CDR: Re: Re: Internet bearer cryptography patent trusts (was Re: Chaumian cashredux)

[Ken Brown]

Dan Geer wrote:

 
> Wearing my "inventor" badge, I asked nearly every member of nearly
> every panel what they they had to say about intellectual property
> protection.  This means that I asked the same question to samples
> of size 4 of each of lawyers, accountants, entrepreneurs, noveau
> riche cash-outs, venture capitalists, business strategy folk and
> assorted greybeards.  Unanimously, the answer was "Intellectual
> property protection is vital.  Do it right, do it early, don't
> scrimp.  In a dog eat dog world, it is all you've really got."
> 
> With one exception.
> 
> Every single one of the VCs there, and similarly every single one
> of the VCs I've talked to corroboratingly since, said that IP
> protection is so pointless they don't even value it when sizing
> a deal.  Why?  Because in the Internet sector, it is winner
> take all.  Win it all, and your IP position does not matter.  

Might that not just be because the VCs have a different interest than
the inventors? Also, for the VC, the inventors & patent holders are (in
a sense) sitting tenants. They would prefer to get hold of the property
unencumbered.  OTOH, the inventor (who may well be distrustful or
ignorant of business) wants to be sure that whoever ends up running the
show remembers to pay them

Of course the lawyers will go for patenting because they get paid more
the more paperwork there is.

Ken