How Getting A Patent Can Actually Be Detrimental To A Startup's Long Term Success
from the thinking-twice... dept
There's a standard refrain we hear all the time from startups in Silicon Valley, which is some form of "I hate patents and think they're anti-innovation... but I still have to register a bunch, just for defensive purposes." One variation on this is "just to show investors I'm serious." These entrepreneurs insist that their patents will never be used offensively, but they can't really promise that. In fact, such patents can actually harm the very company that got them. One way is pretty obvious: just getting patents takes (precious) time, money and resources that could be put to much better use elsewhere. However, that's perhaps a smaller issue than the fact that patents can make a company throw in the towel earlier than it should.To explain why, let me pull from a few recent news articles that, together, hopefully explain the issue. Tim Carmody at Wired highlights how, when startups fail, investors sometimes recoup some of their money by selling patents. He gets that from a PEHub interview with Silicon Valley tech startup liquidator extraordinaire, Marty Pitchinson, whose reputation, as the dot com cleanup guy, we've chronicled for nearly a decade (when his business is good, the rest of Silicon Valley's business isn't).
There are two key points that he makes. The first is that ten years ago, patents weren't a big part of his business. Today, they're a massive part of his business:
Things have definitely changed. I remember in 1999, 2000, I would sell a used server for $35,000 and I had a line of people wanting it. Today, a server is $5,000 and you can get an okay server for less than $2,000. [In the meantime], we’ve probably become one of the largest sellers of [intellectual property] in the country. We sell tons of IP, and as you know, the IP wars have started, so we play with the big guys, the little guys, and the in-between guys. During the last bubble, there weren’t as many patents. It was more ideas and URLs. So the business has matured.Back in the Wired article, Carmody points to a case study on Pitchinson's website, in which it notes that it helped sell off the patents of a company that had raised $65 million in venture capital. In that case, the board (meaning, mostly the investors in the company) decided that "they would be better off selling off their IP than seeking an additional round of funding."
Now, combine that with the story we had discussed recently by law professor Colleen Chien about patent trolls, where she makes a point that many have raised before: the system actually encourages the formation of non-practicing entities (trolls) to hold patents, rather than companies who actually do stuff:
Successful trolls have found ways to remove these traditional obstacles to suit. Most obviously, not making anything immunizes them against counter accusations of infringement. A liability in every other context, having nothing to sell is an asset for trolls. This is why patents are often worth more when a company is dead and has nothing to lose from patent counter suits, than when it is alive and does.Now, pull all of this together and you have a situation where patents can actually be a ticking time bomb for startups. With patents in hand, even if they were obtained solely for defensive purposes, a board could decide (as happened in the case above) that a better way to get some return on their investment is just to shut down the company and sell off the patents -- again noting that the patents are more valuable when there's no practicing entity to deal with.
Thus, startups with patents risk having those patents represent a greater value than the business itself, making it too easy a target for a board (of mostly investors) to simply liquidate the company in order to seek the immediate cash of patents for use by trolling operations. It's the worst of all world's. Companies get shut down too early because the cost/benefit tilts too strongly towards selling the patents. The patent that was originally acquired solely for defensive purposes then ends up in the hands of an NPE who plans to sue lots of companies.
While this certainly does not apply in every case, it should be a real concern with some companies, in that they will have a shorter timeline to build a business and succeed before the VCs decide it's best to just sell off the patents and see what they can get.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: innovation, patents, startups
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Vicious Cycle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The buyers of those patents could be anyone, from a compatible existing business to, yes, a "patent troll". However, there is no encouragement for non-practicing entities, A sale is a sale no different from selling a classic car to someone who sticks it in a barn to pull out 20 years later to sell. Some people drive the cars, some people collect them, some people hide them.
There is no encouragement one way or the other.
However, these is encouragement to invest. See, the company that sold the patents were able to pay off their investors, who put money on the table up front. That is the value of the patent, right there, as in the end, when they decided to wind down the company, there were assets - patents - to sell.
If anything, you have proven the value of patents for investors. Congrats on making my points for me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It makes perfect economic sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But did you start your business to fail? Of course not. Then why be so excited about an asset that is only useful after you have failed?
If the startup had the next round of funding, maybe it would have succeeded. We'll never know, because their patents were too valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However the odds are that at that stage the value of the patents is probably less than what it cost to obtain them in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Incorrect. Because they had the patents that were worth $$, they decided not to seek additional funding. The decision to give up was reached because of the existence of the patents. That's Mike's whole point here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Frankly, it seems to me this company more likely failed because Jupiter did not align with Mars, and peace did not guide the planet. Hence, Aquarius never dawned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seems to me that you have your head so far up Uranus that everything you see has been flipped back upside down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am trying to figure out the point where making a profit by developing IP is bad.
All I am seeing is that what they intended to use the patents for was worth less than the value of the patents themselves. Not having a patent would have likely cost them their entire investment. Seems like getting the patents was a very, very good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not if the expense involved in getting the patents (not doing the real work - just the drafting and filing costs) exceeded their realised value.
Clearly the existence of rhe patents gave the investors an excuse to panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As an example, say Larry Page and Sergey Brin had patented the Pagerank algorithm. There was a time where that patent would have been worth more than Google. However, