4 ms·

> poorly-funded good ideas can't compete against well-funded bad ideas. Nonsense. In the U.S., if the idea is worth anything, then it's surely worth spending

> poorly-funded good ideas can't compete against well-funded bad ideas. Nonsense. In the U.S., if the idea is worth anything, then it's surely worth spending ~$1500 to file a Provisional Patent. That Provisional Patent gives you 1-year to determine whether the idea is feasible. Talk to investors, see if there's interest. Nothing proves interest better than an investor willing to invest real money. If no interest, take that as an indicator and move on. > Investors are more interested in funding terrible ideas from people they know than great ideas from people they don't know. Nonsense. Investors are looking to make money. Give them an feasible idea that is somewhat backed with a guarantee that the money they fork over for you to spend on developing the idea won't simply be copied - and the investor will take that over a terrible idea with someone they know. > The market is monopolized on every side and good ideas can't compete against sheer capital. Nonsense. Even if the biz ends up collapsing, the patents can still be sold or retained. Many here will not like that idea - but the reality is the patents provide the investor with some comfort especially if the idea is worth anything.

beambot 10y ago
> Nothing proves interest better than an investor willing to invest real money. If no interest, take that as an indicator and move on. Really... Nothing? You know, like customers willing to pay you money...?
- gatling1787 10y ago
  I was replying to "poorly-funded good ideas" so the context was investors funding ideas. Generally, customers come after the idea and the funding.
  - beambot 10y ago
    Politely disagree. If you're raising funding before talking with potential customers, then you might be doing it wrong. (Depends slightly on the product, but generally true in my experience.) People who supply funding also want to know that customers want your product.
david927 10y ago
This is how it should work but it's not how it does work. If you approach an investor with the idea for a "bridge", they won't fund it because there's no proof people would use a bridge, and you can't prove it until you're funded. End of story. No bridge. Give them an feasible idea that is somewhat backed with a guarantee that the money they fork over for you to spend on developing the idea won't simply be copied - and the investor will take that over a terrible idea with someone they know. Please, point me to this investor. I think your hope of what it should be masks the reality of what it is. I'm with you; I wish it was that way too.
- gatling1787 10y ago
  By bridge I assume you literally mean a traffic or pedestrian bridge. Both are expensive and beyond what I read the OP as meaning by "funding an idea". Given this site, I read OP more as a software or hardware guy wanting to build something and get funding for it - something much smaller and less regulatory hurdles than an actual physical bridge. But, let's assume he did mean a complex, expensive bridge. If it truly was worthwhile location to build a new bridge, then why would it be hard to show that people would use it - it's more a matter of measuring existing traffic on other nearby bridges etc...
  - david927 10y ago
    Sorry, I was talking symbolically, that if the concept of a bridge didn't exist and you wanted to show how valuable it would be, it would be difficult without an implementation. History is littered with ideas that are not obvious to consumers until they start using them. The automobile was considered a toy for more than a decade after its invention, for example. I'm specifically talking about this Catch-22: that you often can't create something revolutionary (e.g. build the first bridge) without investment and you can't get investment until it's built and demonstrating its worth. Your initial statement seems to indicate that it's relatively easy to raise funding if you have a 'good idea', yet a good idea is usually considered the modification of an existing idea ("Facebook with Twitter, but for dogs"). A revolutionary idea won't be as accessible (in terms of understanding) by investors or even initially consumers, and won't get funding for that reason. The irony is that it's the revolutionary ideas that everyone is seeking, yet the way funding works often precludes it, rather than encourages it, from happening.
CalChris 10y ago
This is correct. But the cost of filing a provisional is $130 for a small entity. Maybe it's $1500 if you have an IP firm do it. Writing a provisional is well within the grasp of an engineer. Claims in a nonprovisional application, well that is for a specialist.

beambot 10y ago

> Nothing proves interest better than an investor willing to invest real money. If no interest, take that as an indicator and move on. Really... Nothing? You know, like customers willing to pay you money...?

gatling1787 10y ago
I was replying to "poorly-funded good ideas" so the context was investors funding ideas. Generally, customers come after the idea and the funding.
- beambot 10y ago
  Politely disagree. If you're raising funding before talking with potential customers, then you might be doing it wrong. (Depends slightly on the product, but generally true in my experience.) People who supply funding also want to know that customers want your product.

david927 10y ago

This is how it should work but it's not how it does work. If you approach an investor with the idea for a "bridge", they won't fund it because there's no proof people would use a bridge, and you can't prove it until you're funded. End of story. No bridge. Give them an feasible idea that is somewhat backed with a guarantee that the money they fork over for you to spend on developing the idea won't simply be copied - and the investor will take that over a terrible idea with someone they know. Please, point me to this investor. I think your hope of what it should be masks the reality of what it is. I'm with you; I wish it was that way too.

gatling1787 10y ago
By bridge I assume you literally mean a traffic or pedestrian bridge. Both are expensive and beyond what I read the OP as meaning by "funding an idea". Given this site, I read OP more as a software or hardware guy wanting to build something and get funding for it - something much smaller and less regulatory hurdles than an actual physical bridge. But, let's assume he did mean a complex, expensive bridge. If it truly was worthwhile location to build a new bridge, then why would it be hard to show that people would use it - it's more a matter of measuring existing traffic on other nearby bridges etc...
- david927 10y ago
  Sorry, I was talking symbolically, that if the concept of a bridge didn't exist and you wanted to show how valuable it would be, it would be difficult without an implementation. History is littered with ideas that are not obvious to consumers until they start using them. The automobile was considered a toy for more than a decade after its invention, for example. I'm specifically talking about this Catch-22: that you often can't create something revolutionary (e.g. build the first bridge) without investment and you can't get investment until it's built and demonstrating its worth. Your initial statement seems to indicate that it's relatively easy to raise funding if you have a 'good idea', yet a good idea is usually considered the modification of an existing idea ("Facebook with Twitter, but for dogs"). A revolutionary idea won't be as accessible (in terms of understanding) by investors or even initially consumers, and won't get funding for that reason. The irony is that it's the revolutionary ideas that everyone is seeking, yet the way funding works often precludes it, rather than encourages it, from happening.

CalChris 10y ago

This is correct. But the cost of filing a provisional is $130 for a small entity. Maybe it's $1500 if you have an IP firm do it. Writing a provisional is well within the grasp of an engineer. Claims in a nonprovisional application, well that is for a specialist.