R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of himself, “I live on Earth at present, and I don’t know what I am. I know that I am not a category. I am not a thing — a noun. I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process — an integral function of Universe.” For most people, their next question was, “Who is this guy?”

Dr. David Martin knows who he is. And he’s here to show others how to remember what it means to put humanity into the human experience. Over the past 5 decades he’s fully lived and has done so in service to humanity. Unlike many who build an identity around accomplishments, he uses his actions to show others the vast extremes of possibility.

His first invention was a laser integrated system to target and treat inoperable tumors. His mathematics helped unravel the way the human body processes hormones and led to the detection and treatment of many diseases. His observation of human behavior led to his development of technology which deciphers the intention and motivation of communication – a technology that has impacted and saved the lives of billions. His global business activities served to develop the world’s top-performing global equity index (including the CNBC IQ100 powered by M·CAM). He’s brought the world’s largest white-collar criminals to justice and brought the world’s most oppressed and disenfranchised transformative ways to engage. From the starry expanses of Mongolia to the flashing lights of New York, his work is as passion-filled whether it’s with a camel herder or a global CEO.

He tells his own story in the critically acclaimed documentary Future Dreaming and breaks down economic injustice in Patent Wars. An author, public speaker, business visionary, professor, researcher, oracle, father, and friend, David is a man Fully Living. He is the author of Coup d’Twelve.

Equipped with his Integral Accounting insights and his Breathing Enterprise implementation, what’s happening today is more interesting than everything before. And the best thing of all is that, if you’d like to experience what it’s like to be fully living, you can be part of the action! Together with Kim Martin – the woman that taught him some of his most important lessons about fully living – and a core team of masterful colleagues, you too can step into the full essence of what it means to Fully Live!

• Buckminster Fuller wrote of himself, “I live on Earth at present, and I don’t know what I am. I know that I am not a category. I am not a thing — a noun. I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process — an integral function of Universe.” For most people, their next question was, “Who is this guy?”
• Buckminster Fuller
• Dr. David Martin knows who he is.  And he’s here to show others how to remember what it means to put humanity into the human experience.  Over the past 5 decades he’s fully lived and has done so in service to humanity.  Unlike many who build an identity around accomplishments, he uses his actions to show others the vast extremes of possibility.
• His first invention was a laser integrated system to target and treat inoperable tumors. His mathematics helped unravel the way the human body processes hormones and led to the detection and treatment of many diseases. His observation of human behavior led to his development of technology which deciphers the intention and motivation of communication – a technology that has impacted and saved the lives of billions. His global business activities served to develop the world’s top-performing global equity index (including the CNBC IQ100 powered by M·CAM). He’s brought the world’s largest white-collar criminals to justice and brought the world’s most oppressed and disenfranchised transformative ways to engage. From the starry expanses of Mongolia to the flashing lights of New York, his work is as passion-filled whether it’s with a camel herder or a global CEO.
• He tells his own story in the critically acclaimed documentary Future Dreaming and breaks down economic injustice in Patent Wars.  An author, public speaker, business visionary, professor, researcher, oracle, father, and friend, David is a man Fully Living.
• All that was in the first 50 years, now that he is warmed up even greater things are coming! Equipped with his ‘Integral Accounting insights’ and his ‘Breathing Enterprise implementation’, what’s happening today is more interesting than everything before. And the best thing of all is that, if you’d like to experience what it’s like to be fully living, you can be part of the action!  Together with Kim Martin – the woman that taught him some of his most important lessons about fully living – and a core team of masterful colleagues, you too can step into the full essence of what it means to Fully Live!
• Dr. David E. Martin is the Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc., the international leader in innovation finance, trade, and intangible asset finance. He is the developer of the first innovation-based quantitative index of public equities and is the Managing Partner of the Purple Bridge Funds.  He is the creator of the world’s first quantitative public equity index – the CNBC IQ100 powered by M·CAM.  Actively engaged in global ethical economic development, Dr. Martin’s work includes financial engineering and investment, public speaking, writing and providing financial advisory services to the majority of countries in the world.  Dr. Martin is the architect and founder of the Global Innovation Commons and is the author of the international legal framework for the Heritable Knowledge Trust and Heritable Innovation Trust programs.  He has pioneered global programs to bring corporate and stock market transparency to multi-national extractive industries and has been instrumental in repatriating value to countries which have been subject to corporate and financial abuses.  His work on ethical engagement and stewardship of community and commons-based value interests is at the forefront of global financial innovation.  Dr. Martin is a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.  He served as Chair of Economic Innovation for the UN-affiliated Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization and has served as an advisor to numerous Central Banks, global economic forums, the World Bank and International Finance Corporation, and national governments.
• A spokesperson for global financial and intangible asset accountability and quality reform, Dr. Martin has worked closely with the United States Congress and numerous trade and financial regulatory agencies in the United States, Europe, and Asia in advocating and deploying infrastructure to support growing reliance on contract and proprietary rights in business transactions. Under the leadership of Dr. Martin, M·CAM has supported the modernization of banking, intangible asset, tax, and accounting laws through its work with oversight agencies and policy makers.
• Dr. Martin has founded several for-profit and not-for-profit companies and organizations and serves on several boards.  He was a Co-Chair of the ADC (Australia Davos Connection) Forum’s Leadership Retreat and Critical Infrastructure and Cybersecurity Councils.  He was the founding Director of Melbourne’s Centre of Applied Innovation.  He served as Chairman and CEO of eSurface®. He was the founding CEO of Mosaic Technologies, Inc., a company that developed and commercialized technologies in advanced computational linguistics, dynamic data compression and encryption, electrical field transmission, medical diagnostics, and stealth/anechoic. He was a founding member of Japan’s Institute for Interface Science and Technology (IIST). He founded and served as Executive Director of the Charlottesville Venture Group. He has served as a board member for the Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business (Washington, D.C.), the Academy for Augmenting Grassroots Technological Innovations (India), the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce (Virginia), and the Charlottesville Industrial Development Agency (Virginia), Humanitad (U.K), Global Urban Development, and many other agencies dedicated to ethical human development.  As international policy contributor, economist and futurist, Dr. Martin’s work at The Arlington Institute (U.S.) included accurately forecasting the global financial crisis of 2008 and working with the launch of Singapore’s Risk Assessment Horizon Scanning initiative. 
• Dr. Martin’s work as a Fellow of the Batten Institute at the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia and his related work at the Indian Institute for Management Ahmedabad, India, has brought unprecedented curricular focus to areas of intangible-asset risk management, finance, and accounting standards. In addition to his academic work, Dr. Martin has closely advised innovation-based finance and investment programs in India, Bermuda, Brazil, China, Denmark, the European Union, the United Kingdom, South Africa, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, Mongolia, Egypt, Ecuador, Singapore, Germany, Slovenia, Vietnam, and the United Arab Emirates. He has served as the Constitutional and Economic advisor to the Autonomy Committee of East New Britain and New Ireland, Papua New Guinea and has worked with ethical trade frameworks for the Kingdom of Tonga, the Independent State of Samoa, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea.
• His work has been the subject of two internationally awarded documentaries, Patent Wars which highlights his work on reform of the global innovation system and Future Dreaming: A Conversation with David Martin which is a dialogue about humanity and its optimal interaction in the universe.  He has spoken at the United Nations General Assembly on citizen-led peacemaking initiatives and has been featured on Bloomberg television and HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.   
• A speaker, author, business executive and futurist, Dr. Martin’s work has been engaged in every country on Earth.  He works with his family in every endeavor of life.  Together with his wife Kim, he directs the Breathing Enterprise workshops and facilitates implementation of Integral Accounting.  Dr. Martin received his undergraduate (BA) from Goshen College, his Masters of Science from Ball State University, and his Doctorate (PhD) from the University of Virginia.

Experience

• M•CAM  /   Chairman  /   Oct 1998 - Present · 24 yrs 11 mos  /   Charlottesville, Virginia Area

Education

• University of Virginia  /    PhD, Physiology / Sports Medicine  /   1992 - 1995

• Ball State University  /   MS, Physiology  /   1990 - 1992

  • • Included extensive work in the Human Performance Laboratory

• Goshen College  /   BA, Biology, Psychology, Sports Medicine  /   1985 - 1989

  • • SST in Costa Rica during the latter stages of the Nicaraguan War

• Name :   David E Martin

  • • Age :   20  /   Birth Year :   abt 1967

    • Residence County :   Out of State

• Spouse's Name :   Colleen C Caskey

  • • Spouse's Age :   22  /   Spouse's Birth Year :   abt 1965

    • Spouse's Residence County :   Out Of State

• Marriage Date :   19 Dec 1987

• Marriage License County :   Allen

• Certificate Number :   85334

• Volume Number :   13571

• The speed of technology progress is determined by innovation and execution. In Virginia and across the globe entrepreneurs are confronted by increasingly complex capital prospecting challenges. Companies must consider three issues – management for vitality, opportunity definition, and capital planning.
• Vitality management is a critical element in the successful company’s quest for investor attraction. In the midst of the desire for capitalization, there is a need to allocate ample time to conduct the business of the company. A great paradox for the growing company is that the business credibility sought by investors requires resources, both human and capital, which cannot be accessed without investment. Management must remain vigilant to timelines and deliverables, irrespective of capital, to demonstrate that an opportunity can be defined. Telling a credible story to convey an investment opportunity, while defining reasonable present VALUE and future VALUATION, is essential for a successful financing quest. As “deals” become increasingly complex in the intricacies of technology, markets, or exits, the financial picture must be plausible and conservative. Nathan Levin of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP offered a new paradigm approach to valuation of technology businesses, a ‘Real options” valuation. This approach estimates progressive value of technology milestones and intellectual property. It serves as a conceptual overlay to clarify the traditional Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) valuation. Reliance on classical valuation models with appropriate “modernization” is prudent in most cases.
• In 1995, 67 percent of all businesses had annual revenue under $1,000,000. Failure rates within the first five years among emerging small businesses exceed 70 percent. The lack of access to funding for initial capitalization, follow-on growth and business expansion play a major role in driving up this failure rate. A business failure limits economic growth, and means that valuable technologies and services may never reach the market. Drugs to treat diseases, technologies to move greater amounts of data utilizing less bandwidth and new Internet solutions can be paralyzed due to the inability to develop the business at the right time. Conventional financing involves raising funds through various sources, including friends and family, angel investors, venture capital and other equity investors. Other traditional sources of investment funding are becoming increasingly unavailable to the “small” capitalization business. Businesses, which once contemplated access to mezzanine financing closely followed by Initial Public Offering (IPO), have fallen victim to the consolidation of large investment institutions. These institutions have increased the minimum size of the offerings in which they will participate, therefore reducing the total number of IPOs.
• Faced with the potential loss of control through dilution of ownership, as well as the economic reality that growth requires capital, many owners of emerging companies see debt financing as an attractive option. However, as an emerging company, accessing debt capital from conventional banks has several intrinsic problems, including:
  1. Lack of negotiable collateral
  2. Limited business performance
  3. Non-traditional products and markets
  4. Novel operational models – too unconventional. Traditionally, banks have viewed the “emerging company” market, especially the high technology arena, as very risky and have avoided signif
• Increasingly, small businesses are turning to nontraditional sources of funding. Growing numbers of start ups are engaging in strategic alliances and licensing agreement with large established organizations to build momentum in order to attract investor’s interest. Venture Groups, Private Investor Networks and the Virginia’s Center for Innovative Technology offer excellent intrastate networking and collaborative opportunities – relationships that can add sizzle to a funding pitch.
• Today’s entrepreneurs and fledging companies are presented with myriad options in their battles for funding. Selecting the right weapon, or combination thereof, has a critical bearing in deciding which live or die.

