepared for any change that could come at a moment’s notice.

Ditch the pen and paper

LeSage also urged businesses to bring their tax departments into the digital era with a number of different tools, like platforms to analyze data, automation and even cognitive intelligence.

Not only will the aforementioned changes give your employees the gadgets they need to boost productivity and effectiveness, but they also allow them to be agile within their sector. The new regulations and legal updates approaching will mean compliance changes are ahead. Tax officers should be able to quickly ascertain any potential risk and ensure the business’ taxes are completed without potential liability.

Further to this point, partnering with an agency with years of experience working within the business tax law landscape could turn into a fruitful relationship as companies are likely to have their fair share of questions and concerns moving forward. Spending the money on a tax consultant could potentially save an organization from innumerable fines down the line.

Seek new talent

In line with the aforementioned point, CPAPA reported businesses will need to broaden the type of qualifications they look for in new hires, specifically pertaining to their tax departments. The word of 2017 is “nimble,” according to LeSage, and the skill set employees have in this sector will largely dictate the success of the company.

“Sometimes it’s tough to attract, develop and retain these professionals in tax departments,” LeSage told CPAPA. “Savvy leaders know that investing in rotations, cognitive training and leadership experience will help their people develop the skill sets and knowledge they need for them and their companies to succeed.”

Companies without the financial resources to hire new employees or revamp training to accommodate the changing business tax law landscape should consider turning to an experienced tax professional that can help identify which areas the organization is lacking in, and perhaps provide assistance in a number of different ways. The new year is primed for upheaval in the industry, and employers that are active, diligent and agile will ultimately avoid any unnecessary headaches.

Raising the steaks: the Seattle startup crowdfunding sustainable beef

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/feb/21/cow-crowd-sustainable-beef-organic-food-seattle

This startup, Crowd Cow, works like most crowdfunding campaigns, which allows consumers  to become “steakholders” in the company and buy a cow to receive the meat straight to your doorstep.

“Crowd Cow, which started taking orders in mid-2015, is part of a growing movement to promote sustainable meat production. The startup creates a market for more grass-fed beef, which keeps more cows grazing on pastures and gives farmers a more sustainable alternative to raising calves to sell to factory farms.”

In this manner, Crowd Cow improves the clarity in the process of meat-processing and delivery. When people buy beef today at grocery stores, consumers do not know exactly where the meat came from or if the meat even came from one cow. Crowd Cow tracks the cow that the consumers place a “steak” in, so that people actually know of the sustainability alternatives to how to improve lucidity in this industry. Crowd Cow has the opportunity to serve that market niche, in turn creating a steadier market outlet for local farmers.

Thus, in the same way, crowdfunding startups have now become implemented in the meat industry that seeks to transform the traditional market to become better integrated with modern trends with consumers today that younger demographics who are especially motivated to make food choices that are in line with their values.