I'd give you $0.04 ;-) I'd just qualify your comment to - unless you are doing something innovative, don't waste time thinking about patents. If your ideas aren't patentable in the first place, you should refocus your efforts.
PS I'm a fan of Stanford Entrepreneurial Thought Leader series too. On Nov 17, 12:05 am, Geoff McQueen - Hiive Systems <[email protected]> wrote: > For those who haven't noticed this tip yet, if you're into entrepreneurship, > you really really *really* need to get into the podcasts from the > Entrepreneurial Thought Leader series run at Stanford each week during > session. > > You can subscribe to the podcast > viahttp://www.stanford.edu/group/edcorner/uploads/podcast/EducatorsCorne.... > > Do it. > Now. > Listen to it when walking with the dog. > Or at the gym. > Or on the train, wishing you weren't on the train to work for someone else > and that your startup was a bit further down the track. > Your won't remember the music you're listening to now in 10 years. > There's every chance you'll remember something you hear on these. > I've found they even cure hangovers. > Seriously. > > Anyway, back to the topic of ideas and protection. Steve Blank, an > entrepreneur I have tremendous respect for and was lucky to meet briefly when > I was at this exact event a few weeks ago in Stanford - God I felt old > gatecrashing this class - had some interesting comments to make about this in > his recent lecture, which served as a wrap up for the semester's speakers, > including a wide range of people from the CTO of Sun, former Chairman of > Intel, Eric Dries from StartupLessonsLearned and Robin Li, founder of Baidu, > and all the way to Chamillionaire. > > You can listen to it fromhttp://ecorner.stanford.edu/podcasts.html- Steve's > is the most recent podcast for the next few days until they do a special on > their entrepreneurship challenge. > > At around the 55:30 mark, a student asked a question, positing that the > successful people/companies they'd had present to them (Baidu?) had "stolen" > something, and asked Steve if he had any moral regrets (he has founded or > been on the initial team of 8 companies over the last 28 years) from his own > career. Steve's response was pretty instructive to this debate in my view: it > adds weight to one of the early debates on this list where Mike from > Atlassian made in his case that ideas aren't what matters: execution is what > matters. > > For two guys in a garage to protect their idea means for them to execute and > then build a strategy for protecting their business and/or maximising their > valuation in the context of a trade sale (particularly one with multiple > suitors) and in this context patents and other tools can be valuable. But in > my view, for most tech products (the non R&D heavy ones that characterise the > web world we live in), if you spend time writing patents when you could be > talking to (potential) customers, validating your market, and developing a > prototype, or cutting code, then you're probably doing it wrong. > > Just me $0.02... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Another Place > Sent: Monday, 16 November 2009 11:35 PM > To: Silicon Beach Australia > Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: Was: New business models to protect inventiveness > > Thanks for your thoughts... > > On Nov 16, 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 > > The costs of setting up a company and opportunity costs shouldn't be > counted towards the cost of protecting ideas. They are common to other > parts of setting up an IT start up and not costs borne purely for the > purpose of getting intellectual property (patent) protection. > > I agree - the rest is not that B&W. The costs for patenting can be in > the order of what you have quoted but this does not mean an IT start > up has to shell out this amount upfront. The cost of patenting is like > the cost of any other business asset - the cost depends on what you > need, how "big" it is (i.e. what you try to cover in your patent), > what countries you decide to apply for protection, how important it is > to your start up. > > The $20K might be the costs payable over four years. If you decide to > limit protection to Australia or get an innovation patent, the costs > could be more in the $10K ballpark - and payable over a 12 month > period so not in one go. This may still be expensive but it depends > what you want a patent for - maybe you want the patent for marketing > purposes or so you can seek VC funding. A patent gives a VC comfort > that there is substance in your ideas - because the patent document > has to include a full description of the invention. It also gives > comfort that their investment is potentially protected so they aren't > going to invest just to find that anyone can copy your invention. If > the patent covers something that is absolutely fundamental to your > business and it is critically important to you to have the ability to > lock out other people, then you have to assess whether the investment > of say $10K to $20K will give you a good return. Yes, $10K to $20K is > a lot but if you compare it to other business costs (e.g. think about > how much money you would spend on a couple of mobile phone plans over > four years), it's actually not huge. > > > 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. > > Yes it is a risk if you build a prototype only to find that someone > else had patented it before you. However, the whole idea of patent > databases is to put inventions on the public record. The reality is > that some patent areas are quite 'crowded' in that there are quite a > lot of patents sitting around certain technologies - all co-existing. > It may be that you have to rethink parts of your invention and rebuild > part of prototype to avoid infringing the patent. Because the patents > are there to be read (although I have to qualify this because they > can't be publicly viewed initially), you can work out what you need to > do differently. Your total investment in a prototype is not lost. The > same applies if you invest in your own patents - finding out that > someone else has done something similar or almost identical means you > have to work out a way to do it differently. Often working out that > way is inventive and that is what your patent should cover. My view > is: all is not lost in the scenarios you have painted and it is better > to find out about the competition before you get to market. It's all > part of what you need to establish competitive advantage. (Of course, > if your invention is only covered by the "vaguest" of patents then you > would have to ask: is it truly covered? If someone is going to assert > infringement, it's up to them to make their case - at their cost) > > > "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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
