Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6stringmerc | Hacker News Reader

Very interesting, and I appreciate the inclusion of hardware discussion. I'm looking to compete in the Intel Curie challenge for an invention, but that is just one of my projects dreamt up over the past few years.

Unfortunately, for my most prized invention, I still feel the best avenue is to put my own capital at risk and secure the patent for myself. For all I know, this is the pragmatic path before seeking investment?

I've had a good consultation with a patent attorney specializing in such cases, and his fee appears reasonable, so unless I'm really off track here, I've always thought of that as Step 1...Step 2 being the Business Plan / Margins Caluclations...Step 3 being seeking partnerships / funding, and then Step 4 is getting to market and hopefully growing the business to the point of taking on a more limited role due to expansion requiring more company infrastructure.

Guidance very welcome, and thanks again for posting this for review.

View on HN

I've started a hardware company before and went down the patent route. What we did, with success, was to file a provisional patent before raising money - which is far cheaper and less time consuming. That satisfied investor questions regarding IP protection and then we used investor money to file the actual patent itself.

Regarding your proposed step four - if you truly intend to have a limited role for yourself in the future, disclosing this to investors (as you should) might make fundraising more difficult. If you are the visionary behind the tech/company - they'll want to see your continued involvement.

Thank you for sharing your experience and thoughts, I truly appreciate the individual contribution. My understanding of the patent system is still limited, but I definitely follow the logic of How and Why your venture went with Provisional. The goal of IP protection has, without question, been my #1 priority and testing of patience.

Also, I appreciate your commenting on Step 4, and can clarify: From a lot of articles / testimonials through HN and other places, I've seen a lot of caution regarding "Trying to do everything / be everything / resist giving up control" in a Start Up environment. I'd love for my venture to breed more ventures long-term. As in, if I could be successful once I'd like to use that success to cautiously expand my portfolio (get back to work inventing things) and participate in business management on a prudent level. I certainly don't want to project a flighty here-today-gone-tomorrow type of attitude, because I wouldn't want to invest in such an approach either. Thus, a big thank you for noting the expectation within the field regarding ongoing involvement.

I think your step 2 should be the first thing you do. What's the point of spending money if you don't know you can make it back? A business plan is part of initial product development.

Fair point, and constructive as well. My thinking, re: splitting into Step 1 and 2 in this case, alludes to wanting IP protection first and foremost, then conducting research and running numbers and models to establish the financial and production metrics that might be appealing. From there, present the full business case and protected IP to potential investors.

The Patent Attorney said something like what you said as well - the purpose is generally to make money, not have a fancy thing to hang on the wall - so taking the time, effort and cash to invest in it personally should be a serious venture...not like throwing good money after bad, but as an affirmation that it's worth pursuing for my own purposes, and in theory, to make a nice pile of money in recognition of coming up with something of merit to customers. I hope this reasoning makes some sense, and I do very much appreciate your postulation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com