I would think there is always value in patent-application because even if it could be easily challenged in court it allows you to claim you have patent or patent pending which will help your marketing.
Correct. It can often be worth it for the marketing aspects. Or to be thought of as an innovator or thought leader. Or to provide leverage when trying to get funding.
That's what I was thinking ... to get funding. It shows you have "something" and it also shows that you are the "owner" of the idea.
I did one preliminary software patent application and I also found that it greatly helped me focus and "crystallize" what is the big idea here.
It's kind of like writing documentation but focusing on the core ideas. A patent should not only disclose the technical details of how it works but also explain why it is useful, why it is better than existing approaches.
That is a good way to evaluate the worthiness of the project. Why this, over software that already exist. A project is often useful even if it is not patentable. But writing or even thinking about writing a preliminary patent-application helps put it in context.
If your funder is even vaguely competent, they'll know that "patent pending" means extremely little. It could mean that you hired a law firm to prepare a solid patent application, but it could equally well mean that you scribbled something on a napkin, slapped a cover sheet on it, and mailed it to the patent office.
They might want to see a copy of the patent-application, which you might be willing to show them under a non-disclosure agreement.
If you want to sell an idea to an investor it is not unreasonable that they would demand to know what exactly the idea is, which is best communicated by letting them see the patent application. No?
Agreed, mostly. For some investors, it's just a check box item, and they won't look into it any more. But they are competent. It's just not a high priority for them.