[drschwabe]

Thanks for the links. How do you suggest startup entrepreneurs work around the broader moral dillemma here?

On one had, we shouldn't feed the flames but on the other hand - we may need a foundation of patents for defensive measure or to reaslitically compete against the likes of IBM who have a gajillion patents.

And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application process. From what I can asertain this is otherwise money on the table, after meeting that prerequsite.

Are you suggesting we walk away from technology grants and just wing it with regards to what may happen when IBM legal team (or other patent troll) comes knocking ?

[JohnFen]

> How do you suggest startup entrepreneurs work around the broader moral dillemma here?

Turn your invention into prior art. Publish it, in detail, publicly. Then, if someone else tries to patent it, it's much easier to contest the patent application.

[marcosdumay]

If you are in the game, you have to play it.

You don't have to advocate for it, and you can advocate against it. But you may not have much a choice on playing.

Anyway, defending a patent requires some deep pockets, and if you don't defend them, they are just cost with no benefit.

Besides, the IBM legal team will come knocking, won't tell you anything that can let you understand why, and you will have no other option but to comply. How many patents you have, or if they actually have one that you are infringing isn't really relevant.

[drschwabe]

Good points

> Anyway, defending a patent requires some deep pockets, and if you don't defend them, they are just cost with no benefit.

unless you just need them for gov't grants that require them - in this case it's an investment into a pre-requisite and if the net capital from the grant is higher than the cost of the patent you got then hypothetically you are ahead; unless there are recurring/other expenses involved in 'maintaining' the patent that I'm not aware of.

[le-mark]

Can anyone comment on which government grants require a patent?

[neltnerb]

SBIR grants will see it as a positive if you have a potential monopoly. They want you to have a successful business and a valid exit strategy is to sell out the IP or license it.

Require is a strong word, it's just a strategy they recognize as valid.

[joemullin]

Can you point me to the government grant program that requires patents as part of the application process? That is potentially very concerning. I would be interested to learn more.

[drschwabe]

It's a Canadian tech grant; non-dilluting - and they don't explicitly specify it is a requirement, but from the rep directly working for the program and anyone who I've talked to who has applied to the program your chances of getting the grant are basically zero if there is no IP. Coincidentally, they have another smaller grant you can apply for that goes direct to a service provider of your choice; and basically they suggest you use this first to pay for a law firm to get a patent started and then apply for the larger grant thereafter.

[varispeed]

I've personally witnessed venture capital firms requiring patent filings as a prerequisite for funding. An acquaintance of mine once worked for a startup where the team was diverted from product development to ideation on patentable processes. The focus was less on innovation and more on creating a unique claim to secure funding, which I find misguided.

The VC, instead of nurturing the inventive process, largely contributed to the crafting of a patent application. The objective was to design it in such a way that it was cryptic and as widely applicable as possible. Despite its questionable practices, the patent was approved, leading to the subsequent funding of the startup.

However, the market didn't respond well to the idea, necessitating a pivot. Meanwhile, there were other companies independently pursuing similar ideas. They could have invested significant time and resources, unaware that they were infringing on an existing patent. It's a speculative guess, but I can't help but wonder if the VC fund is vigilantly searching for successful implementations of the patented idea, ready to initiate lawsuits for patent infringement. This illustrates the potential misuse of patents, which, rather than fostering innovation, sometimes stifle it.

[moneywoes]

> And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application process

Any examples? Interesting, first time hearing about this

[jimmydddd]

I worked with companies that were funded by DARPA and patent filings were required. This was all in defense related tech like vision systems, robotics, communications, etc. There's a special portion of a patent application where you have to disclose that government funding was involved, so it must be a common occurance. If the company decides to later change the strategy for handling pending patent applications, they needed to get DARPA approval first.