Product: yes - Users: no - IP: yes. So in startup terms stealth, but with some very unique patent value proposition. Happy to share more non-public. As well sorry for the delay in getting back - right now still in China.
To me, producing a patented product in-house might be equivalent to self-licensing the patent. This makes the value of the patent primarily defensive and not revenue producing. On the other hand licensing the patent to others makes the patent revenue producing.
Which means I'm not seeing a clear business model. If there's a product, then users matter and the value of the patent isn't really relevant to the growth of the company, by which I mean the company could acquire users and grow without using a patented technology.
On the other hand, if the goal is licensing then it is primarily a marketing exercise and growth is likely to be more linear and in the form of periodic returns rather than in the form of capital gain on equity that is typically sought by the Silicon Valley startup investment industry.
I'm not seeing a clear business model.
To me, producing a patented product in-house might be equivalent to self-licensing the patent. This makes the value of the patent primarily defensive and not revenue producing. On the other hand licensing the patent to others makes the patent revenue producing.
Which means I'm not seeing a clear business model. If there's a product, then users matter and the value of the patent isn't really relevant to the growth of the company, by which I mean the company could acquire users and grow without using a patented technology.
On the other hand, if the goal is licensing then it is primarily a marketing exercise and growth is likely to be more linear and in the form of periodic returns rather than in the form of capital gain on equity that is typically sought by the Silicon Valley startup investment industry.