4 ms·

Let's rephrase the question a bit: 1) Should a startup bother if all they have is an idea that anyone can easily clone? I'd argue no - As many here already kno

Let's rephrase the question a bit: 1) Should a startup bother if all they have is an idea that anyone can easily clone? I'd argue no - As many here already know having an idea is only one piece of the puzzle. You have to have initiative, good execution, perseverance, and good tactical leadership. Failing all that, you better hope your idea is patentable but even then to survive as a patent troll you have to be willing to commit the legal resources and talent to make that work. If all you have is an idea, even if it's an original one, you probably should rethink whether you want to be a startup. Nobody said starting a company and displacing/disrupting/surviving in a highly competitive environment would be easy, nor should it be. 2) Snapchat isn't an original idea. It is one of many examples of a destructable message service. A quick Google search returns this site from 2006: http://www.destructingmessage.com/ http://www.destructingmessage.com/ And this site from 2007: https://privnote.com/ https://privnote.com/ Self-destructing email services have also existing for quite a while, from retractable email (AOLs "Unsend Email" feature that worked between AOL email accounts) to full self-destructable email services. A few of the BBS' I used to visit also had "hacked in" expiry dates for message. So question 2 is: Why should Snapchat be given special consideration for being just the latest implementation of an idea that has existed both in popular culture (Mission Impossible) and in the real world for decades? They really shouldn't be. Snapchat's CEOs "bring it on" message seems to be appropriate and shows he is aware of all these facts. He is up for the fight and the fight will ultimately benefit all of us through competition. If he has the right toolset to keep Snapchat in relevance, then it doesn't matter who clones him.

rayiner 14y ago
> Failing all that, you better hope your idea is patentable but even then to survive as a patent troll you have to be willing to commit the legal resources and talent to make that work. I think you're conflating ideas that are easy to clone with ideas that are easy to derive, and thus leading yourself to the pejorative "patent troll" for something that's nothing of the sort. If you spend years designing something, figuring out the optimal way to do things, doing experiments and testing, etc, and then patent it and license it (and sue those who copy without licensing), you're not a troll, you're using the patent system for precisely the purpose for which it was designed: to protect investment into ideas that are hard to derive but easy to copy.
- kapnobatairza 14y ago
  I'm not actually trying to use patent troll in the pejorative sense, so I should have clarified that. I agree entirely with your point, but it doesn't disagree with my primary argument that patenting an idea and licensing it isn't a simple endeavor and still requires you to put more into it than an idea.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'm not aware there is a non-pejorative sense of the term "patent troll." Using it to cover pure IP companies puts ARM, MIPS, etc, into the patent troll category.

rayiner 14y ago

> Failing all that, you better hope your idea is patentable but even then to survive as a patent troll you have to be willing to commit the legal resources and talent to make that work. I think you're conflating ideas that are easy to clone with ideas that are easy to derive, and thus leading yourself to the pejorative "patent troll" for something that's nothing of the sort. If you spend years designing something, figuring out the optimal way to do things, doing experiments and testing, etc, and then patent it and license it (and sue those who copy without licensing), you're not a troll, you're using the patent system for precisely the purpose for which it was designed: to protect investment into ideas that are hard to derive but easy to copy.

kapnobatairza 14y ago
I'm not actually trying to use patent troll in the pejorative sense, so I should have clarified that. I agree entirely with your point, but it doesn't disagree with my primary argument that patenting an idea and licensing it isn't a simple endeavor and still requires you to put more into it than an idea.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'm not aware there is a non-pejorative sense of the term "patent troll." Using it to cover pure IP companies puts ARM, MIPS, etc, into the patent troll category.