Copyright, Design and Trademark – A Cautionary Tale

There is a relationship between copyright, design and trademark as they apply to physical products.  Copyright protects “works of artistic craftsmanship”.   Design protection can be obtained for features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament of useful articles.  Trademark rights may extend to the shaping of wares (products) with such unique shapes being referred to as “distinguishing guises”.  (The old-style glass bottle used by Coca Cola is a good example of a distinguishing guise trademark; the consumer knows what the product is merely from the container.)   It is possible for a product to be subject to all three, copyright, design and trademark at some time during the product’s life cycle.  However, copyright, design and trademark each have their limitations.

When an entrepreneur launches a new product, he or she does not know how successful the product may become.  Sometimes public apathy toward a new product is deflating.  At other times, the response exceeds even the entrepreneur’s expectations.  For that reason, it is not unusual for an entrepreneur to introduce a product into the marketplace and to wait and see how the product sells before seeking protection.

The Court decision rendered on December 14, 2016 in the case of Corocord Raumnetz v. Dynamo Industries is a cautionary tale that helps explain aspects of the relationship between copyright, design and trademark.  Corocord is a manufacturer of playground equipment. Some years ago, Corocord introduced into the market a new playground structure.  Under Canadian law, the playground structure was protected by copyright as a work of artistic craftsmanship at the time of introduction into the marketplace.  Copyright protection does not require any active steps to file paperwork with a government office, although there are advantages in doing so.

Fast forward ahead several years.  By that time, Corocord’s playground structure had become quite successful.  The law suit against Dynamo Industries was triggered when Dynamo introduced a similar product into the marketplace and they ended up bidding against each other on a contract for a playground installation. Corocord sued Dynamo.

Corocord tried to enforce their copyright against Dynamo.  Unfortunately for Corocord, copyright is only intended to protect “works of artistic craftsmanship” that are sold in limited quantities.  The right to sue Dynamo under copyright law was lost, due to the fact that the playground structure had been reproduced in quantities exceeding fifty (50).  Corocord had been too successful to continue to rely upon copyright.  Corocord could have sued Dynamo under design law.  Unfortunately for Corocord, an application must be filed with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for design protection within 12 months of the playground structure being introduced into the marketplace.  The time had passed, Corocord had waited too long. Corocord tried to sue Dynamo under trademark law, which does not have a time deadline. In order to succeed Corocord had to establish that their playground structures had become so well known that the relevant market would automatically associate the distinctive shape of the playground structure with Corocord.  Unfortunately for Corocord, they had not, as yet, become successful to the extent that the distinctive shape of the playground structure was associated with them.

What could have or should have Corocord done?  It was okay for Corocord to rely upon copyright in the beginning.  Within 12 months Corocord knew that their playground structure was achieving success in the marketplace.  It was a fatal error of Corocord to not apply for design protection before the 12 months deadline for doing so expired.  With design protection, Corocord could have stopped similar products from entering the market.  Subsequently, when design protection was about to expire, they could have applied for trademark protection  in the hope of extending their protection indefinitely on the basis that the distinctive shape of the playground structure had become well know and is associated solely with Corocord.  However, now their ability to obtain trademark protection in future is doubtful.  The distinctive shape of the playground structure will no longer be associated solely with Corocord.  Dynamo is in the market providing playground structures with the same distinctive shape and other competitors may soon follow.

