I've been meeting with investors recently and one of the most common questions/comments has been - "Why can't someone else just do the same thing? Can a group of Stanford grads build this in a weekend?" This line of questioning is relevant to pretty much all startups today.
The reality is, from what I can tell, to build YogaGlo, you could build this in a month with a fairly decent tech team and a little bit of hustle. Now imagine you're the CEO of YogaGlo today and an investor asks you these questions. Easy answer - "they can't, we have a patent". Think of this in another light. What happens if the company goes bust and there are no physical assets to liquidate? A patent (or IP) is an asset that can be sold. (think Nortel[1])
We've significantly lowered the barrier to pretty much every industry in the world. The production cost of one of these yoga classes can't be more than $100 per video and yet can reach a million in a click of a button. Since it's so "easy", we come full circle back to how important ownership, rights, IP and patents are. Otherwise your business is simply another replaceable middle man.
However here is where I believe YogaGlo has just screwed up in playing this game. Because it's so easy to reproduce their IP, companies like YogaGlo should be focusing on mindshare, and less about patentability and competition. Create such good relationships with yoga instructors and the people watching the videos that they wouldn't dare go to the competition. This sentence stuck out more than anything: "Several companies offered to buy us, invest, license our technology, or hire YogaGlo to film their classes. When we declined, a few grew unhappy with us." You declined?! Are you out of your mind? Why not become the de facto company for licensing your technology, filming other Yoga classes, etc? That's how you build mindshare - and mindshare is IMHO the "new IP".