• David Martin sat in his Charlottesville office and listened to a conversation that would change his life — and may quite possibly change the world of banking.
• In October 1997, Martin and two other businessmen — one a commercial credit lender and the other an entrepreneur holding an asset worth roughly $15 million — were discussing ways to get the entrepreneur’s business started.
• “He had a request for a loan of around $300,000,” recalls Martin, the founder and president of Mosaic Technologies Inc. “The lending officer says, ‘Sorry, you don’t have anything I can lend against.’
• “I was sitting there going, wait a minute. I heard that from bankers for so many years, that same thing — ‘Oh yeah, we see it has value, but we just don’t understand it.'”
• What the lender didn’t understand was how to value the entrepreneur’s asset: a trademark.
• In the days that followed, that conversation played over and over in Martin’s head as he began to work on Mosaic’s annual report.
• “Mosaic had always been providing services to start-up companies, and we’ve got equity in these companies. We always wondered if this equity was ever going to have value,” Martin says. “So I thought to myself, ‘Gosh, this is a really lousy business model, because here Mosaic was always taking equity as payment, but I’ve got a file cabinet full of stock in companies that may or may not ever be in existence.'”
• For the next three months, Martin worked day and night — “not breathing a word of this to anybody” — developing a new financial business model.
• “I went through all kinds of scenarios. I tested it against every financial assumption I could come up with, and I did that because it seemed to big to be true. I said that before I embarrass myself, I’m going to test the heck out of this assumption. Every time I did, it kept getting bigger than I thought it was.”
• On Jan. 18, 1998 Martin marched into a meeting of Mosaic’s board of directors and announced, “Guys, this is what we’re going to do. Everyone’s jaws kind of went, ‘What?'”
• After board members straightened up and listened to Martin’s detailed proposal, they launched a new business that is now being touted as having the potential to revolutionize the world of banking.
• That morning, the Mosaic board created a spin-off company called M·CAM that would take Mosaic’s technology expertise and combine it with a new lending concept — one that allows banks to use intellectual property as collateral.
• M·CAM is believed to be the first company of its kind in the United States, and its presence will soon be felt in Hampton Roads, where M·CAM is in the process of rolling out its product for the first time. Richmond and the rest of the state will soon follow. In addition, Martin is talking to the U.S. Small Business Administration, which is interested in M·CAM’s novel approach to financing.
• M·CAM’s basic principle sounds simple, but its application is complex and rigorous. It works by allowing banks to make commercial loans to fledgling companies that have developed solid concepts, but that don’t qualify for traditional bank loans because of a lack of collateral.
• It can do this by using Mosaic’s years of buying and selling technologies — whether it’s processing aluminum in Russia or lung cancer detection equipment in Singapore — as its means of determining the worth of specific types of technology and identifying its place in the market.
• “In essence, what he’s doing is writing the blue book on technology,” says Dennis Ackerman, director of the Bank of America Entrepreneurial Center at Old Dominion University.
• M·CAM is developing a software program that can evaluate the worth of each different type of technology, and in doing so, assess the value of the intellectual property that goes along with it, such as patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. The program includes a pre-determined depreciation schedule for all technologies.
• The program, called First Dollar, will be used by banks, and opens the door for M·CAM to provide collateral to the bank for the intellectual property of a company requesting a commercial loan. If the loan goes sour — just like a car or home loan gone bad — the bank repossesses the intellectual property and must liquidate it to minimize its losses. That’s where M·CAM comes in: if a company fails, M·CAM buys the intellectual property.
• The formula for assessing intellectual property is “rigorous, logical and systematic,” Ackerman says of the patented software being developed.
• Through this new process, as Ackerman sees it, M·CAM also will create another tier of capital from a secondary market — an auctioning source for intellectual property. For example, when banks repossess property and equipment, such as cars, the bank doesn’t sell the property, it turns it over to a car auctioning company.
• M·CAM will be the first company of that type for intellectual property.
• Martin makes it clear that M·CAM’s client is the bank, not the company seeking the loan. The banks pay M·CAM a fee for assessing the property and providing the up-front services. In the event the company goes belly up, “we get the assets that are held, we pay back the bank what the bank needs, and we keep the rest,” Martin says. “And the rest is a pretty staggering number. It’s phenomenal.”
• If successful, M·CAM has the true potential to “shake up the capital market,” industry analysts say.
• “We have found the concept to be very interesting and enticing and we look forward” to seeing a finished model, says Dudley Patteson, senior vice president of Citizens and Farmers Bank in Williamsburg and West Point. Patteson says that if M·CAM’s program can “serve the market in a safe, sound manner,” it will “open up another tier of capital that isn’t available now.”
• When Ackerman first heard about M·CAM, his curiosity was piqued. After he and Martin met, they developed a relationship that has since put Hampton Roads in the forefront of this venture.
• “I was interested immediately in supporting this,” Ackerman says. Because of Ackerman’s position and experience with the entrepreneurial center, he understands the investment potential in the Tidewater area and the plight of up-and-coming technology companies.
• With this in mind, Ackerman is helping M·CAM on two fronts: to develop a large institutional guarantee fund, and to create a regional guarantee fund. These funds will help mitigate the risk of putting up collateral. “There has to be a pot of money that may have to be used until the intellectual property can be sold by M·CAM.”
• The funds also will provide another way for banks to know who’s picking up the risks. Ackerman, who is working with regional banks, local investors and large institutions to develop these funds, says it’s a much anticipated service that was bound to happen somewhere.
• “It’s fate and circumstance that this is happening here,” Ackerman says. “We’re really lucky he’s [Martin] in Charlottesville. It’s terrific that we are going to get a jump on this market in Virginia and establish a name for ourselves.
• “Banks have been watching the technology market grow, and they haven’t been able to be involved. This gives them the tools,” he says.
• “I think this is a true leap forward,” says Terry Woodworth, regional director of the Center for Innovative Technology in Charlottesville. “They are doing some really exciting stuff, developing an accurate means of estimating whether or not an asset has appropriate collateral. Their experience gives them the ability to know how to quantify the risk.”
• That know-how comes from Martin’s varied experience. At age 32, Martin is a former faculty member at University of Virginia’s medical school, the founder of the Charlottesville Venture Group, a contributor to the discovery of the first cholesterol analyzer test to be used in doctors’ offices and the originator of the first wholly owned, for-profit business with UVA’s Health Services Foundation. And, of course, that doesn’t include his having founded two businesses: Mosaic and M·CAM.
• Seven-year-old Mosaic Technologies is a thriving, complex company that focuses on three separate areas: research and development, start-up financing and community service.
• “We take projects that are improbable,” Martin explains. “Most of the time, those are technology projects, but we’re not limited to that. We have taken graphic art companies, restaurants — we even helped a buffalo farm get their products to market. We always stay involved through the first round of major financing.”
• It started in 1989, Martin says, when he worked as a technology claims analyst for a health insurance company. Martin would evaluate how much technology equipment, such as an MRI, cost the company. His next stop was with a company that worked through the lab at Ball State University, his alma mater. There, Martin worked to commercialize a broad variety of technology.
• “I helped launch the first physician office cholesterol analyzers. Think of that — before around 1991, you didn’t ever hear about cholesterol. We put high-tech chemistry analysis into a medical application, and that was the first technology transfer I was affiliated with.”
• After that, business opportunities flourished.
• Martin began to get referrals for U.S. Food Drug Administration approval for products it was trying to bring into the U.S. market. “I happen to be really good at positioning technology in improbable places. Whether it’s medical technology that applies to an environmental concern or environmental technology that would be of material science concern.”
• Along the way, he also developed solid experience in helping companies get their start or reorganize. “We’ve helped restructure, get financing and assist in the turnaround of a company,” he says. “We are an odd group to characterize.”
• Odd perhaps, but complex and skilled in many areas, industry observers say, and that’s where so much of their strength lies.
• “David happens to know both sides” of business, says David O’Donnell, director of Richmond’s CVEC Inc., alluding to Martin’s understanding of management and finance.
• “I’ve never heard anything like it [M·CAM’s program] before, but it seems solid as a rock,” he says. O’Donnell says that through his position with the Central Virginia Entrepreneurial Center in Richmond, he will help feed deals to M·CAM and to explain to people in the region how the First Dollar program works. O’Donnell anticipates that as soon as M·CAM gets a couple of success stories with banks in the Hampton Roads and Charlottesville areas, Richmond banks will jump on board.
• “He’s planning this roll-out and controlling it very carefully, so that if there are holes he would see them immediately. He’s put together a team that’s super confident and competent.”
• To be sure, Martin is confident in his team’s ability and approach. “Our strength has always been aggregating people, management and resources around opportunities that are worth launching. That’s the reason M·CAM works — because we’ve done it. M·CAM was a very logical thing to come out of us, despite the fact that it’s not logical in most people’s minds. It was the only logical way we could grow.”
• Martin’s approach to his business appears to be as much philosophic as it is strategic. Inside Mosaic’s office building, which meanders through a narrow, 100-plus-year-old building in downtown Charlottesville, there are many hints as to what inspires Martin. There’s a framed photo and law degree of his grandfather, who was an attorney for the U.S. Supreme Court Bar and whom he fondly refers to as “my best friend in my whole life.” There’s an artist’s sketch of his wife, who he says “keeps him grounded.” Behind his desk is a large wallboard with “I love you daddy” scribbled in marker by his 10-year-old daughter. And in one corner of his office hangs a black and gold banner that celebrates the Yukon gold rush of the 1890s — something Martin says he reflects on often and relates to constantly.
• He says he has always been fascinated by the California and Alaska gold rushes, and connects the discovery of gold in the Yukon — an improbable event that forced people to be creative in ways they never had, he says — to the inception of M·CAM. “What we really do is see opportunity where none existed,” he says.
• He tells how a young woman doing laundry in an Alaskan stream found a large gold nugget, and how that discovery sparked miners and businessmen from California to race north. In the end, the Californians, although experienced, weren’t successful in Alaska, because mining for gold there is completely different than in California. “They had to rethink and change the method,” Martin says.
• That’s what M·CAM is doing in the world of commercial lending. Instead of lending on equity, Martin emphasizes, lend on assets.
• “David Martin is one of the most visionary people I’ve ever met,” says Woodworth. “He’s gone outside the box.”
• Martin sees it this way: In traditional financing, where equity allegedly is king, investors still are frequently wrong.
• “We look at Silicon Valley and all the places that allegedly have figured this thing out, but you know what?” Martin says. “In the last 10 years, venture capital is still wrong 90 percent of the time. It’s still betting on the 10 percent of the wins that are so big that they eclipse all the garbage out there.
• “And in 10 years, we really haven’t gotten a whole lot better. We’re getting marginal hits. Good firms are getting marginal hits at 20 percent, good hits at 10 percent, which means that 80 to 90 percent of the deals that they do are never going to materialize.
• “[Ours] is a more conservative way in some respects, but the funny thing is, what we’re doing is being branded as ridiculously, wildly, speculatively risky. We’re taking a model that takes the Wild West of equity financing and puts it allegedly into the stodgy banker suit. But it isn’t, because this isn’t a banker that we’ve seen before. It’s a very different animal. It’s fascinating.”
• The fascination doesn’t end with commercial lending. Martin, who considers himself more business prospector than entrepreneur, sees another gold mine waiting to be discovered.
• “There’s a whole graveyard” of assets buried in banks everywhere, he says. “It all boils down to one little line” on commercial lending contracts that says in case of a default, the bank will repossess all property, equipment “and all intangible assets
• Those assets are the patents, copyrights, trade secrets and other intellectual property. M·CAM would like to sift through this graveyard and buy some of the relics back from the banks.
• “They’ve already been doing this, but they’ve just never done anything with those assets,” Martin explains. “They take them, but they don’t do anything with them — leading me to one of those obvious points in time where you go, ‘Alright, how hard is this? We are just trying to sell what you already have and don’t think is worth anything.’
• “We’re not even asking banks to change how they do business. They’ve taken in these assets all along, now we’re saying use them as assets and stop letting them go into nonexistence because you don’t know how to do anything with them.”
• “This is really intriguing,” O’Donnell says, because it allows M·CAM to collect a “basketful of intellectual property” and resell what it can, or to try to combine assets — such as copyrights and patents, etc. — to possibly start another business.
• But first, M·CAM must prove itself.
• That could start happening soon. The deal on the $15 million trademark that first got Martin thinking back in October 1997 was being finalized at press time. When it closes, Martin says, “it will validate M·CAM’s business premise.”
• And that, he promises, will be the real beginning of the story.
• David Martin will discuss the details of M·CAM at a meeting of the Virginia Venture Capital Forum in Norfolk on June 15.

