[TomGullen]

Quick question and I'm prepared to be shot down here, don't patents show that ideas are actually worth something?

Have a great idea? Patent it. Not all ideas are patentable but I'm sure some are.

If you get the patent you have something you can sell and once you do you've effectively made money from your idea.

[wpietri]

A patent is a lot more than an idea. Patents cover inventions. Originally, they required you to hand over a working model to get a patent.

Take the idea "a good pocket lighter". That's not patentable. Now take a look at the patent for the Zippo lighter:

http://www.google.com/patents/US2032695

Note the detailed diagrams and the careful description of the purposes of the various bits. You don't get that kind of detail by sitting around in your pajamas and saying between tokes, "Wouldn't it be cool if we had a good pocket lighter?" You get it by making things and trying them out.

[TomGullen]

So what is the definition of 'an idea' when people say ideas are worthless?

[wpietri]

I'm not sure I can define something as slippery as "an idea", but the people I'm thinking of generally have an elevator pitch. Or worse, more words without more substance.

As an example, consider this: http://earthnationlive.org/

Or the classic X for Y pitch: http://www.itsthisforthat.com/

[mootothemax]

Quick question and I'm prepared to be shot down here, don't patents show that ideas are actually worth something? Have a great idea? Patent it. Not all ideas are patentable but I'm sure some are.

I don't believe it's possible to patent an idea alone; you have to show some form of how the idea should work, and it is that which is patented. Which kinda takes us back to the central point - an idea on its own really isn't worth much unless you know what you're going to do with it :)

[jplarson]

I like many others in the HN community don't have a lot of respect for patents, at least in the software world (my take on this can be found here: http://blog.jpl-consulting.com/2010/11/a-nerds-perspective-o...).

But even setting aside ideologies, I think the patent route would be a WAY tougher route (from a resource perspective) than what one savvy commenter on the article suggested: "Cold. Hard. Cash."

To file and then successfully defend a patent from infringers would, I suspect, cost substantially more and take far more time than to actually hire someone to build a real prototype of your vision, which then gives you some legs to stand on in approaching the market.

[mchannon]

Patents are supposed to be worth something, though many are for things that would never work and could never have worked- many of Thomas Edison's patents would have never worked by his own admission.

You can sell your widget whether you have it patented or not; all the patent does is ensure other people can't sell a knockoff widget without incurring some legal liability.

Likewise, selling widgets based on your idea and making money from your idea aren't causally related.

[ktizo]

Is more the other way round with most patents turning ideas into expensive legal costs with no way of recouping the money, often due to having spent all the development money on the patent.

Only a few patents add monetary value to an invention, most of them are just a cost.