Nagoya Protocol

The other day I was asked a question about the Nagoya Protocol.  In order to answer the question, I had to review the text of the Protocol.  Although the Protocol has been around since 2011, it has recently received attention due to the announcement that the Trudeau Liberal government intends to move forward to implement the Protocol.  The Protocol has as its focus the use of biological systems and living organisms to make products and processes for use.  The Protocol seeks to promote a “fair and equitable” sharing of the benefits arising from utilization of genetic resources.  It also seeks to provide funding for the conservation of biological diversity.  An example of the need for conservation of biological diversity is the rapid rate of destruction of the rain forests and conversion to farmland.   It is hoped that funding can be secured that will provide financial incentives to preserve the rainforests.  The knowledge of genetic resources is often held by indigenous and local communities as “traditional knowledge”, and the Protocol contemplates domestic legislation to establish rights of indigenous and local communities over such genetic resources.  The Canadian government will be seeking prior and informed approval and involvement of our indigenous peoples to the use of their traditional knowledge upon mutually agreed terms that will see the indigenous peoples compensated.  The Nagoya Protocol goes hand in hand with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP).  Article 24 of DRIP provides “Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services”. Article 31 of DRIP provides “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions”.  The passing of a law to implement the Nagoya Protocol in Canada should be relatively straightforward.  Other Countries have already adopted the Protocol and a review of their law should be of assistance in preparing equivalent Canadian legislation.  What may be interesting is the negotiations with our indigenous peoples that will follow the passing of the Canadian legislation into law.  Once a spotlight is placed on the rights of indigenous peoples, there may also have to be put in place protection of the “traditional cultural expressions” of the indigenous peoples as contemplated by Article 31 of DRIP.  I suspect we will discover there are many “traditional cultural expressions” that we have come to take for granted, such as the Cowichan blanket.

2016 Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC)

convention-brochureOne can gain an understanding of issues that the profession is wrestling with by reviewing the titles of the presentations from the 2016 IPIC annual meeting.  Continuing Professional Development: “The Skill Set of the IP Practitioner of the Future – Where will IP be in 20 years?”  Trademarks: “Trademarks in Metatags and Keywords – A summary of the Current State of the Law in Canada as Contrasted with the U.S. and Europe”, “Brand Boot Camp”, “Best Practices before the Trademark Office”.  Patent Issues: “Patent Issues that Keep In-House Counsel Up at Night”, “Patentability:  Dealing with Challenges in IT and Life Sciences”, “Best Practices before the Patent Office”.  Online Issues: “Managing Online Content: Tips, Traps, and Tariffs for IP Practitioners”.  Rights Issues: “Publicity Rights: Guidelines for Giving Clients Practical Risk Assessments”.  Litigation Issues: “Remedies – Quick Results in Trademark Cases: Myth or Reality”, “Top IP Cases of the Year”, “Appellate Advocacy in Specialized Area of the Law”.
Many of the above issues I deal with on a regular basis and have written articles about over the past year.  However, the presentation of “Futurist” Jeremy de Beer was of general application and may be useful to the reader.  Mr. de Beer described an approach to predicting the future using a “grid”.  He creates this grid by placing a first line that represents a trend that one can see today, such as automation (self driving cars, smart homes with remotely controlled appliances).  One end of the line represents the present and the other end of the line represents the future, if the trend continues. He then places a second line crossing the first line at 90 degrees to create his “grid” having four quadrants.  The second line represents a second trend that one can see today, such as the increasing capability of smart phones. Again, one end of the line represents the present and the other end of the line represents the future, if the trend continues.  A first quadrant will predict what happens if neither trend continues, a second quadrant will predict what happens if the first trend continues and the second does not progress, a third quadrant will predict what happens if the second trend continues and the second trend does not progress, a fourth quadrant will predict what happens if both trends progress.  Mr. de Beer indicates when you extrapolate what may happen some of your “predictions” (especially in the fourth quadrant) should appear to be ridiculous.  If this does not occur, you are not pushing the trend far enough. Self driving cars and everyone carrying miniature computers that connect to the internet would have sounded ridiculous 20 years ago. It is not viewed as being ridiculous today.

 

Comment:  I received some comment from Keith Sketchley that I felt should be shared.  He indicated that one should beware of overly simplistic methodologies.  He identified two fundamental flaw, in the futurists approach that he described as follows:

1. Trends do not continue indefinitely, in part because people change behaviours. In technical things that’s called “feedback”.  For example, increasing prices of a product will be met by reduced consumption in response to prices, demand drops, suppliers lower their prices.
2. It is difficult to predict new products and services, and some predictions fall far short. For example, a professor gave a Mr. Smith a C, sneering at his idea that people would pay a premium for assured delivery timing of documents. Mr. Smith went on to start an industry, he called his company “Federal Express

