First off, Bergelt and OIN now control a simply astounding swath of intellectual property terrain. Last week OIN announced it had more than 500 licensees and a simply astounding patent portfolio. Like the IP for pressure-sensitive biometric devices, the method for accessing and controlling telephone information on a database, XML streaming on the Web and the data entry pad. As in the data entry pad. OIN has a stake in it, and shares it with all. When I asked Bergelt how what amounted to an information co-op could own so much valuable real estate, he chuckled. "That's easy," he said. "Open source software is behind more than you think." Oh, baby, is Bergelt correct. North Bridge Venture Partners, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based investment firm, says essentially every major software company -- that means Microsoft (MSFT), Oracle (ORCL), SugarCRM -- has significant open-source components lurking inside. And a full 30% of firms surveyed said open-source code is in 51% or more of what that firm creates. Even more sobering, these rates are almost certainly higher in critical, fast-growing emerging global economies. Tetiana Protasova, a masters student in Hungary, did an excellent paper on the power of open-source concepts in developing economies. My favorite line: "Specific cases will demonstrate that the developing countries are already switching to open source." She cited low cost, ease of use and improved security. Not communism 2.0
Emde, Bergelt and without exception everyone else I spoke with on this topic made it clear that open-source software is not Karl Marx's dream shot at a comeback. "This is not communism 2.0," Emde told me emphatically. Even so, there is no denying the sheer scale of the intellectual property holdings of operations such as OIN -- and the growing continents of intellectual property controlled essentially in commons. Which of course, affects valuation in dramatic and terrifying ways. Think about it. If all the world's blue chip companies do is to control the mere public-facing sliver of the intellectual property behind their products, pretending they own all the commonly held terrain behind that storefront is risky investing stuff indeed. Cooperation is not communism. But for investors, it might turn out to be just as dangerous.