Paul. I like your suggestion and i understand the reasoning, but im not sure the model of an existing IP holding coming in works for the startupcamp process (exercize for entrepreneurs).
Lots of entrepreneurs have "killer ideas" in their heads and could by all means bring them to a startupcamp - but what was really exciting from the startup camp experience was the process of rapid concept development and practicing the execution of a startup as well as dealing with all the issues and learning to work with complete strangers without the strings attached. If money and equity come into play we will lose the carefree experimentation attitude which ultimately does have the potential to generate great startups. Startup camp is a especially a great place for first time entrepreneurs to learn and get experience with more experienced entrepreneurs without feeling to much pressure to win and without creating too much competitive tension. StartupCamp teams helped each other, and we all wanted to better ourselves by learning from the process and going back to the real world on monday morning as better entrepreneurs. I loved Barts comment. "If anyone comes to StartupCamp with the goal to make money, they should plan something else instead. If anyone brings in an existing idea, you give up the idea to the group. If you truly believe that the idea alone has incredible value, don't bring it to StartupCamp. Instead, come to StartupCamp and do another project, learn from it, meet great people, maybe even a business partner and build your idea outside of StartupCamp." 5 minutes on corporate structure was the right amount. If we focus to much on corporate structure and ip management etc etc - the next startup camp will be full of investment bankers and lawyers and not a single product would be shipped :) That said i did like the idea of leaving X% of the companies equity and putting it up for auction over the next week after the conclusion of startup camp and an incentive for founders to build something actually market ready - however this does again effect the environment of experimentation that made startupcamp so great! To clarify the model we agreed at StartupCamp for uTag - and we agreed this in 5 minutes - we split 50% of the entity between the 5 founders, and we agreed to allocate the next 50% of equity based on future /post-weekend valued based participation. We have also asked Bart onboard as the adjudicator to make sure nothing goes haywire. Thanks for all your comments and thoughts, i have enjoyed reading them. Nick http://www.linkedin.com/in/nickhac http://www.Twitter.com/nickhac On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Paul Middleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Great discussion, guys. It's something that I wondered about when I > was watching the live streams from the camp at the weekend. I missed > the first night, so I wasn't sure how the groups had been created, and > I missed the project 'whittling' phase. > > For StartupCamp to be viable, I think it's necessary to remove the > question of equity share from the start. Make it clear that one person > owns the IP for each project; contributors may be entitled to a share > of revenue, but not the equity or IP. > > As a suggestion, what about if anyone could submit a project proposal > for development? As that one person will retain the IP and equity > rights, they would need to have the project well defined before the > development began, which might help accelerate development and produce > greater results in the short amount of time available. > > There could then be a project selection process (panel/random/ > whatever). Contributors with relevant skills put their hands up, > perhaps without even knowing what the projects are, but clear in the > knowledge that they will not own IP or equity in the resultant > business, but might benefit from generated revenue and will get to > enjoy the "journey". I think that the buzz of being involved in such > an event will still provide plenty of candidates willing to donate > their time on that basis. > > There is a question as to whether anyone with a decent idea would use > StartupCamp or develop the idea themselves. But it seems that uT.ag > was pre-conceived, and I'd be happy to submit ideas for development in > this way, so I can only presume that at least some other people would > submit ideas, too. > > As a complete alternative, Bart/StartupCamp could pose a problem at > the start of the weekend and the teams would then compete against each > other to find the best solution. With no pre-conceptions, IP rights > could equitably be shared between all members in the team, provided > they pulled their weight during the development. > > Does anyone know if Bart had any ideas on how this would work? I > remember him being asked this late on Saturday and he seemed to have > been more interested in just getting the camp going than in the > detail, which I think is testament to his good intentions. I think > it's only fair that he (or a central StartupCamp entity) benefits from > the additional exposure that projects will inevitably get from being > involved in StartupCamp. It has certainly given the 3 projects from > the weekend a boost, and you'd expect that to continue so long as the > projects remain of such high quality. > > There seems to be so much good stuff happening at the moment. The last > thing anyone would want to happen is to create bad feeling within the > community by a successful idea creating more litigation than > inspiration. I think the only way to be sure of that is to make the > rules, whatever they may be, clear from the start. > -- > Paul Middleton > http://webequity.org/ > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