• The University of Virginia Patent Foundation recently signed a marketing agreement with Mosaic Technologies, Inc., signaling a stronger effort to move U.Va. inventions out of the ivory tower and into the marketplace. Mosaic, a technology marketing and development firm in Charlottesville, will help the Patent Foundation find licensees for tough-to-market technologies. 
• “Sometimes we feel sure that a technology is valuable, but just can’t find the right company to take it to market,” said Robert MacWright, executive director of the Patent Foundation. “We hope that Mosaic’s contacts, especially those in foreign markets, may lead to opportunities we otherwise would have missed.” 
• Under the contract between the two organizations, Mosaic would receive part of the Patent Foundation’s share of royalties resulting from any license that it helps arrange. The agreement is similar to one the Patent Foundation signed earlier this year with the U.Va. Health System Development Office, which has developed an extensive network of corporate contacts as part of its efforts to support the U.Va. School of Medicine. 
• “We have a long-standing relationship with U.Va. and are enthusiastic that we can help the Patent Foundation bring U.Va. technologies to the marketplace,” said David Martin, president of Mosaic. Martin, an alumnus of U.Va., is also the founder of the Charlottesville Venture Group, which helps bring small business owners together with financiers and local business service providers.
• Mosaic recently formed M·CAM, a company that helps banks develop a means by which patents can be valued and used as collateral in making business loans.
• The Patent Foundation is responsible for the evaluation, protection, and licensing of inventions made in the course of research at the University of Virginia. Established in 1977, the Patent Foundation funnels income from royalties and fees to U.Va. inventors, their research laboratories, and the University’s research enterprise. In just-ended fiscal 1999, the Patent Foundation handled 154 new technologies and generated nearly $4.2 million in royalties and fees. [...]

• An entire graveyard of assets exists, buried in banks all over the world. And there is a new scavenger right here in Charlottesville, hungry to scoop them all up — to buy the assets from banks and sell them.
• M·CAM, Inc., a progressive new Charlottesville corporation which spun out of Mosaic Technology, Inc., may have pioneered the first systematic value determination model for intellectual property (IP), to put a price on assets once characterized as “intangible.”
• “We look at the world a little differently than most people do,” said David V. Ferron, director of bank services for M·CAM, which launched in January, 1999.
• When an entrepreneur goes to a bank looking for a loan, the bank needs to know that the borrower has collateral that it can lend against. If there appears to be no such guarantee, a bank would typically refuse the loan request.
• This is where M·CAM comes in. The principals of the firm, who stress that their clients are banks, attempt to establish that the entrepreneur has valuable assets that the bank can lend against, even if it does not have conventional collateral.
• These assets could be patents, trademarks, copyrights, distribution rights or any other items that may be overlooked or given away if their values are not understood.
• “We’re creating the gold standard as we go,” said Chief Executive Officer Dave Martin in an interview at the firm’s downtown office. “There’s no one else doing it.”
• This method of thinking, creatively looking at ways to revitalize discarded or unrealized assets, is relatively new and is sure to draw puzzled looks and tickle the tense nerves of stiff-necked bankers, who know that if a loan goes bad they have to collect payback.
• “I think you’re talking about new territory,” said Mark Giles, president of Virginia National Bank and board member of the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council (VPTC). “Bankers are very used to having tires that they can kick and warehouses that they can walk into.”
• So M·CAM backs it “appraisal” with hard cash. The firm agrees to buy an asset if the company defaults on loan payment.
• The comprehensive process of valuation, Martin explained, begins with a classic appraisal. The firm then puts the asset through a filtering process to consider environmental effects on the IP in a specific sector of business and then predicts the possibilities of how the asset would work in other sectors.
• Every other appraisal model, said Martin, just looks in the rearview mirror. “We start with looking back — where every appraisal model stops,” he said.
• M·CAM must then predict what will happen tomorrow, by anticipating the “prospective passage of time”, explained Martin.
• The process is currently 80 percent automated and 20 percent manually done, Martin said, adding that he hopes to bring that number to 90 percent automated by April, 2000.
• The company looks to expand radically by increasing the number of IP sales it does, and in terms of forging strategic partnerships with insurance companies to help offset risk associated with purchase obligations. Martin said M·CAM looks to move into the multi-billion dollar market of high tech commercial lending.
• Tom McCrystal, founding chairman and board member of the VPTC, said that M·CAM offers a “great” service, as it addresses the “critical” problem that banks need to better measure their risk and know how to value collateral. 
• “Some of the things that M·CAM is doing to address the valuation issue is going to have a significant impact in tech business, not just here, but all over the place,” said McCrystal. “Potentially M·CAM could end up with global impact. That’s exciting.”
• Barriers are coming down, he said, as we move into the next century. “The nature of banking is changing for evermore,” said McCrystal.

