[YBA] i4i vs MS?

[Danny Lieberman]

Geoff

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).



Danny
---------------
http://www.dannylieberman.info


On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, geoffrey mendelson <
geoffreymendelson at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 16, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
>
>  Geoff
>>
>> Good point -but a tactical one.
>>
>> A provisional patent  can be  a deterrent to competitors and copiers.
>>
>> 1. relatively cheap
>> 2. the spec remains secret
>> 3. delays legal and filing fees
>> 4. relatively easy to write
>> 5. enables the product to be marked patent pending
>> 6. Gives a startup a head-start in market development
>>
>> However -  being able to protect an idea in the interim is far from being
>> a sufficient condition for success.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>  The other factors - a really divergent idea, a new market space, a clear
>> strategy and perfect execution  are overwhelmingly more important.
>>
>
>  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.
>>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Geoff.
> --
> geoffrey mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
> Jerusalem Israel geoffreymendelson at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Danny Lieberman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect your data: http://www.software.co.il
Twitter:  http://twitter.com/onlyjazz
Skype:  dannyl50
Warsaw:+48-79-609-5964
Israel:   +972 8 9701485
Mobile: +972 - 54 447 1114
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/pipermail/linux-il/attachments/20090816/59f69d1c/attachment-0001.html>