<div dir="ltr">Geoff<br><br>The Microsoft example is central to the discussion. The empirical data is that more innovation is done by big companies (IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Google) than by small independent inventors - they have the money to hire smarter people, the synergy, the infrastructure and legal to protect their IP. <br>
<br>For sure - a small 3 man startup can have a brilliant idea but even if they spring for a patent - the threat of infringement is symmetrical. In my opinion, most software patents fail in obviousness, prior art and disclosure. Patent litigation is expensive, and defending yourself even against a bad patent may cost a fortune - which startups don't have. Consider NTP (patent troll) vs RIM (Blackberry).<br>
<br>This is why VC's always ask for patents but quickly move on to the more substantitive questions of Total available market, execution and break-through strategies.<br><br>I challenge you to bring one example of an Israeli startup that was able to profitably monetize their idea with software patent licensing. Patent trolls like Aerotel and NTP don't count.<br>
<br>Then there is your notion of "first mover advantage"; most new ideas these days take a long time to penetrate the market - you can develop software in 3-5 months but it still will take 3-5 years for the business to grow and take root (assuming you have all the other pieces in place).<br>
<br><br><br>Danny<br>---------------<br><a href="http://www.dannylieberman.info">http://www.dannylieberman.info</a><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, geoffrey mendelson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:geoffreymendelson@gmail.com">geoffreymendelson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
On Aug 16, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Danny Lieberman wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Geoff<br>
<br>
Good point -but a tactical one.<br>
<br>
A provisional patent can be a deterrent to competitors and copiers.<br>
<br>
1. relatively cheap<br>
2. the spec remains secret<br>
3. delays legal and filing fees<br>
4. relatively easy to write<br>
5. enables the product to be marked patent pending<br>
6. Gives a startup a head-start in market development<br>
<br>
However - being able to protect an idea in the interim is far from being a sufficient condition for success.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
IMHO you are taking it too far. Success is the result of many factors. Just having a good idea, a patent, a good business plan, honest competitors, etc does not guarentee success. In fact nothing guarentees success, and going by the numbers (75% of all startups fail in the first year), one can almost guarentee faliure.<br>
<br>
Based upon Israeli statistics, about 38% of all companies fail in the first year, you could question that. The Israeli statistic defines a company as either incorporating or filing for a business tax number, which explains the difference. Most startups start and disapear which still being in "stealth mode", i.e. privately funded with no legal existance.<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The other factors - a really divergent idea, a new market space, a clear strategy and perfect execution are overwhelmingly more important.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Let me put it this way - more startups fail because of personality issues with the founders than because some bad people stole an idea that could have been protected by a provisional patent.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br></div>
That's irrelevant to the discussion of patents. It's very relevant to the discussion in general, but IMHO, no matter how good the idea, how new the market space, how well the people get along and how good the product will be, if someone else markets it first, with a bigger/better development team, more money, etc, there is no way the small company will succeed.<br>
<br>
In countries that do allow software patents, not filing one, or announcing your intention to file one, may be considered the same as releasing an idea to the public domain, so one can legally and ethicaly use your idea without stealing it. In the US, you have one year from date of first publication to file a regular patent application, or your idea becomes public domain.<br>
<br>
This whole discussion has been about tatics, AFAIK there was no technology discussed at all. Releasing an idea to the public domain is a tactic too.<br>
<br>
Going back to the original topic, Microsoft as a publicly traded company has a legal obligation to its shareholders to avail itself of every legal protection it can for its IP and products.<div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
Geoff.<br>
-- <br>
geoffrey mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM<br>
Jerusalem Israel <a href="mailto:geoffreymendelson@gmail.com" target="_blank">geoffreymendelson@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Danny Lieberman<br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Protect your data: <a href="http://www.software.co.il">http://www.software.co.il</a><br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/onlyjazz">http://twitter.com/onlyjazz</a><br>Skype: dannyl50<br>Warsaw:+48-79-609-5964<br>Israel: +972 8 9701485<br>Mobile: +972 - 54 447 1114<br>
</div>