• Most banks give the cold shoulder to companies that have little more than a patent or a trademark to their names. A new company that assigns dollar figures to intellectual property could change that.
• David New wasn’t asking for much: just a little bump to keep his root-beer company breathing until he could tweak the packaging and solidify regional distribution. He figured $50,000 would do the trick.
• That was in 1997, three years after New had launched Roadside Beverage with $5,000 borrowed from family and friends and another $20,000 kicked in by a partner. He had tinkered with the soda’s formula in his kitchen until he perfected it and had signed contracts with outside bottlers. Now he needed the cash to take his start-up to the next level. But the venture capitalists dismissed his request as small potatoes. Just as well, figured New. (“You can never get rid of those guys.”) That left debt as the entrepreneur’s best option. Unfortunately, the dozen or so banks he approached didn’t bite. “They kept saying, ‘Nice business plan, but you don’t have any assets,'” New recalls.
• But the banks were wrong. New did have an asset — albeit one he himself didn’t recognize. His golden ticket was the trademark “Root 66” on each bottle of his soft drink.
• The potential value of “Root 66” was explained to New by David Martin, whose brother New had become acquainted with after a chance meeting in a coffee shop. Martin came by his expertise as CEO and founder of $3.2-million Mosaic Technologies, which like Roadside Beverage is based in Charlottesville, Va. Mosaic manages R&D projects for corporate and university labs and then commercializes the results, taking its share in equity or royalties. Pricing is relatively straightforward, since the customers for Mosaic’s “products” — patents, formulas, software code, even trademarks — are generally large corporations well versed in the value of their industries’ advancements. A biomedical company licensing the patent for a new medical device, for example, can make a pretty good guess at how much that particular piece of intellectual property will pay off over time.
• But listening to New’s tale of rejection, Martin realized that such intangible assets don’t mean much to the lending community. Banks almost never weigh intellectual capital when considering loan applications, because lacking an intimate understanding of all the markets for such properties, they can’t assess their value. Yet start-ups, particularly high-tech start-ups, often have little to their name but a few thousand lines of ingenious code. Martin figured that if he could slap the same kind of dollar figures on patents, trademarks, and formulas that are routinely placed on real estate, revenues, and machinery, the banks would eat it up. Moreover, small businesses would have a better shot at getting the money they needed to grow.
• What Martin envisioned was software that would place a dollar figure on a piece of intellectual property and then continue to recalculate that figure throughout the property’s lifetime. He spent the next four months developing such a program, drawing on expertise gained during his brief stint as an insurance-company actuary and from his graduate work in statistics. The product, First Dollar, was finished in January 1998. That same month Martin spun off a new company, which he called M·CAM, to market its services, and signed several small banks in Virginia as beta test sites.
• Bankers and investors who have seen the product and understand Martin’s vision call it nothing sort of revolutionary. “This will potentially have a profound effect on the economy, banking, balance sheets, and how assets can be valued,” says Carlyle Eckstein, director of Next Generation Capital, a venture-capital fund in Fairfax, Va. “You’re creating value where the accounting profession has tried to insist there’s no value for years. Say the asset value of all of corporate America is $15 trillion. What would it be if you factored in intellectual property? Add 50%?”
• A mechanism for quantifying intellectual capital could set off economic shock waves if whole niches of businesses that banks have ignored were suddenly to get financing, according to Dennis Ackerman, director of the Bank of America Entrepreneurial Center at Old Dominion University, in Norfolk, Va. “This changes the whole paradigm of how you look at corporate wealth, at national wealth,” says Ackerman. “I’ve never heard of any financial idea as big as this.”
• M·CAM’s founder accepts the praise but insists that he was surprised by how swift and enthusiastic the reaction to the start-up was. “It’s a great idea, but I didn’t realize there was this much pent-up demand,” he says.
• On a sunny day in August, David Martin is sitting in the conference room of a century-old brick building overlooking Charlottesville’s pedestrian mall, a cobblestone avenue framed by antiques shops and trendy restaurants. The building also houses Mosaic, but M·CAM, now a separate company, is quickly outgrowing its parent. That growth will likely continue, judging by the dozens of phone calls Martin has fielded from large U.S. and Asian banks.
• With his natty suspenders and silver-rimmed glasses, Martin looks like the professor he once was. The 32-year-old earned his Ph.D. in sports medicine in 1995 from the University of Virginia, where he also taught radiology and orthopedic surgery. But the entrepreneurial urge was strong in him: while still studying for his master’s Martin began doing consulting work for large international companies interested in commercializing medical technology. In 1995 he incorporated as Mosaic, and within two years his consulting income had surged to five times his academic earnings, a state of affairs that scandalized his tweedy peers. So in 1997 he fled the ivory tower for a riskier business: specifically, the business of risk. “Risk is a funny thing,” says Martin. “It’s a business opportunity if you can model it, and a liability if you can’t. The insurance industry is proof that risk management is one of the most lucrative businesses anyone can be in.”
• M·CAM itself is a strange hybrid of insurer, investor, and technology marketer, with the third role kicking in only if a borrower tanks. Here’s how it works: Each time a bank considers an intellectual-property-based loan, it pays M·CAM to run information on that asset through its proprietary software. M·CAM’s approach resembles the methods insurance companies use to predict how many of the houses they cover will burn down in the coming year. It compares 234 pieces of data about the borrower and its asset with aggregate data on market changes and comparable companies. M·CAM then uses those results to produce depreciation schedules that show, for example, how the value of a software program declines based on projected competition and obsolescence. “A long time ago people thought mortgages were discrete things — that you couldn’t model the risk on the aggregate,” Martin explains. “But now you can get mortgage insurance. That’s what we’ve done here.”
• Once M·CAM has assigned a dollar value to the asset, the bank decides whether or not to grant the loan, and what percentage of the value’s asset to lend. In the case of a thumbs-up, M·CAM then guarantees that if the borrower defaults, it will purchase the property from the bank. Under those circumstances, M·CAM assumes control of the intellectual property, which it tries to sell into secondary markets untapped by the company that developed it. The property is all that remains in play. M·CAM slices the borrower’s management team — the wildest card in the pack — right out of the equation. “Our premise is to look at intellectual property not as a basis for a business but simply as an asset,” Martin says.
• Since M·CAM may eventually try to succeed where the borrower has failed, the borrower never sees the evaluation process. “Then they’d be asking us how we plan to liquidate their assets, and they might try to do it themselves first if they got into trouble,” Martin says. “The chance of them screwing that up is high.”
• What prevents M·CAM from screwing it up is the extraordinary tabs the company keeps on each asset during the life of the loan. Fluctuations in value are judged by constantly studying new applications and potential new markets. In the past a few lenders that worked with software companies have tried holding borrowers’ source code in escrow as collateral, but those efforts generally failed because the lender lacked the knowledge and imagination to exploit the code. “Venture capital has not been successful at technology licensing,” says John Jarve, a general partner and managing director at Menlo Ventures, in Menlo Park, Calif. “We make our money through big winners, so if a company does poorly, we generally spend our time on another deal that will have more return to investors, instead of getting back half a million on licensing.”
• But as Martin points out, intellectual property “can be licensed, sold, commercialized, any number of things,” possibly all at the same time. Every quarter M·CAM runs new calculations to determine how all the assets it is backing will perform in every conceivable market, and shares the updated value information with the banks. To ensure that all possible stones are turned, a four-member team evaluates each asset, bringing to bear a wealth of experience in commercial lending, corporate funding, technology litigation, and sales and marketing. Martin also consults with Mosaic employees who are adept at envisioning new tricks for old dogs.
• Although Martin claims he can make money on bank fees alone, the big profits will come from successful fire sales. M·CAM expects to generate 80% of its revenues from seized assets; margins, the founder says, will be as high as 60%. And if Martin’s experience selling and licensing intellectual property for Mosaic is anything to judge by, marketing those assets should earn M·CAM 170% more than it pays out to banks in foreclosures. Early last fall the company was finding new homes for more than 75 pieces of intellectual capital, and Martin expects that number to grow to about 150 by the end of this month.
• Clearly, M·CAM flies only if it can guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars in loans. The company, financially backed by Martin and Mosaic, must set up the same kind of contingency fund that insurers have: essentially a pile of money that just sits there waiting to buy out loans while earning little for investors. Martin is currently talking with large insurance companies about strategic partnerships in which M·CAM would use their funds to guarantee its loans in return for a piece of the resale action, and his banking contacts are introducing him to other potential partners.
• The lack of a contingency fund is the only thing standing between M·CAM and several substantial customers. After presenting a talk at a Small Business Administration conference last spring, Martin began fielding calls from leading high-technology lenders, including Silicon Valley Bank, Imperial Bank, and Japan’s Sakura Bank. “The most proactive banks want to become as familiar as they can with the product and do a little with the few guarantees they can get,” says Bank of America’s Ackerman. “But until there’s a large guarantee pool, banks can’t go out and make loans based on the product to a lot of customers.” Ackerman says Bank of America, for one, is “very interested” in working with M·CAM once the fund is in place, something Martin expects to happen this summer. Meanwhile, he’s doing deals ranging from $250,000 to $1.5 million with small regional and community banks such as Citizens & Farmers Bank in Williamsburg, Va.
• Unfortunately, M·CAM wasn’t around to help Roadside Beverage, the company that gave Martin the idea in the first place. But Martin went to bat for New anyway. Flashing his intellectual-capital credentials, M·CAM’s founder assured a local bank that the “Root 66” trademark was worth more than the $50,000 New had requested. Martin’s guarantee that he would pay off the bank in return for that trademark won Roadside Beverage’s founder a loan of $300,000.
• Thanks to Martin’s faith in the power of trademarks, New is now able to use his loan for operating capital and sit on his equity until he needs it for strategic moves or expansion. Just as important, he can devote his time to managing the company instead of dancing for investors. “We’re in a nice position because if it takes a while to find the right investment relationship, we don’t have to stop,” he says. “We have enough capital to keep moving.”Phaedra Hise is a freelance journalist and author living in Richmond, Va.
• The Formula: How M·CAM Gets Its Numbers
• M·CAM’s methodology for affixing hard numbers to soft ideas is a complex amalgam of human-envisioned possibility and technologically calculated risk. Let’s say that a start-up called BioPlant has developed a gel that preserves donated organs for transplants. The company applies to its bank for a loan, and the bank turns to M·CAM, which embarks on a three-stage evaluation process.
• Stage 1: The bank pays M·CAM $5,000 to evaluate BioPlant’s plans for the gel. First, M·CAM considers whether the asset (the gel formula) is owned or merely licensed. Second, it evaluates the product’s life cycle, using actuarial tables that it has built for each industry. Third, it rates the litigiousness of the industry, drawing on corporate lawsuits and settlements. Fourth, it uses a database to produce a “Transplant Survival Index” that determines how reliant the gel’s success is on the company’s management team and key suppliers. M·CAM then issues a report recommending for or against the loan.
• Stage 2: The bank pays M·CAM points (similar to those on a mortgage) to calculate how much the gel is worth in the organ-donation market. At this point M·CAM’s staffers gather data about BioPlant’s direct and indirect competitors that include sales, profits, and market shares. The assembled information is then keyed in to M·CAM’s software, which spits out a suggested dollar amount for the asset, a figure that gets a reality check by Martin and his management team. The bank decides what percentage of that amount to offer. (M·CAM also creates what it calls a collateral-liquidation plan focusing on alternative applications and markets for the gel.)
• Stage 3: The bank pays M·CAM from 1.5% to 3% of the loan’s principal to perform quarterly evaluations of the state of the asset. M·CAM ensures that the asset is being maintained (for example, that BioPlant is documenting any changes to the gel’s formula) and updates the asset’s value based on market changes, which it monitors through press releases, news stories, and new patents and copyrights. For example, the gel’s value might receive a boost from legislation that requires that organs go to the sickest patients regardless of their geographical proximity to the donor. “That becomes a really critical piece,” Martin says. “It tells us what to watch for as the asset sits there.”
• Intellectual Assets: Know What You’ve Got
• Companies that take an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach to intellectual property are, well, out of their minds, business analysts agree. That’s because intellectual property — in the form of patents, trademarks, product designs, and even customer lists — has a profound effect on every aspect of business. It is the motivation behind a growing number of mergers and acquisitions. It is among the gaudiest feathers in the hats of investor-courting CEOs. It is the stuff of controversy, as high-wired contenders like Priceline.com and Microsoft, or Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com, duke it out over code-driven business models. And it is a boon to the bottom line: patent-licensing revenues exceeded $100 billion in 1998 and could top $500 billion by the middle of this decade, according to the recently published Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents (Harvard Business School Press).
• In this idea-stoked environment, organizations that have systems for identifying and exploiting their intellectual property and other intangible assets stand to enhance their revenues and competitive advantage, concludes a recent white paper from consulting, tax, and accounting firm KPMG LLP. Roger Carlile, KPMG’s national partner in charge of intellectual-property services, talked with Inc. senior editor Leigh Buchanan about the historically woeful management of intangibles and how it must change.
• Inc.: Why is intellectual property underexploited?
  • • Carlile: Intellectual property has historically been managed defensively. You had legal counsel protecting it from infringement and making sure that the patent-maintenance fees were paid. But there has not been this proactive approach where you have a strategy for identifying ways to get the most out of the intellectual property that you own. Most companies don’t even have a good understanding of how intellectual property generates value in their organizations, let alone methodologies for managing and measuring it.
    • One of the chief problems is that the financial systems in this country are based on historical cost accounting. As a result, the majority of intellectual property — unless it’s purchased from another company — doesn’t even show up on a balance sheet. Organizations tend to manage assets that are measured. Although there have been a number of attempts to uniformly quantify intellectual assets, there isn’t a generally accepted framework for placing their value on a company’s balance sheet.
• Inc.: What has persuaded companies that this is important?
  • • Carlile: There was a period when the most successful organizations were those that excelled at combining tangible resources. Getting raw materials at the best price. Producing a finished good with the greatest efficiency. But companies got better and better at those things, and consequently those skills have become less of a differentiator. Today it’s technology, brands, the trade name, and so forth that differentiate products and companies. At the same time consumers are much more attuned to changes in the marketplace and in products. You hear about somebody who has a great idea and creates a whole new industry or a great deal of value. As a result, people are becoming tuned in to the notion that ideas are worth a lot. And they’re starting to ask their boards of directors, “What are we doing with our intellectual property? What great ideas do we have for generating value that are going to show up in the stock price?”
• Inc.: What’s the single toughest challenge to putting in place an intellectual-property strategy?
  • • Carlile: One of the toughest challenges is that most companies, with the exception of a few industries, don’t know what intellectual property they have. There are several reasons for that. One is related to the great number of mergers and acquisitions that are taking place. When you’re buying a company, do you really know everything that it owns? Maybe it had one great idea that you wanted but you didn’t know that behind that, in the R&D labs, it had a hundred other ideas with potential. I was working with a company that told me, “We have 44,000 technologies, and we need to know what we have.” I asked, “How do you know you have 44,000 technologies?” And the response was, “Well, because we just think we do.”
• Inc.: Are there some industries where the opportunities are greater?
  • • Carlile: There are opportunities in every industry. IBM went from virtually no licensing revenues some years ago to approximately a billion dollars in licensing and royalty revenues today. And it’s expecting to double that in the year 2002. Defense contractors license plane designs to toy manufacturers. Companies like Coca-Cola are putting their trademarks on clothing, so they’re getting licensing revenues from that while at the same time extending their brand.
• Inc.: Who should be in charge of a company’s intellectual-property strategy?
  • • Carlile: You need somebody who has a good understanding of the intellectual property itself and is also a business-type person who can think more broadly in terms of applications and markets. In the case of small companies and start-ups, that’s going to be the very top management, because generally the company was formed around a single idea that drives the organization’s value in the marketplace. But as companies get larger and look for ways to extend their value, they’ll need someone with an understanding of licensing, marketing, and product issues. What companies need is someone who comes in every day and says, “What can I do to make this property more valuable?”

