united-states, patentIn previous discussions (not here) it appeared to me that if a startup is based on new technology for which it files a patent application (USPTO), then the prevalent business strategy is to keep it secret as long as possible, even applying for application publication delay. Not even publishing papers about the new technology on scientific journals.
I can see how this makes sense. But please consider the open source software business model. It makes sense as well.
So: would it be so unthinkable, from a business strategy point of view, to file an USPTO application and then disclose the topic to try to get prestige for the company and to create buzz?
I’d have to say… it depends. You haven’t given enough details to be more specific.
I have had some patents. The company that those patents were created for, did less than other companies I’ve worked in that had no patents. OTOH, as your business gets larger (has enough value for others to want to extract your value), a portfolio of patents can be really helpful.
I’m always wary when people start talking of patents and startups. Patents cost. And they’re only of value if you can defend them - which also costs. That means deep pockets, usually more than the kitchen table entrepreneur has at the early stages, and more than the people who usually ask these questions, have. There’s no point to a patent if you can’t defend it.
Is the idea actually genuinely valuable? As in, “is it worth the time spent writing patents and defensive patents and protecting them multinationally”? If you can’t fully commit to that idea, you’re probably better off just being a faster and more agile business than incumbents in the space. And that brings us to the Open Source models, which largely rely on selling services more than ideas. The ideas are free; the expertise to implement them effectively, costs.
If you can execute well and you have little in the way of funds, then you might make more money, with less heartache, freeing the idea and supporting it.
It really does depend on the circumstances. I don’t think there’s a simple general rule that works for all conditions, or even for a wide range of cases. If you want a multiple clause rule? Maybe something like:
There are several threads to this question:
You need to describe the solution that your product will provide, and who would want to buy that. (Before you get into “how” it will do that.) In many cases the “What” you want to sell and how you can do that should precede the “how do you make it”.
Intellectual Property may come into play if you have a reasonable market established (or targeted) and you want to attract venture capital. VCs often want to reduce the risk that some competing product won’t make your company and product obsolete (or ineffective).
You should concentrate on the Customer side of what you are trying to do – what are you selling (or are going to sell), who will buy, what will they pay. Concentrate on getting customers who use your product to create the “buzz” .. not on how the product is made.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.