Rules for settling legal disputes

Some time ago, I travelled to Calgary to try to settle a legal dispute through mediation.  In mediation, a mediator attempts to guide the parties to a negotiated settlement. However, in this case the arrangement was that if the parties could not arrive at a settlement, the mediator would change roles and become an arbitrator, that is, authorized to impose a settlement upon the parties. My client and I travelled to Calgary for the weekend, in the expectation that we would fly back Sunday night having resolved the dispute.  My client’s view was the same as mine, that even a poor settlement would be better than a great lawsuit.  Time was also important, as my client had to resolve the dispute with the Calgary Company, before he would be free to enter into a new agreement with another company that was waiting in the wings for the dispute to be resolved. The mediation did not go well.  Every time we made progress, the opposing lawyer would inflame the discussions with allegations of “facts” that my client strongly disputed.   The point was reached where my client told me that he had had enough and he wished to move on to the arbitration phase. The matter then took an unexpected turn.  Instead of hearing submissions and rendering a prompt decision, the arbitrator  required a “Statement of Claim” to be prepared and served by a first date, a “Statement of Defence” to be prepared and served by a second date, an exchange of relevant documents to take place by a third date, examination of the parties under oath by a fourth date, and a “trial” at the Alberta Law Society Offices in Calgary on a fifth date, and indicated that a written decision would be rendered by him by a sixth date.  Under the schedule set forth by the arbitrator, it took another 11 months for the dispute to be resolved.  In another matter, I attended a settlement meeting in Edmonton with the General Manager of a biotech company.  The General Manager had to report to a wealthy individual who was the major shareholder and financial backer of the biotech company.  On the other side of the negotiating table was a person from the University’s commercialization office and a person heading up a biotech research team.   The person from the University’s commercialization office had to report to a University oversight committee.   The people in the room rapidly had a meeting of the minds and reached agreement on all issues, subject to approval of the persons to whom we reported.  It was in the reporting back that the agreement fell apart.  The major shareholder and financial backer, and the University oversight committee repeatedly came back with further conditions which made the job of settling the matter more difficult.  The first settlement meeting gave rise to a second and then a third settlement meeting, as each side tried to cope with shifting and evolving instructions.  I recently read an article regarding Federal Court Prothonotary (type of judicial officer) Mireille Tabib’s experiences as a mediator, which inspired this commentary.  The article, along with my own experiences, provides the following “rules” to follow when entering into negotiations of a legal dispute.  The first rule is to start at an early stage, where the focus is still on business concerns and has not yet shifted to “winning” the legal case at all costs.  The second rule is to focus on commercial realities, that is, what will “work” as a settlement and not the details of the claim that are often in dispute.  The third rule is that everyone doing the actual negotiating must have full authority to settle.

Limitations of Non-Disclosure Agreements

Non-Disclosure PhotoI recently read an article entitled “The scope and limitations of Non-Disclosure Agreements”.  The article explained that a non-disclosure agreement is an agreement in which a party receiving information (Receiving Party) agrees to take reasonable precautions to protect from disclosure information received from a party disclosing information (Disclosing Party).   The article then went on to list a series of matters that must be addressed in a well drafted non-disclosure agreement, including: identifying the information that is to be protected, identifying that the information is being disclosed in order to permit the Receiving Party to complete a specified task for the Disclosing Party, setting forth rules regarding disclosure to employees and safe storage of the information while the task is being undertaken and  requiring the destruction or return of the information when the Receiving Party has completed the specified task.  The article also touched upon remedies available to the Disclosing Party in the event of a breach of the agreement.  Although the article was well written, in my opinion, the author neglected to touch upon a significant limitation of non-disclosure agreements.   Most non-disclosure agreements contain the following provision: “The Receiving Party shall have no obligation with respect to such information where the information has become publicly known through no wrongful act of the Receiving Party”.   Entrepreneurs carefully go around and have non-disclosure agreements signed by parties who are assisting them by manufacturing and supplying components.   Non-disclosure agreements are also signed by parties who are assisting in the preparation of business plans, creating brand names and logos, setting up websites, and setting up marketing plans.  Finally, non-disclosure agreements are signed by parties being approached for investment capital and by parties being approached to assist in marketing and wholesale distribution.   Then on the day of the launch of the product or service, all of the Receiving Parties who signed non-disclosure agreements are released from their obligations, as the Disclosing Party has publicly released the information and thus that information has become “publicly known through no wrongful act of the Receiving Party”.     Non-disclosure agreements are fine for having preliminary discussions, but  once the Receiving Party is working with you, a further agreement needs to be put in place that prevents the Receiving Party from competing with you while they are working with you and for a period of time (for example 2 years) after they cease working with you.  As a practical matter, one or more of the parties you are relying upon as a member of your team may have better connections and more resources than you do.  Once they are released from their obligations under the non-disclosure agreement by your public disclosure, they may come to the realization that they are in an excellent position to deliver the product or service and they no longer need you.  Of course, they will delay acting until they have the opportunity to gauge the market response to your new product or service.  Get the additional agreements signed.  After you have taken all the risks and proven there is a market for the product or service, there will be imitators.  Make sure the imitators are not parties who you thought were members of your team.