• Dave Martin looks at the world a little differently than most. He sees a sea of unrealized, undervalued intellectual property in businesses all over the world. And he wants to drag a net across this ocean, put a price tag on the catch and turn a profit on what he gets his hands on. Martin, the founder and chief executive officer of M·CAM Inc., has developed what may be the first systematic value-determination model for intellectual property. Martin’s prototype allows him to put a price on “intangibles” such as copyrights, patents, trademarks, formulas and processes and employ that appraised value as a “concrete” asset. His 2 year-old brainchild recently enjoyed international recognition. M·CAM was featured in the January issue of Inc. magazine, a business publication with circulation of 660,000.
• Martin, 32, told a monthly Charlottesville Venture Group meeting Tuesday that he had received between 80 and 90 e-mail from all over the world — including New Zealand, Switzerland and South Africa — since the Inc. article appeared. “The thrill is that people have latched onto the magnitude of the business,” Martin said later in an interview. “An awful lot of people get excited that it’s generating revenue and making money.” He said he has had several offers from organizations looking to take M·CAM public, but added that he’s waiting for the right time, that he’s in no hurry to ride into the public arena on excitement alone.
• M·CAM, based in downtown Charlottesville on East Market Street, was spun off from Martin’s Mosaic Technology, Inc., a firm that helps companies through their initial development process and taking their concept or technology into the commercial marketplace. The parent company, which is housed under the same roof as M·CAM, “is dwarfed by what M·CAM is doing,” Martin said. When an entrepreneur goes to a bank for a loan, the bank requires collateral — something of value that the bank can take if the borrower fails to repay the loan. If there appears to be no such guarantee, the bank typically refuses the application. This is where M·CAM comes in. The bank can turn to M·CAM, which, for a fee, establishes the value of the entrepreneur’s concept, design or model, and then recommends in favor of or against the loan. This way of thinking — putting a price on an abstraction — might draw puzzled looks from traditional bankers. “How does one value an intellectual asset?” said Gene Culligan, a vice president and commercial lending officer for First Virginia Bank — Blue Ridge in Charlottesville. “I don’t know how you value it. Whether that’s the reality, there’s no way of telling.” But bankers don’t have to, because M·CAM gives banks reassurance: It backs its appraisal with cash, agreeing to buy the asset from the bank if the entrepreneur defaults on loan payment. In such cases, M·CAM would seize the intellectual property and then look to license it, sell it, or otherwise cash in on its value. Martin told Inc. magazine that although M·CAM can make money on bank fees alone, bigger revenue will come from the assets it gains through loan defaults. M·CAM’s valuation process begins with a traditional appraisal, Martin said. The company then sends the asset through a “filtering process” to consider its potential performance in different markets and sectors over time. The process is currently 80 percent computerized, Martin said, adding that he hopes to have it 90 percent automated by April. By helping business people, bankers and investors better understand the value of intellectual property, M·CAM “is going to bring a whole new type of capital into this marketplace,” said J. Benjamin English, a partner of LeClair Ryan, a Richmond-based corporate law firm that is active in venture capital finance. M·CAM is a client of the law firm, which opened a Charlottesville office in October. Martin is looking to move deeper into the multibillion-dollar market of high-tech finance by increasing the volume of intellectual property deals M·CAM handles and by building strategic partnerships with insurance companies to help offset the risk associated with purchasing obligations. M·CAM has grown from four to 12 employees in the last month, Martin said. He anticipates hiring between 12 and 15 more people by mid-February. The company will be moving personnel into additional office space across the street in the first week of February, he said.

• Like the Forty-Niners of California’s gold rush, CIT clients are pioneers who chart their way through undiscovered territory. Based in Charlottesville and the rolling hills of Virginia’s Piedmont, M·CAM is a CIT pioneer preparing to blaze new trails through the banking world. Utilizing an ingenious financial model, M·CAM’s software prodcut will set a new “gold standard” for technology financing. David Martin, the founder and chairman of Mosaic Technologies, Inc. (Mosaic), created M·CAM in January 1998. Shortly after M·CAM’s formation, Martin outlined his revolutionary concept to CIT’s regional director in Charlottesville, Terry Woodworth. “Extraordinary ideas and innovations are often based on an entrepreneur’s ability to view a concept or process from an angle that has never been contemplated before,” says Woodworth. Impressed with Martin’s visionary idea, Woodworth helped M·CAM apply and win a CIT Innovation award. The result was the development of software for M·CAM’s First Dollar product. M·CAM’s First Dollar service utilizes a software program that electronically standardizes the intellectual property valuation process. The revolutionary software allows lending institutions to use patents, trademarks, copyrights and trades secrets as collateral. In the simplest terms, the software provides a systematic process for evaluating intangible assets and the risk involved in financing that asset. The CIT Innovation Award that helped create the software system in partnership with M·CAM and the University of Virginia (UVA) will serve to benefit universities in the future as well. This strategic partnership between CIT, M·CAM and UVA also opens up the possibility for addressing the issue of how universities determine what technologies are or are not licensable. Martin firmly believes that CIT provided M·CAM with a great deal more than just financial assistance. “CIT opened up a relationship between the university system and private industry. Money would have been of little value without the development of that relationship.” With CIT’s assistance, M·CAM has transferred the detailed, complex and time-consuming process of asset evaluation to electronic form. Although the program provides absolute rules for valuing assets, it still allows human experience to intervene in the electronic process. “This isn’t about hunches,” says Martin, “it’s based on standardized processes. Everything about this product is risk management.” The strategic partnership with CIT has helped M·CAM hit the mother lode. With their unique software approach to risk management the company is projecting $14 million in productivity savings over the next three years, based on administrative cost reductions and man-hours saved. Additionally, in the same three-year period, M·CAM is projecting $47 million in competitiveness and approximately seven new jobs. M·CAM is this century’s leader of a new gold rush, and in the process of mapping unexplored territory, First Dollar has the capability to revolutionize the financial lending industry.

