9 ms·
I'm not saying that. It's just frustrating.
by JosephRedfern 11y ago
I'm not saying that. It's just frustrating.
- bsenftner 11y agoTry doing this 10 years ago, putting your life savings into it, and then VCs and media companies "not getting it", your money runs out, and then you have to sell your IP simply to pay the rent.
- JosephRedfern 11y agoI'm not meaning to criticize you personally (at all). I'm just saying that the idea of being able to "declare ownership" of what is essentially a series of mathematical operations just doesn't feel quite right. I realise that people have to make money some how, but developing a useful, competitive, monetisable product that people are able to choose to buy is, in my opinion, the way forwards. Patenting the technology so that you can operate without competition rather than developing your product to stay ahead of the competition "organically" seems like the wrong way of doing it to me. Perhaps I'm an idealist, and need to get real...
- bsenftner 11y agoI agree with you. But the patent system exists... A startup has to protect its work. Plus, when pitching for financing the first set of questions include "Is this patented?" If you answer no and don't have a valid reason why not, they tell you to get it patented and come back when that is done.
- harperlee 11y agoThis is a good comment, much better than the "Bleurgh" one, so I transferred you a vote (down there, up here).
- mentat 11y agoSo, there are an infinite number of things that are just series of mathematical operations. It's the ones that are useful that matter. Why would we not compensate people for discovering them?
- steve19 11y agoWay to play the victim card, after first playing the everyone-else-was-doing-it card! "Los Angeles based MBA..." Makes sense, I guess you learnt this two card trick in MBA 101 :)