The OT thread V1

[vijil]

Speaking of software, I think we've scrapped software patents here in NZ. Might need to double check that.

- yup, looks like we have. Doesn't seem to be bothering Xero...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11118087

[Simon]

A lot of software patents were really just telling your competitor how to do something and actually a bad idea. Trade secrets are often better in those cases.

[vijil]

Yup, which I think is why the dev community over here were behind the change.

IP strategy is fun.

And since this is an OT thread I might as well mention that I'm busy (re)learning solidworks. Also fun, though the extent to which I'm having to unlearn everything I knew about 3D modelling from Maya is disturbing.

[Simon]

I found solidworks incredibly frustrating to learn after every other cad system I had used before. A lot of operations and selections seem backwards. You get used to it and eventually come to appreciate the system whilst still occasionally being frustrated.

[vijil]

Yeah, it's the whole "first choose what to do, THEN choose what to do it to" thing that's throwing me.

Ah well, if Alex got it so can I dammit

[cockerpunk]

Gordon, you are looking at the issue from one single direction, that is correct if that is the chosen path, but is very far from reality for probably the majority of all small companies.

i already stated the direction im looking at this from ... technology devlopment

No it doesn't. The only thing a patent gives you is the right to stop someone else practicing your invention. IF you can afford to. That is it.

more likly, your company is actually based and created ONLY on a patent.

If you have to sell a majority or all of your company in order to protect the IP, then you got screwed, it's not your company any more.

selling your company is the goal of most if not all technology development start ups.

Not true. It adds value, but only if you are looking to sell. There are many other factors to a companies value. A company without IP isn't valueless.

a technology development company without patent protection and right to practice is valueless.

False.

absolutely true. why would you ever buy a company without right to practice?

This is only at the point you are looking to sell or get investors. This is not the common situation for most small businesses. Again, you are looking at the situation from a very narrow view point that is relevant to your experience and industry, but not the majority of small businesses and start ups.

it is common for all technology development businesses

Agreed totally. There has to be a reward for innovation, but the current patent system is very broken even with the recent changes. It has to become cheaper and faster to get patents and easier to protect them if it is going to help the little guy like it was originally intended to do. That is not the case currently.

i think you missed the part where we were talking about technology development companies based on big time R&D budgets.

[cockerpunk]

Given that I'm a director in a small agricultural hardware innovation startup without any IP, and we've had serious investor and even acquisition interest despite said lack of IP, we're proof that Gordon is wrong on this. Our value lies in our relationships with major players, our expertise, our industry knowledge and our ability to move fast. We are a speed play. We've just been through an accelerator program in which we've discussed these issues at length with IP lawyers, investment funds and others.

Investors are primarily interested in market validation and the people involved. It depends on the industry of course, but IP is a clear third for most angel investors. I can say that because that's what they say.

And of course I wasn't suggesting that the X Prize as it currently stands would replace the system, no idea why you'd interpret me like that (though folks seem quite happy to spend more getting it than it's worth). I was using it as one example of possible alternatives, many of which already exist. Without government involvement, alternative systems would pop up and expand in alignment with what the market wants. Kickstarter is another example.

you literally stated that Xprize type foundations and charity would be the reason why folks would invest in R&D and replace the current patent system's motivation for doing so.

and anyone willing to buy a company that has proprietary processes, without IP protection on those processes, or right to practice, is a fool. sorry. arguably, such a company should not exist, as anyone can shut down anyone if they fail to have right to practice. and if they don't have patent protection on there proprietary processes, then anyone can replicate the process when/if it becomes valuable.

it sounds like your value is in product life cycle and path to customer. not fundamental technology development.

[Dayspring]

And for something a bit different and... lighter.

I've started doing Youtube vids of my gaming adventures - currently starting with the Blizzard Overwatch Beta, but hopefully expanding in the coming months.

Take a watch and subscribe for more fun!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6E...xFdw3GFKqcHHVA

[Simon]

i think you missed the part where we were talking about technology development companies based on big time R&D budgets.

Possibly. I thought we were just talking about technology companies and IP. I missed the part about big time R&D budgets because of the comments about IP and the little guy.

One thing you are missing though is the rights a patent gives you.

A patent does not give you a right to practice.

This was drummed into me when at one stage in my career I started working on becoming a patent agent. I stopped as I simply was taking on too much at one time, but I got over half way through the course.

A patent gives you one right, and one right only. That is to stop someone else from practicing your innovation. It doesn't even give you the right to practice it.

Usually to stop someone you have to have serious money.

Case in point is how NPS took over Odyssey with my first force feed patent. Odyssey had quite a few patents, but I was first. Just because they had patents didn't give them any rights to practice what was in them because it was based on the major concept covered in mine.

It rendered all of their patents valueless to them and anyone else looking to buy them other than NPS, even though the patents covered what they were making, they couldn't make it because of my patent. The patents only had value after NPS bought out the company, which was a situation they pretty much had no choice about.

The value in their company at the time was not the IP, but the tooling and orders they had. They got a decent chunk for that.

[Nobody]

Also, a company's goal is not to be bought up by some bigger company, it is to grow bigger & better. No one goes in hoping that they will be bought out in the near future. That is a path to failure, IMO.