yeah this may be too one sided - but i figured it may be a good read: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
cheers Sri On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Sriram Panyam <[email protected]>wrote: > and more thoughts folks... > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Another Place <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Some further thoughts: >> >> "How is it possible for a small business to protect their ideas? >> Under >> a small business I mean a really small one: two guys in a garage or >> so. >> I wish I was wrong but I think that this is not possible. A small >> business doesn't have enough resources to solve this problem." >> >> There are countless stories (whether or not you believe them) about >> two guys in a garage with a good idea, getting it off the ground and >> making lots of money. Somewhere along the line, they must have >> protected that idea and the execution of it. Being small is not about >> being incapacitated - it is about being lean and efficient. >> >> > Actually I am not sure this is as black and white as this... Now in theory > nothing is impossible... So technically for a two man team to protect their > ideas I see the following costs (please add to this or correct me on this): > > * Setting up a company - $800 > * Patenting costs - Anywhere between $5K-20K per patent. > * Opportunity cost of the founders' salary > > Now out of naivety I may be way underestimating the numbers. So be it. > Now I see 3 stages of first time entrepreneurs (indulging in small > businesses): > > a. Two/Three guys (or girls) in a garage, your primary strengths are > technology > (or the product that you are offering whether it is technical or > otherwise)... > Getting council on non-core parts of your venture is going to cost > you > (hint hint legal)... > b. Alternatively if you are someone in the later stage of life, ie with > family and > mortgage, while the costs may not be that bad (being optimistic > here and hey > easier to get a loan), the risks associated with them are way too > high. > c. Which leaves the third group - people who have enough mullah > (inheritance > or via accumulating from years of saving) starting the > businesses... > > Is it me or are the most innovative group in the above list also the most > price sensitive? Imaging working for months on a prototype just to realise > it is covered by the vaguest of patents by either a patent troll or a big > company? And similarly imagine investing upfront on one or more patents > only to realise the same. Again all this before any revenues start coming > in. > > "My current approach to the problem of protecting ideas: "do not do >> it" (well, almost). It is better to fail because someone "steals" >> "your" idea than to fail because you spend time and money trying to >> protect it. The net result is the same but the first way is much >> quicker :) " >> >> I do not agree with your approach - it is totally defeatist. It is >> like dying at birth. Unless you give something a go, you can NEVER >> succeed. Sure, you may get burned along the way but hopefully you are >> smart, brave and will learn along the way. Maybe you will lose some >> money - maybe you won't. If you are tight with your resources and >> prepared to cut your losses if necessary, then you hopefully will not >> lose too much. If you are thinking ahead of the game (because you >> truly have a great idea), then the people copying you will always be >> one step behind. >> >> It is a given that execution is the most important thing in a startup... > in an ideal world id agree that a frivolous IP related lawsuits would be > thrown out... and in an ideal world the capital backing an enttity would > not affect the outcome of a lawsuit... but in reality how many weeks (or > days) can a small business/startup withstand before being burried in legal > fees? Yes if you have a truly great idea you *should* think ahead of the > game.. but again how common is that? i hear you saying "if you cannot or do > not think ahead and proactively you have no reason being in business..." > absolutely... but i think argument was about vague small businesses > spending/wasting energy staving of patents and lawsuits grounded on > intimidation rather than pure merit or marketing strategy or technical > innovation (all of which if you dont have you deserve to die, no > arguments)... > > "Patents? In the majority of cases they are for big companies like >> arms >> race is for big countries. A patent is just a piece of paper and it >> protects nothing until a court decision is made. I think a small >> company is better off spending their very limited resources on >> something else but drafting patents and defending them later in the >> court (which seems hopeless). " >> >> Patents are not like the arms race. Maybe more like real estate but >> actually not as expensive as the typical median house price in a major >> capital city. A land title is also just a piece of paper. You also >> have to spend money protecting and maintaining your investment there. >> It may not be cheap but if it houses your dreams then it can change >> your life and you will benefit from it not only financially. Running a >> business is also expensive but is it better not to do it? >> >> Actually patents are not "that" far from being an arms race... drafting a > patent costs a big company "small change"... very very low downside... huge > rewards to crush a potential competitor (again based on vagueness rather > than genuine innovation - did i send that application by microsoft to patent > the "sudo" command?)