4 ms·
As an early stage investor, I don't find that logic compelling. What makes a company an exciting investment isn't that they are doing something that is protecte
by taylorwc 9y ago
As an early stage investor, I don't find that logic compelling. What makes a company an exciting investment isn't that they are doing something that is protected via intellectual property from $BIGCO. It's that they have a compelling team and a unique set of advantages (maybe product, niche market, timing).
Even with patent protection, $BIGCO can still win that battle. Litigating and protecting intellectual property in that context will kill the startup anyway.
- king07828 9y agoI don't find that logic compelling either. If $NEWCO_A and $NEWCO_B are effectively equivalent (team, advantages, etc.), but $NEWCO_A has a provisional patent application that protects the idea and $NEWCO_B does not, then the value of $NEWCO_A should be greater than the value of $NEWCO_B. Thus, patents (i) should add value and (ii) may make an average investor more likely to invest. If the value of the patents of small companies is being reduced because patents cost more [1] and are harder to enforce [2], then $NEWCO_A will have less of an advantage and won't receive as much funding as it would have otherwise. Thus, there may be fewer investors willing to invest because of the decrease in the value of patents of small companies. [1] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/16/real-staggering-cost-getting-patent-ptab/id=85639/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/16/real-staggering-cost-ge... [2] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/11/16/ipr-petitions-virnetx-patent-apple-statute-of-limitations/id=90233/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/11/16/ipr-petitions-virnetx-p...