New Developments in the Canadian Music Business

SOCAN (the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) collects royalties based upon tariffs approved by the Copyright Board of Canada for Canadian performances of songs for Canadian and international songwriters and music publishers. Tariffs have been set for recorded or live music ranging from concerts to restaurants to fitness classes.  Of particular relevance to this article are the tariffs for performance of songs on the internet and on mobile devices. In May of 2016 SOCAN announced that it had acquired Seattle-based MediaNet.  This was followed by an announcement by SOCAN in July of 2016 that it had acquired New York-based Audiam.  As with all performing rights organizations, SOCAN’s main functions are firstly to determine what music is being performed and, secondly, to collect the applicable royalty prescribed by Canadian law.  Collection of royalties relating to the internet and mobile devices create technological challenges.   MediaNet has more than 51 million sound recordings in its database, each containing a unique audio identifier.  By acquiring MediaNet, SOCAN will be able to identify digital performances from around the world in real-time. Audiam similarly, has one of the world’s most complete databases of sound recording and underlying song/composition metadata.  In addition, Audiam has technology to proactively find works that are not licensed and for which royalties have not been paid. With the combined strength of MediaNet and Audiam, SOCAN can identify the use of music on digital services such as Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, and Google Play.  When songs are performed, in addition to royalties compensating the songwriters and music publishers, there are also royalties compensating the artists who perform the songs and music recording companies.  Prior to acquiring Audiam, SOCAN was not involved in collecting royalties for performing artists and music recording companies.  In contrast, a significant portion of the business of Audiam was the collection of royalties for performing artists and music recording companies.  With the acquisition of Audiam, SOCAN now has the capability to collect songwriter-music publisher royalties and performing artist-music recording companies royalties.  With changes brought on by the internet, songwriters and performing artists had become frustrated by the ineffectiveness of the performing rights organizations in the collection of royalties, resulting in a fracturing, with new performing rights organizations being formed by the disenchanted.  Through its acquisition of MediaNet and Audiam, SOCAN has greatly increased its ability to be effective at identifying uses of music on the internet and collect royalties.   SOCAN’s acquisition of Audiam’s expertise in collecting royalties for performing artists and music labels, has been heralded by some commentators as an important new development that raises the possibility of SOCAN becoming a “one stop shop” on the Canadian music scene.  The fact that MediaNet and Audiam are U.S. based also suggests that SOCAN will become more active in collecting royalties in the United States.

PATENT & DESIGNS FOR CORPORATE LAWYERS

Attached is a SLIDESHARE link that relates to a presentation given to the COWICHAN VALLEY BAR ASSOCIATION on July 26, 2016.   The presentation was intended to give this gathering of experienced corporate lawyers background on the law relating to patents and designs, along with some practical insight based upon my years of experience.  It was an enjoyable evening and there was a great dialog that arose out of questions that were asked.http://www.slideshare.net/ThompsonCooperLLP/patents-designs-for-corporate-lawyers