... atleast one aspect of the arms race resonates with > patents - the cold war and a standoff! you might find this article on the > game theory behind patent litigation interesting: > > http://semiconductorlawblog.com/blog/?p=21 > > as for realestate.. with realestate, the chances of me being challenged to > my right to my property are very very very miniscule (yes a big corporation > could lobby that my neighbourhood be appropriated for the "common good" but > not with out a public stink)... > > "Non disclosure agreements? It is a mater of a goodwill of a big >> company to honor the agreement and there are many ways to workaround >> NDA. Again, it is a matter of resources if one wants to draft an NDA >> and then to ask a big company to sign it. They may even refuse to >> talk >> to you if you start from NDA. " >> >> Sure, NDAs are not perfect but the cost of an NDA is minimal and there >> are numerous NDAs available out there at little or no cost. I see it >> like crossing at the lights instead of jaywalking - you get additional >> protection for relatively little effort. >> >> that is assuming a big entity does not throw you out or not refuse to see > you because you are "demanding" an NDA... but yeah sure, an NDA is great > for little effort if you can pull it off but really depends on who has more > leverage right? and yes the argument about "if you dont have leverage dont > be in business" can also be applied... > > >> "Here is a more specific question along same lines: >> How would you sell a product to a big company? What would stop them >> from implementing a similar thing by themselves or outsource it to >> their partners? >> The only one thing that helps here is when the idea is well executed. >> But, by definition of a small company, an idea can't be very well >> executed (no resources)." >> >> We would all love to have unlimited resources but I totally disagree >> that "by definition" a small company cannot execute an idea well. >> There are numerous historical examples that true innovation often >> springs out of difficult economic times - business (big and small) is >> forced to stretch resources further and to think through ways to do >> that. There are plenty of examples also where big business (and dare I >> say it, public service) wastes plenty of resources executing ideas >> poorly. >> >> you are right in this case... while greater resources do help ... > history has shown that usually it is a small company that is nimble and > flexible out performs and out maneuvers a larger corporation... and again > historically bigger entities somehow seem to be, well fatter, slower, less > efficient and more bureaucratic... and ofcourse when pushsed to a corner > a smaller entity has to fight for its life but these are all psychological > arguments but at the end of the day lack of resources does emphasize or even > demand leanness and flexibility... > > >> This might sound a bit like a team-building rave but the Australian >> economy (like the rest of the world) is actually run on SMALL and >> MICRO business (i.e. two people at home or in the garage). >> >> again are we talking about technical startups or ma/pa > restaurants/laundries/fish-chips etc? > > cheers > Sri > > >> ... >> >> On Nov 16, 12:43 am, Dmitri <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Here is a general question I would like to ask after reading the >> > discussion on "protecting inventiveness": >> > >> > How is it possible for a small business to protect their ideas? Under >> > a small business I mean a really small one: two guys in a garage or >> > so. >> > >> > I wish I was wrong but I think that this is not possible. A small >> > business doesn't have enough resources to solve this problem. >> > >> > My current approach to the problem of protecting ideas: "do not do >> > it" (well, almost). It is better to fail because someone "steals" >> > "your" idea than to fail because you spend time and money trying to >> > protect it. The net result is the same but the first way is much >> > quicker :) >> > >> > Patents? In the majority of cases they are for big companies like arms >> > race is for big countries. A patent is just a piece of paper and it >> > protects nothing until a court decision is made. I think a small >> > company is better off spending their very limited resources on >> > something else but drafting patents and defending them later in the >> > court (which seems hopeless). >> > >> > Non disclosure agreements? It is a mater of a goodwill of a big >> > company to honor the agreement and there are many ways to workaround >> > NDA. Again, it is a matter of resources if one wants to draft an NDA >> > and then to ask a big company to sign it. They may even refuse to talk >> > to you if you start from NDA. >> > >> > Here is a more specific question along same lines: >> > How would you sell a product to a big company? What would stop them >> > from implementing a similar thing by themselves or outsource it to >> > their partners? >> > The only one thing that helps here is when the idea is well executed. >> > But, by definition of a small company, an idea can't be very well >> > executed (no resources). >> > >> > Any thoughts? Prove me wrong. >> > >> > Dmitri. >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Blog: http://panyam.wordpress.com > Twitter: @panyam > -- Blog: http://panyam.wordpress.com Twitter: @panyam --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Guidelines on discussion: http://tr.im/ujKF No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself: http://tr.im/ujMm 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
