5 ms·

That's cold comfort when your startup has six months of runway left.

by wtracy 12y ago

CamperBob2 12y ago
If your runway depends on patent grants, you're already dead.
- tptacek 12y ago
  This is exactly right. I've never even heard of someone getting a patent in under 5 years. The two times I've been issued patents, it took over 7 years and didn't happen until long after I'd left the company that demanded I apply for them. Patents are not operationally meaningful to startups.
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    1. Patent pendency times are dropping rapidly these days. The large delays in the early 2000's were allegedly due to an informal internal "reject, reject, reject" policy at the USPTO instituted by the director at the time. 2. Patents may not be important to startups, but having patent applications certainly is. They help a lot in securing VC financing. There are multiple studies and surveys showing this. One less obvious reason why VCs may be interested in patents is studies also show a strong correlation between having patents and making successful exits.
Amezarak 12y ago
I'm not a founder, so maybe that's why I don't understand. How does the status of your patent affect your business?
- wtracy 12y ago
  I'm not a founder either, but I could see someone relying on a patent to coax the next round of investors on board.
- caboteria 12y ago
  The article gives an example: > For instance, three years ago, Franklin submitted an application for a startup that needed to secure crucial patents before it filed for public offering. It was being sued by a large company in the same space, and so it paid the Patent Office an extra fee to fast-track the application. Reading between the lines a little, it looks like a small company with tech that challenged a big company was being hassled by the big company and needed the patents to put them on a favorable-enough legal footing to not interfere with their IPO.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    This is not uncommon. For example, Yahoo sued Google for patent infringement over Ads right before Google's IPO. It then sued Facebook for patent infringement right before Facebook's IPO etc
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    Sure, but I don't get how this helps. Is it just the bigger company will hold off because you now have "ammunition" to also sue them for infringement in a kind of MAD standoff? The article (and a sibling comment) also mentions investor reasons ("If it’s a startup trying to get traction against an established player, they may not get funding because they don’t get the patent in place,") but I don't understand why that's the case unless it goes back to some kind of signaling that you won't be an easy legal target. I'd think all a patent would show is that you have an idea, which investors would already know and is true regardless of whether the patent is pending or approved.
    - wtracy 12y ago
      Is it just the bigger company will hold off because you now have "ammunition" to also sue them for infringement in a kind of MAD standoff? That's exactly it.

That's cold comfort when your startup has six months of runway left.

by wtracy 12y ago

That's cold comfort when your startup has six months of runway left.

CamperBob2 12y ago

If your runway depends on patent grants, you're already dead.

tptacek 12y ago
This is exactly right. I've never even heard of someone getting a patent in under 5 years. The two times I've been issued patents, it took over 7 years and didn't happen until long after I'd left the company that demanded I apply for them. Patents are not operationally meaningful to startups.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  1. Patent pendency times are dropping rapidly these days. The large delays in the early 2000's were allegedly due to an informal internal "reject, reject, reject" policy at the USPTO instituted by the director at the time. 2. Patents may not be important to startups, but having patent applications certainly is. They help a lot in securing VC financing. There are multiple studies and surveys showing this. One less obvious reason why VCs may be interested in patents is studies also show a strong correlation between having patents and making successful exits.

Amezarak 12y ago

I'm not a founder, so maybe that's why I don't understand. How does the status of your patent affect your business?

wtracy 12y ago
I'm not a founder either, but I could see someone relying on a patent to coax the next round of investors on board.
caboteria 12y ago
The article gives an example: > For instance, three years ago, Franklin submitted an application for a startup that needed to secure crucial patents before it filed for public offering. It was being sued by a large company in the same space, and so it paid the Patent Office an extra fee to fast-track the application. Reading between the lines a little, it looks like a small company with tech that challenged a big company was being hassled by the big company and needed the patents to put them on a favorable-enough legal footing to not interfere with their IPO.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  This is not uncommon. For example, Yahoo sued Google for patent infringement over Ads right before Google's IPO. It then sued Facebook for patent infringement right before Facebook's IPO etc
- Amezarak 12y ago
  Sure, but I don't get how this helps. Is it just the bigger company will hold off because you now have "ammunition" to also sue them for infringement in a kind of MAD standoff? The article (and a sibling comment) also mentions investor reasons ("If it’s a startup trying to get traction against an established player, they may not get funding because they don’t get the patent in place,") but I don't understand why that's the case unless it goes back to some kind of signaling that you won't be an easy legal target. I'd think all a patent would show is that you have an idea, which investors would already know and is true regardless of whether the patent is pending or approved.
  - wtracy 12y ago
    Is it just the bigger company will hold off because you now have "ammunition" to also sue them for infringement in a kind of MAD standoff? That's exactly it.