Balancing of Interests under Copyright Law

johnny-automatic-scales-of-justice-300pxCopyright law often includes a consideration of a “balancing the rights”, usually balancing the rights of content users and the rights of content creators.  Some recent court decisions illustrate how this “balancing” takes place and explore some new issues in copyright law. Maltz v. Witterick (a decision issued by the Federal Court of Canada in May 2016) relates to balancing rights as between two competing content creators.  A writer by the name of Jennifer Witterick was “inspired” to write a fictional novel after viewing a documentary produced by Maltz and some others regarding the life of Francizska Halamajowa and her daughter Helena, who hid three Jewish families when the German army occupied Poland during the Second World War.   Upon becoming aware of the novel, Maltz noted a number of factual similarities between the documentary and the novel, and commenced an action for copyright infringement against the author Witterick and the author’s publisher.  By way of background, the Courts have long held that copyright does not apply to historical facts, such as the German occupation of Poland during the Second World War.  The Judge in Maltz v. Witterick noted that the novel was a fictional story aimed at young readers and had a much different “feel” than the documentary.  The only thing that had been taken were some factual underpinnings for the story.  Counsel for Maltz argued that there was a difference between historical facts in which no one can own copyright and “small facts” drawn from diary entries relating to events on a particular date. In  concluding that the writer Witterick’s use of some actual facts from the life of Halamajowa did not amount to infringement, the Judge made a finding that facts are facts and no one owns copyright in them no matter what their relative size or significance.  A second case, Geophysical Services Incorporated v. Encana et al (a decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in April 2016) relates to balancing rights as between content creators and public authorities.  Geophysical Services Incorporated (GSI) was in the business of selling seismic data.   This seismic data was filed with a government board pursuant to a regulatory regime established under the Canada Petroleum Resources Act (CPRA).  After a period of 5 years, the seismic data was made available to the public by the board.   GSI commenced a legal action for copyright infringement against Encana and many other companies that were making use of the seismic data without GSI’s permission.  The Judge confirmed that GSI owned copyright in its seismic data, but held that to the extent that the regulatory regime of the CPRA conflicts with the Copyright Act, the CPRA regulatory regime prevails. The wording of the CPRA, properly interpreted, allows for disclosure without restriction after a defined period of time. It is a complete and specific code that applies to all oil and gas information in the offshore and frontier lands, including seismic data. Its provisions supplant any more general pieces of legislation, such as the Copyright Act.  Both of the foregoing decisions have been met with criticism.  The Maltz v. Witterick case is criticized as it allows a party to use intimate details of someone else’s life without compensation. The Geophysical services v. Encana et al case is criticized as amounting to expropriation by the government without compensation.  What do you think?  Please communicate your views to dthompson@tcllp.ca

Legal Aspects of Art

The link below leads to SLIDESHARE of a presentation sponsored by Community Arts Council of Greater Victoria that I gave at the Victoria College of Art on Wednesday June 29, 2016.

 

Link: http://www.slideshare.net/ThompsonCooperLLP/community-arts-council

Questions and Answers regarding Licensing Technology

LicensingQuestion:  I filed for patent protection. Should I still have potential Licensees sign a secrecy agreement?
Answer:  Secrecy Agreements can get in the way of licensing discussions. Many companies you approach will not sign secrecy agreements.  In fact, large companies often require you to sign an agreement confirming that they are not bound by secrecy.   If discussions are going well, do not hesitate to reveal more information. Bear in mind that a patent application is not “made public” until 18 months after its filing date. The company you are negotiating with can only see such information as you choose to share with them.  If you feel that they are just pumping you for information, do not share more information until they show their good faith by placing a serious proposal before you. These types of proposals are called Letters of Intent, they contain a financial proposal that is subject to receiving and reviewing further information.

Question:  What should I ask for?

Answer:   Generally it is best to capture the company’s interest and then invite them to make the first proposal.   There are a number of reasons for this.  A first reason is that you may undervalue the technology, whereas if you let them make the first proposal you generally will get more.  A second reason is that you may overvalue the technology.  If the company feels you have unrealistic expectations, the company may break off negotiations. A third reason is that every industry has “industry norms”, for example 5% is a typical royalty in some industries.  A fourth reason is that many companies have a “history” of past dealings that they are influenced by (i.e., “this is how we generally structure our licensing deals”).  If you can get a company to make any form of proposal at all, there is potentially a deal to be made.  The greatest problem in licensing is facing the enormous inertia in every industry.  Unless a prospective licensee is actively looking for a better way of doing things, it can be difficult to get their attention if what the industry has been doing for years is still “working” just fine.  An industry executive can lose his or her position spending money on a solution when there was no generally understood problem.