• Wells Fargo bank didn’t know it was starting e-commerce in 1864. What it did know was that the stagecoach was a risky way to send money from the gold fields of the West to the depositories in the East. Time to market and corporate security — hallmarks of our present, highly evolved business — fostered the notion that the “singing wires” of the telegraph could be used to transfer funds. Happy birthday B-2-B e-commerce! You look marvelous at 136 years of age! Innovation is not new. Neither is the need to manage it in a sensible way. When a patent for stained glass manufacturing was awarded in 1449, the Crown acknowledged that one of the foundations of any successful economy was the notion that limited monopolies — the ability for an innovator to enjoy the fruits of innovation — were necessary to foster entrepreneurial activity which would sustain the realm. In the United States, the framers of the Constitution and the Congress realized that valuing innovation was required to fuel an economy built by fledgling immigrants and therefore afforded to all Americans the right of Intellectual Property. Two hundred and ten years later, the world has awakened to the notion that IP (patents, copyrights, trademarks and knowledge assets) has value and is rushing to figure out how to rectify 500 years of laws and accounting standards in opposition to that notion with the .com universe of today. M·CAM has built a powerful analytic system that serves as the first auditable, ubiquitous intellectual property evaluation system used to calculate the asset liquidation value — the residual value — of all forms of IP and IA. Using over 200 discreet data components, this system allows commercial lenders to use intellectual property and intangible assets as collateral for conventional debt financing. No more does an innovator have to hear the words, “But all you have is a patent, What real asset do you have?” How did it come about? Beginning in 1992, we began experimentation with a simple premise. What would the world look like if value of innovation were viewed based on secondary market value, not primary market application? In an economy where the “B” team tanked the “A” opportunity, is there any possibility that “A” still retains value? Many times the highest and best use for an innovation is a use that was not contemplated by the innovator. When the transcontinental cables linked the Atlantic and Pacific, the “singing wires” were designed to deliver data. However, broad-minded entrepreneurial bankers discovered a use which, in aggregate, has resulted in the single largest liquidity transit process ever conceived — wire transfers. The question to answer then is, how would one model a world where value was what someone would pay for an asset, not what an enterprise built thereon would be “worth?” M·CAM answered it by creating a systematic asset analysis heuristic that asks two relatively simple questions: Do you own an asset? And does anybody care? Ownership Asset ownership is an arena largely ignored by the myriad of “invention.com” businesses that have proliferated over the past year and a half. Presumption that, because someone says they have a patent (and can produce a patent #), there is a property there to leverage is fallacious. The Commissioner of the USPTO’s acknowledging that the examination process has not kept pace with innovations contained in applications, coupled with the blossoming of infringement litigation, makes it clear that the assumption of de facto property rights is fundamentally flawed. To determine title, M·CAM’s system reviews classic title considerations and then evaluates disallowance probability based on an interrogation of other patent claims and international data archives. Frequently patent prosecutors and examiners search conveniently available data rather than going to improbable data sources. Failure to research and examine a world filled with prior art undermines presumptions of novelty, non-obviousness, and timely reduction to practice. Consider the implications of a major U.S. corporation donating patent portfolios to a university, thereby taking a tax-deductible donation based on an estimated valuation. If the “property” claim is disallowed, how does one handle the tax liability created by the basis-less donation? What happens when the Picasso in the parlor is a forgery? Our method uses patent references and claim language to interrogate international databases in order to rate the uniqueness of an asset. Who Cares? To answer the second question, and derive “asset liquidation value” or ALV, it is necessary to determine the value of property apart from the going concern in which it resides. Methodology employed by M·CAM does not predict future value or securitization value for royalty streams; rather, it identifies three integrated variables that serve as the basis for value determinations. Much like the auto industry’s Blue Book, we perform unimproved asset characterization that defines an asset-specific:
  • 1. Effective life and depreciation;
    2. Transaction characterization; and,
    3. Non-aligned sector application value.
• Effective Life and Depreciation Each form of IP has a statutory life during which the limited monopoly right is afforded. However, statutory life and effective life are not correlated. A biopharmaceutical patent may have value for 20 years but an integrated circuit may be antiquated in 18 months. Because statutory life and useful life are not correlated, M·CAM tracks three elements in determining depreciation characteristics. First, velocity measurements are made based on the frequency of innovation in IP claims. This is integrated with velocity measurements in the application of innovation in commercial products and the adoption thereof. All of this is characterized by the resultant innovation curve, which identifies the uniqueness of an asset, and the true novelty it represents. Transaction Characterization In a risk transfer business model, our analysis allows one to rate the desirability of currency denominated asset transfers in any sector. Some IP secondary market opportunities result in cash sales or licenses. Others are denominated in equity and still others are derived from alliances between going concerns. M·CAM provides secured asset purchase contracts to lenders, guaranteeing the purchase of IP by M·CAM in the event of default. This establishes a liquidity-backed collateral enhancement program for patents, copyrights, trademarks, databases, and other forms of intangible assets. Therefore, in M·CAM’s determination of ALV, cash is rewarded and alliance-reliant liquidations are penalized, because the mechanism whereby M·CAM may take title to an asset (e.g. bankruptcy or winding-up of a going concern) precludes a B-2-B immediate liquidation. This weighting can be adjusted for applications of the model which are looking at present day, fair market value determinations. When the telegraph was invented, it made no claims to be the information super-highway upon which e-commerce would happen. Wells Fargo figured that out. The Kennicot Mining Company reversed alchemy when the California and Yukon gold rushes required the manufacturing of thousands of miles of copper wire. Gold had its luster but copper connected the world and resulted in phenomenal wealth creation. In fact, innovation to solve one problem often solves many more, unwittingly. When 3M’s adhesive doesn’t work for the desired application, make Post-It notes. In M·CAM’s Innovation Extraction Analysis, non-aligned sector application is characterized in three orthogonal opportunities. Successful IP management strategies may build complex asset management recommendations. However, potentially greater value can be appreciated when one looks first at the asset and then the enterprises that are enabled thereby. Viewing the asset first, and then the enterprise, yields value that is not correlated to market caps, because it is measuring fundamentally different characteristics. Using the three “relevance adjustment” filters described above, M·CAM calculates asset transfer value, which is expressed as a Certified Asset Purchase Price (CAPPcharacteri) with an affiliated depreciation index score. Being used by banks, accounting firms and public and private institutions, this methodology has the additional value of being 100% auditable. Enlightenment is often born out of a disciplined leveraging of a chance discovery. The printing press democratized literacy; the gold rush democratized entrepreneurialism. By analyzing and calculating the “value” of ideas and innovations, M·CAM’s system seeks to democratize critical capital markets long inaccessible to the most creative in our society. In the examination of the role of innovation in our economy and the appropriate management thereof, it is important to realize that we have a great responsibility to allow our minds to open, breaking apart the conventions that long have sequestered the great opportunities afforded by the innovation process. Ideas do indeed have value.

• As CEO and founder of Mosaic Technologies, now a $3.2-million business, I directed the management of research and development projects for corporate and university labs, then commercialized the results, receiving equity or royalties in exchange. Pricing for such services is relatively straightforward, since our corporate customers were well aware of the value of their industries’ patents, formulas, trademarks and software. For banks and accountants, however, valuation of intellectual property–which also includes such items as copyrights, licenses and other knowledge assets–is tricky, because, as in real estate, the property may have value independently of the enterprise built upon it. In classic accounting, you need to factor in cost and revenue. But in a world where knowledge is currency, this notion cannot capture value. Does the cost of filing a patent or recording a song truly reflect the value of a cure for cancer or a Backstreet Boys chart-topper? Of course not. Yet U.S. corporations spend a fortune trying to account for, and manage taxation of, value that cannot show a liability to offset an asset.
• M·CAM, the company I founded in 1997, started off with a software product called 4DS, which calculates value for a given “item” of intellectual property and continues to recalculate that figure throughout the property’s lifetime. It was created to answer, in a statistically sound and reproducible manner, two relatively simple questions: Do you own an asset? Does anybody care? Measurable answers to these questions would provide enhancement for intellectual property and other intangible assets when their owners needed to use them as collateral to finance debt.
• What Is an Asset and What Is It Worth? Asset ownership is an arena largely ignored by many “invention.com” businesses, which have proliferated over the past year and a half. Just because someone has a patent on an invention doesn’t mean there is a property to leverage. Indeed, the assumption of de facto property rights is fundamentally flawed. Frequently, patent prosecutors and examiners search only conveniently available data, when they should be looking at other, less obvious data sources. Failure to research and examine a world filled with prior art undermines the inventor’s presumptions of novelty, non-obviousness, and timely reduction to practice. Or, what happens if your company donates patent portfolios to a university and claims a tax deduction based on an estimated valuation? If the claim is disallowed, how do you handle the tax liability created by the basis-less donation? To forestall such situations, our method checks international databases, using patent references and claim language, in order to rate the uniqueness of an asset and evaluate it accurately.
• To answer the second question–does anyone care?–and derive “asset liquidation value” or ALV, it is necessary to determine the value of property apart from the particular business in which it resides. Methodology employed by M·CAM does not predict future value or securitization value for royalty streams; rather, it identifies three integrated variables, which serve as the basis for value determinations. Much like the auto industry’s Blue Book, we perform unimproved-asset characterization that defines asset-specific values for:
  1. effective life and depreciation,
  2. transaction characterization an
  3. non-aligned sector application value.
• Once we have assigned a dollar value to the asset, a bank can make decisions about granting its owner a loan. Then, M·CAM commits to purchasing the intellectual property from the bank if the borrower defaults. New Concepts to Measure Under current copyright and patent law, each form of IP has a statutory life, during which a limited monopoly right is granted. However, statutory and effective life are neither identical nor even correlated. A biopharmaceutical patent may have value for 20 years, but an integrated circuit may be antiquated in 18 months. Because statutory life and useful life are uncorrelated, M·CAM tracks three elements in determining depreciation characteristics for purposes of lending and taxation. First, we make velocity measurements based on the frequency of innovation in IP claims. The ripple effect of one innovation leading to others is one component of this calculation. Additionally, we evaluate the effects of surrounding innovations–ways in which new property interacts with or antiquates prior art. This view of the landscape allows us to determine whether innovation is truly groundbreaking or whether it is incremental, along with many other innovations. This figure is integrated with a measurement of how quickly innovation is applied in commercial products and the speed of their adoption. The resulting “innovation curve” identifies the uniqueness of an asset and the true novelty it represents. Intellectual property can be licensed, sold, commercialized–and sometimes all at the same time. Every quarter we run new calculations to determine how the assets we’re backing will perform in every conceivable market. In a risk-transfer business model, our analysis allows companies to rate the desirability of asset transfers in any sector. Some secondary market opportunities for intellectual property result in cash sales or licenses. Others are denominated in equity, and still others are alliances between going concerns. In our formula for determining ALV, cash is rewarded and alliance-reliant liquidations are penalized, since the very mechanism whereby M·CAM may take title to a “distressed” asset–such as bankruptcy or winding-up of a going concern–precludes immediate business-to-business liquidation. This weighting can be adjusted for applications of the model that look at present-day, fair-market value. Capturing a Transformed Economy When the telegraph was invented, it wasn’t expected to evolve into an information super-highway on which e-commerce would travel-it took a smart company, Wells Fargo, to figure out that use over 130 years ago. When the California and Yukon gold rushes led to a demand for thousands of miles of copper wire, copper became more valuable than gold, resulting in phenomenal wealth creation-and a bonanza for Kennicott Mining. Viewing the asset first, and the enterprise second, yields value uncorrelated to market caps because it is measuring fundamentally different characteristics. In fact, innovation to solve one problem often solves many more, unwittingly. In M·CAM’s Innovation Extraction Analysis, non-aligned sector application is characterized in a minimum of three orthogonal opportunities–that is, three uncorrelated ways of transferring technology, such as using a defense technology in medical diagnostics –with no maximum. Doing so recognizes that an innovation in one sector may be even more valuable when applied to another. Using all three of these “relevance adjustment” filters, we then calculate asset transfer value, expressed as a Certified Asset Purchase Price (CAPP™) with an affiliated depreciation index score. This methodology, which is now being used by banks, accounting firms and public and private institutions, has the additional advantage of being 100% auditable. Rather than relying on the recall of expert witnesses trained in appraisal techniques, the method enables secondary market development by creating it. More than 200 years after the passage of our original patent laws, the world has awakened to the notion that intellectual property has value, and is rushing to figure out how to reconcile outmoded laws and accounting standards with the dot-com universe of today. One reason the Federal Reserve Bank is having such trouble controlling the new economy is that it cannot be captured by the metrics presently employed. Acknowledging value ex nihilo, shocking as that sounds, will be the only way to leverage (and tax) intellectual property in the new millennium.
• Dr. David E. Martin, 33, is the founder, president and CEO of M·CAM, a corporation in Charlottesville, Va. that developed and commercialized the world’s first intellectual-property characterization and monetization technology. Prior to that, he was the founder and CEO of Mosaic Technologies, an international technology transfer company. Martin is chairman of the Charlottesville Venture Group, a nonprofit venture-aggregation organization which he also founded, and serves on numerous corporate and civic boards in the United States and in Asia. A former assistant professor at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Martin founded and was executive director of the first for-profit R&D corporation wholly owned by the university’s Health Services Foundation. He has founded numerous other businesses, and serves on many corporate and civic boards, in this country and abroad. His inventions include technology for medical testing and surgery and for secured image encryption and transmission. He holds an interdisciplinary bachelor’s degree from Goshen College, an M.S. in exercise physiology from Ball State University and a Ph.D. in sports medicine from the University of Virginia. Martin lives in Charlottesville with his wife, Colleen, and his children, Katherine and Zachary, and helps build houses with Habitat for Humanity.
• Source:  Entreworld

