|
|
|
|
|
|
by electic
4956 days ago
|
|
|
I disagree. If some guy can just swoop in with more cash and beat you then you deserve it. Using your argument, no startup would have a chance against Google or Oracle because they have more cash and more resources. On the same note, more cash != success and that goes for startups. It is all down to execution. If you are not executing, don't have market awareness, and your engineering is not up to snuff then you do not deserve to survive in the marketplace. You should not use draconian laws to offset your mis-execution. |
|
|
To develop a physical product takes a long time, with a lot of (costly[1]) trial and error. You'll start with single items, then move on to batch production (10s-100s) on a few versions to test proof of concept. Depending on the size of the market, you may move on to mass production. For each scale increase, the start-up cost is higher, and the unit cost is lower.
If I develop a product, and in doing so show it has great potential, I've done most of the hard work. It's then easy for someone to go straight in at the top end with relatively little investment, because I've already proved the concept and sucked up the risk.
It's fair that people are able to protect their investment for something like this, otherwise it's not possible to compete against larger players.
Physical manufacturing is not the same as software.
[1] Relative to developing software, that is.