c) None, just get it out there At first I thought you were doing a patent search to apply for a patent - which makes sense. But on rereading, I think you're ju

c) None, just get it out there At first I thought you were doing a patent search to apply for a patent - which makes sense. But on rereading, I think you're just checking to be sure that you're not infringing on anyone else's patents. I agree with your IP friend: if you're not going to patent your invention - there's no point searching at all (and there's even the risk of triple punitive damages in some jurisdictions, as sgrove noted.) If you infringe on someone's patent (and they care), you can probably code around it. But unless you are competing directly with their product, they won't care. Here's pg's take on it: What does that mean in practice? We tell the startups we fund not to worry about infringing patents, because startups rarely get sued for patent infringement. There are only two reasons someone might sue you: for money, or to prevent you from competing with them. Startups are too poor to be worth suing for money. And in practice they don't seem to get sued much by competitors, either. They don't get sued by other startups because (a) patent suits are an expensive distraction, and (b) since the other startups are as young as they are, their patents probably haven't issued yet. [3] Nor do startups, at least in the software business, seem to get sued much by established competitors. Despite all the patents Microsoft holds, I don't know of an instance where they sued a startup for patent infringement. Companies like Microsoft and Oracle don't win by winning lawsuits. That's too uncertain. They win by locking competitors out of their sales channels. If you do manage to threaten them, they're more likely to buy you than sue you. http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html