Rayburn House Office Building Testimony of Dr. David Martin, CEO, M·CAM Inc. :

• I would like to thank you and your distinguished colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for giving me an opportunity to address the topic of patent quality in the United States.

• While once deemed badges of intellectual honor, patents have become the currency of the U.S. and global economies. Echoing the debates over a currency standard 100 years ago the United States Congress now faces an issue much more challenging than a decision on gold or silver.

• The basis of our economy, no longer tangible metals, is now the national product of the human mind – innovation. The protection of this precious asset is the basis for the intellectual property laws of the United States and the developed world. However, in the past decade we have seen the erosion of confidence in patents. While many conveniently dismiss this as inevitable because that which is intangible cannot be measured, I will provide evidence that confidence is evaporating because the assets are indefensible due to egregious inadequacies in patent prosecution and examination.

• In January 2001, on a single trading day, one U.S. company and its investors lost over $330,000,000[1] as a result of misappropriated reliance on U.S. Patents. The patents that Transkaryotic Therapies Inc (TKTX) owned had significant deficiencies in uncited prior art which were overlooked in prosecution and examination. Relying on uninformed patent advice and confidence afforded by questionable patents, they challenged the validity of patents held by Amgen and lost. Our company, using our web-based patent examination system published a projected outcome of this case in November 2000 before anyone in the securities industry or in the courts would commit to the probable direction of the decision. Careful examination of the protected intellectual property in this case show that the TKT deficiency was avoidable had the U.S. Patent Office thoroughly examined prior art. The whole of USPTO

• When the framers of the Constitution of the United States decided that patents would be included as the only property right granted to every citizen, they did so with the understanding that a contract is valid only when both parties receive something of value. In exchange for adding valuable insights and innovations into the growth of the American economy, inventors would be granted a limited monopoly to commercially exploit their inventions. A value to the inventor — a value to the citizens of the new republic. The inventor submits a detailed disclosure of an invention that is novel, non-obvious, and practicable. The government develops rules to ensure that, prior to any grant of monopoly rights, a formal review is conducted to evaluate the genuineness of the inventive claims. This review is a safeguard against the granting of rights to multiple parties, or to those who are manipulating the system by submitting that which they do not create, or to parties who unknowingly assert that which was already known. One important part of the patent contract is a concept called “reduction to practice” — the process by which the inventor “educates” others so that the invention, once beyond protection of the patent grant, becomes something of value to others.
• It is useful to think of this requirement using the metaphor of a recipe. I can tell you the ingredients to make my mother’s homemade bread. However, if you simply place all the ingredients in a bowl, bread is not a likely by-product. In fact, to make the bread, the ingredients must be added in a certain order, certain timing variables must be controlled and certain baking conditions must be met. The patent standard says that an invention disclosure must enable someone “skilled in the art” to reproduce or practice the disclosed invention. As with homemade bread, I cannot patent the concept of baked cereal grains in a loaf-like form. I cannot patent the temporal interruption in yeast metabolism at the precise moment of fermentation thereby producing a thermally impaired environment in which bread results. To patent the bread, I have to tell you how to make it.
• Back to the contract. Once a government-sanctioned body (in the United States, this entity is the United States Patent & Trademark Office or USPTO) carefully reviews what was known in the past (referred to as “prior art”) and considers the significance of the disclosed invention (non- obviousness and utility), a grant of a monopoly interest may be made. Few patents these days actually provide patent protection on all of the systems, methods, and processes required to create commercial value. Most are reliant, oddly enough, on other patented or non-patented technologies or information. Practical realities not withstanding, the system is supposed to provide the public with access to innovation in exchange for a limited time of commercial exploitation protection.
• Sadly, the contract with society has been breached. And the very agency charged with protecting the rights of the citizenry has abandoned that responsibility. Ron Stern, President of the Patent Office Professional Association, the union representing patent examiners at the USPTO, recently declared that the most efficient examination finds no prior art. “We know we’re taking shortcuts,” said Stern. The majority of society has allowed this statement to slip past them unnoticed. We cannot. A statement such as this is tantamount to boasting that the FDA is no longer validating drug safety claims or that the Federal Reserve is printing counterfeit $20 bills. Why? Because this means that the contract stipulating that rights are to be granted for limited monopolies ONLY when the conditions of patentability are met is being violated by the very agency charged with the granting of the same. Examiners are not uniformly establishing the novelty or uniqueness of invention, and neither examiners nor the courts, where many patents ultimately are challenged, are applying any gold standard on the adequacy of the recipe. As a matter of fact, apply for the patent on the crust of bread from our little analogy above, and you’ll probably get the patent. After all, a patent was recently issued for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches without the crust!
• When a contract has been breached, it is incumbent for the potentially damaged party to provide notice of breach to the party that is not performing. Unfortunately, given the magnitude of the problem, a vast majority of those who have noticed the breach have just accepted the fact that the system is broken. The Ministry of Trade in Denmark has recently published studies that find that small and medium-sized companies are decreasing or ceasing patent activity. Their findings indicate that these companies believe that patents granted in the U.S., Europe, and Japan have no value without a considerable litigation war chest to enforce those granted rights. Patents being granted by USPTO, EPO and JPO often fail to have any examination in context with international non-patent and, in many cases, even patent literature. In Japan, Japanese patents are generally not construed in consultation with any non-Japanese data. The examination records and reports acknowledge this amazing statistic. In the name of efficiency, these agencies, charged with the solemn trust to ensure that due process is applied to a careful review of patent applications prior to the granting of rights that can extend 20 years, have abdicated their statutory roles and have elected instead to allow efficiency to preempt their obligations to the American people.
• But what difference does this make? After all, patents are too abstract for the average person to understand, right? Consider this. If we take the amount of money investors lost in recent cases proving the failure of the public sector to police this contract breach, we find that in one year, the losses exceeded the cumulative budgets of ALL of the world’s patent authorities. In FY2001, these losses exceeded calculated total expenditures for ALL patent authorities for the past 200 years of modern patent office performance. That’s right — retirement funds, investment funds, companies and countries lost more money on bad patents than the world has spent granting patent rights. Fiscal Year 2002 is on track to beat 2001 — a record none of us can afford. Additionally, consumers pay for patent abuses each time they turn on their windshield wipers or call their bank to check account balances. When one sees a bank’s national ad campaign lauding the bank’s commitment to innovation, one should read the fine print in press releases to see that this very commitment to innovation has come at considerable cost in the form of patent dispute resolution. The next time you hear a cell phone ring at an inappropriate time, stop and ask whether the vibration mode patent issued to another telecommunications technology company was examined appropriately. When business cannot place confidence in assets created as part of this contract between society and its innovators, business is impaired and, ultimately, the customer pays. So, if you drive a car with windshield wipers, bank on-line, play ping- pong, swing on a swing, make peanut butter & jelly sandwiches without crusts, take prescription medications, download e-mail, or read this article on-line, chances are that you are paying for a patent that should never have been granted or infringing a patent that you don’t know about, and, all the while, patent offices around the world continue to perpetuate the problem.
• The lesson learned in the wake of Enron and WorldCom is that, when entities charged with safeguarding the public trust abandon that responsibility, the burden will fall on public shoulders. It’s time for serious reform. It’s time for the Securities & Exchange Commission to require companies to accurately inform their shareholders of the quality of the patents they own and those they license. It’s time for companies and the public to demand a patent system that restores the economic value that patents once were meant to afford. It’s time for the government to demand accountability at the patent office. It’s time to correct this breach in our contract and grant value only to those who are extending true and genuine value in return.

• Business name: M-CAM, Charlottesville, Va.; founded in 1997.

• Business description: Engineers and sells products and services to verify the uniqueness, risks and commercial use of intellectual property. 

• On the spirit of entrepreneurship:

  • • "I lost my legs in a very serious accident. I learned a lot of skills about adapting to life's circumstances when you go from being an athlete - a runner for the Goshen College track team - to a wheelchair. It has a way of teaching you an awful lot about life.

    • "I think that the ability to be extremely confident in the mission that you have taken on and the ability to see the mission, in spite of all the obstacles, is really a critical success factor. And I think another is a bit of tenacity.