Question:  What should I expect to see in the proposals received from companies?

Answer:  It is unlikely that you will be offered a single large lump sum payment.    Instead you are likely to receive an offer that includes an initial payment of $10,000 to $50,000 and a royalty percentage of sales.  The reason for this is that an executive who pays a huge lump sum on a technology that does not work out is placing his or her career in jeopardy.   If the technology proves itself over time, a buyout offer may come down the road.

Question:  How do I know if the proposal is reasonable?

Answer:   There are “rules of thumb” that are applied to gauge whether a proposal makes sense.  One such rule is the “rule of 25”.   The rule of 25 is sometimes criticized as not taking into account all factors.  This is true, but it works for many situations.   Under the Rule of 25, the labour and materials required to manufacture a product are deducted from a wholesale price for the product to arrive at a gross profit figure.  This gross profit figure intentionally does not include overhead, advertising or administrative costs.   According to the Rule of 25, the company is taking all of the risks and should be entitled to 75% of the gross profit.  You receive 25% of the gross profit for bringing this opportunity to them and providing patent protection to protect their market.  However, the final royalty percentage is never set out in a license agreement as 25% of percent of gross profit. Instead the royalty is converted to a percentage of the wholesale invoice price.  The reason for this is that you need a number that can easily by audited by an inspection of customer invoices.

We stated above that the Rule of 25 does not take into account all factors.  For example, the Rule of 25 does not take into account additional costs that may be incurred in preparing to manufacture a new product.  This can easily be accommodated through a “step royalty”.   A step royalty is a royalty that steps up or down, depending upon the circumstances.  To accommodate the costs incurred in preparing to manufacture, you may agree to take a lower royalty until those costs are recovered and then your royalty will “step up” to a higher level.  Step royalties are used in a variety of situations.  For example, to get volumes up, royalties sometimes “step down” with volume.  In such a situation there may be a royalty of 7 % on the first 50,000 units sold each year, a royalty of 5% on the next 50,000 sold each year and a royalty of 4% on all units over 100,000 sold each year.

Question: Is there any rule of thumb for assessing a lump sum offer?

Answer:  Accounting firms can make projections to determine the amount of royalties expected to be generated over the life of a patent. The accounting firms can then give you a “current value assessment” so that you have a calculation of what lump sum is appropriate as a replacement for the royalty.  This works well when you have been receiving royalties for a number of years.   When the product has not even been on the market and has no sales history, the number is essentially a creative fiction, even working from the best information available.  Even when royalties have been paid for a number of years, the accounting firm must make some assumptions regarding changes to product price due to cost of living and growth of market share that may turn out to be false.  When you have a large lump sum offer presented to you, consider what the alternatives are and how receiving the funds will affect your life.

One client of mine received a 10 million dollar offer and turned it down.  The reason was that he was perfectly happy with the quarterly royalties he was receiving and it did not take an accountant to see that he would be making well over 10 million dollars over the next 5 years by simply keeping his existing royalty stream.  Another client of mine received a 2 million dollar offer and accepted it.  There were no sales.  He could not afford to put the product on the market himself.  If the 2 million dollar offer was withdrawn he had no viable alternative.  He had a wife, two young children, a mortgage and debts incurred in developing the technology.  Receiving the 2 million dollars now would have a major positive impact on his life.

Question:  What should I look out for in any proposal?

Answer:  It is a mistake to focus just on the financial details of the offer.  One should look carefully at what obligations are being imposed back upon you.   Those obligations could cost you more than you will receive.  Who has to pay the expenses associated with completing and maintaining patents in Canada and the United States? If the company wants foreign patent protection, who has to pay the expenses associated with completing and maintaining the foreign patents?  Who has to pay the expenses associated with enforcing the patent against infringers?
If you have granted an “exclusive” license (which often is the case), you need minimum performance requirements to ensure that your technology is not shelved.

On a human level, you and your technology need a “champion” within the company.  Someone you feel is committed to the technology and will drive the implementation of the technology within the company.   Preferably, someone you can relate to.