    • "M�CAM does something that hasn't been done before, and is bringing the gold standard into an arena that never had one. When one can measure and audit that which was intangible - unmeasurable and unauditable - a sea change occurs. Given that M�CAM has developed the ability to be the rating agency to assess the business and financial risk of assets in a knowledge economy, all traditional service providers and practioners, those who have lived up to this time without any audit, are necessarily affected. Many of them mount a concerted effort to stifle reform and change. A few embrace the changing winds. As with any evolutionary process, certain legacy constituents find their 'high priest' status no longer relevant. But this is not new. The same thing occurred when civilization realized that it was the shadow of the moon that made an eclipse, not some giant serpent taking a bite out of the sun! I'm sure, back then, it was a bad day to be an astrologer!

    • "We get to interact with both business and public policy makers as a normal course of business, which [is] quite enjoyable but that can also make it frustrating, because anytime that you are dealing with changing paradigms you have obviously a considerable amount of resistance to change and that is something that takes a long time and a lot of effort. That is probably the greatest enjoyment and the greatest frustration.�

• David's major was  :   Interdisciplinary

Dr. David Martin is the founding CEO of M∙CAM Inc. M∙CAM is the international leader in intellectual property-based financial risk management. From auditing patent quality for governments and patent offices, to providing state-of-the-art actuarial risk management systems and solutions to the largest banks and insurance companies, M∙CAM has established a global standard in patent quality and commercial validity assessment and management.

A spokesperson for global intellectual property accountability and quality reform, Dr. Martin has worked closely with the United States Congress, numerous trade and finance regulatory agencies in the United States, Europe and Asia, in advocating and deploying infrastructure to support growing reliance on proprietary rights in business transactions. M∙CAM has supported the modernization of intellectual property, tax, and accounting laws through its work with oversight agencies and policy makers.

Dr. Martin has founded several for-profit and non-profit companies and organizations and serves of several boards. He was the founding CEO of Mosaic Technologies Inc., a company that developed and commercialized advanced computational linguistics technologies, dynamic data compression and encryption technologies, electrical field transmission technology, medical diagnostics, and stealth/anechoic technology. He was a founding member of Japan’s Institute for Interface Science & Technology. He founded and served as Executive Director of the Charlottesville Venture Group. He has served as a board member for the Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business (Washington D.C.), the Academy for Augmenting Grassroots Technological Innovations (India), the IST (Japan) the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce (Virginia), and the Charlottesville Industrial Development Agency (Virginia).

As former Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia’s School of Medicine, Dr. Martin founded the University’s first wholly-owned, for-profit, research and development and technology transfer corporation. Engaged in domestic and international technology transfer, clinical research, and financing, this company pioneered new techniques innovation management that have become industry standards. In 1999, Dr. Martin was appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia to serve on the Joint Commission on Technology and Science and has served the General Assembly and Virginia’s Center for Innovative Technology on numerous occasions.

Dr. Martin’s work with the Batten Institute at the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia and his related work at the Indian Institute for Management in Ahmedabad India has brought unprecedented curricular focus to areas of intangible asset risk management, finance, and accounting standards. In addition to his academic work, Dr. Martin has closely advised intellectual property based finance and investment programs in India, China, Denmark, the European Union, the United Kingdom, South Africa, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates.

Dr. Martin has publications in law, medicine, engineering, finance and education. He maintains active research in the fields of linguistic genomics, fractal financial risk modeling, as well as continuing his over 15 years of research in cellular membrane ionic signaling.

• David E. Martin, PhD, is the founding CEO of M·CAM, Inc., the international leader in intellectual property-based financial risk management. M·CAM has established a global standard in intangible asset-backed finance, innovation finance arbitrage for the public and private sector, technology proliferation and counter-proliferation tracking, and patent quality and commercial validity assessment and management. Dr. Martin is also a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.
• A spokesperson for global intellectual-property accountability and quality reform, Dr. Martin has worked closely with the United States Congress and numerous trade and financial regulatory agencies in the United States, Europe, and Asia in advocating and deploying infrastructure to support growing reliance on proprietary rights in business transactions. M·CAM has supported the modernization of intellectual property, tax, and accounting laws through its work with oversight agencies and policy makers.
• Dr. Martin has founded several for-profit and not-for-profit companies and organizations and serves on several boards. He was the founding CEO of Mosaic Technologies, Inc., a company that developed and commercialized technologies in advanced computational linguistics, dynamic data
• compression and encryption, electrical field transmission, medical diagnostics, and stealth/anechoic.He was a founding member of Japan's Institute for Interface Science and Technology (IIST). He founded and served as Executive Director of the Charlottesville Venture Group. He has served as a board member for the Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business (Washington, D.C.), the Academy for Augmenting Grassroots Technological Innovations (India), the IIST (Japan), the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce (Virginia), and the Charlottesville Industrial Development Agency (Virginia).
• As a former Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia's School of Medicine, Dr. Martin founded the University's first wholly-owned, for-profit, research and development, and technology-transfer corporation. Engaged in domestic and international technology transfer, clinical research, and financing, this company pioneered new techniques in innovation management that have become industry standards. In 1999, Dr. Martin was appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia to serve on the Joint Commission on Technology and Science and has served the General Assembly and Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology (CIT) on numerous occasions.
• Dr. Martin's work as a Fellow of the Batten Institute at the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia and his related work at the Indian Institute for Management Ahmedabad, India, has brought unprecedented curricular focus to areas of intangible-asset risk management, finance, and accounting standards. In addition to his academic work, Dr. Martin has closely advised intellectual property-based finance and investment programs in India, China, Denmark, the European Union, the United Kingdom, South Africa, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates.
• Dr. Martin has received several honors for his contribution to domestic and international entrepreneurial activities. Highlights include:
  • • Fellow of the Batten Institute at the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia;
    • Board of Advisors, EU-India, Academy for Augmenting Sustainable Technological Inventions, Innovations, and Traditional Knowledge (AASTIIK);
    • Induction as a Guild Member of the Order of King Christian IV of Denmark;
    • Recipient of the Charlottesville Venture Group's Golden Angel Award; and,
    • Recipient of the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council's Spotlight Award.
• Dr. Martin has publications in law, medicine, engineering, finance, and education. He maintains active research in the fields of linguistic genomics, fractal financial-risk modeling, and cellular membrane ionic signaling.
• Contributions :
  • • Innovation and the Birth of the Fusion Economy: Financial Implications of Intellectual Property (ICIC 2007 - The Meeting)

Guest on the Plandemic: Indoctornation documentary

Until recently best known as the founder of M·CAM®, the international leader in innovation finance, trade, and intangible asset finance, David E. Martin is a modern day renaissance man, whose roles have included Professor, Lecturer, Chairman and CEO.

From the halls of parliament to HBO comedy and documentary films such as the internationally acclaimed and multi-awarded Patent Wars and Future Dreaming, Dr. Martin takes on some of the world’s most complex economic and social themes using solutions that he’s successfully deployed in his work with over 160 countries.

He recently appeared in Mikki Willis’ documentary, Plandemic: Indoctornation where he revealed the truth behind the vaccine agenda and how following the money had led him to a number of conclusions about what is really going on during the Coronavirus crisis.

With Plandemic: Indoctornation being viewed over 5.7 million times on the Digital Freedom Platform alone, David has become an important voice as part of informed discourse around Coronavirus and our response as a society, with his recent research continuing to focus on vaccines, patents and the role of companies such as Moderna.

David’s other work includes financial engineering and investment, public speaking and writing, he has also served as an advisor to numerous Central Banks, global economic forums, the World Bank and International Finance Corporation and national governments around the world.

He has been instrumental in rebuilding lives and livelihoods in post-conflict, post-colonial, and environmentally devastated regions of the world. He is the architect for the world’s first public equity quantitative market index based on human innovation.

Dr. Martin has publications in law, medicine, engineering, finance, and education. He maintains active research in the fields of linguistic genomics, fractal financial-risk modelling, and cellular membrane ionic signaling. In a televised speech in 2006, David correctly forecast the U.S. housing financial crisis and identified it as a catalyst for the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

His investment funds, banking businesses and global trade network return extraordinary results by measuring all the field effects of every endeavour. He is also the author of the novel Coup D’Twelve: The Enterprise that Bought the Presidency – now optioned for theatrical release.

Described as a futurist, fulcrum ninja, economist and global business executive, David disarms the most ardent pessimists, showing that with a flexible perspective, we can tackle any perceived problem and achieve extraordinary outcomes.

Quick Facts

• 04.24.67 is his birth date. His age is 56. Nine alternative names are known: Dave Martin, Dave E Martin, David Martin, D Martin, David B Martin, David M Martin, Davide Martin, David C Martin, David E Thomas. 1854 Rhett Crt, Charlottesville, VA 22903-8805 is the residential address for David. We know about one company registered at this address — M-cam Global Holdings LLC. Colleen C Martin, Katherine I Martin, and two other persons are connected to this place. David has visited nine cities, 405 S Morrison Rd, Muncie, IN 47304, USA is the previous address. David has lived in Muncie, IN and Charlottesville, VA. Katie Hershberger Boryan, Andrew Joseph Boryan, Kay L Geisel are possible acquaintances of David because of the common address history. Here are his most likely phone numbers: [---]. Two persons, including Colleen C Martin, Zachary W Martin, listed the phone number [---] as their own, various documents indicated. Public records show that the phone number [---] is linked to Katherine I Martin, Zachary W Martin. Three email addresses were found in public records and on the web — dem@mcam.com, dmartin@m-cam.com, martmosaic@mindspring.com. [---]

• [...]

FAQ About David Martin

• When was David E Martin born?   David Martin is 56. He was born on Apr 24, 1967.

• What are the other possible names for David E Martin?   The most common alternative names for he are David E Thomas, David C Martin, Davide Martin, David M Martin, David B Martin, D Martin, David Martin, Dave E Martin, Dave Martin.

• What is the last known address for David E Martin?   1854 Rhett Crt, Charlottesville, VA 22903-8805 is the last known address for David.

• Who are the residents at 1854 Rhett Court Charlottesville, in addition to David E Martin?   We assume that Colleen C Martin and Katherine I Martin were among four dwellers or residents at this place.

• Where did David E Martin formerly reside?   Nine previous addresses found, including 405 S Morrison Rd, Muncie, IN 47304, USA.

[...]

FAQ About Katherine Martin

• How old is Katherine I Martin?   Katherine Martin is 34. Katherine was born on Jul 28, 1989.

• Where does Katherine I Martin reside?   Current address for Katherine is 1854 Rhett Crt, Charlottesville, VA 22903-8805.

• Who else lives with 1854 Rhett Court Charlottesville at 1854 Rhett Court Charlottesville?   This address is also associated with the names of Colleen C Martin, David E Martin, and two other individuals.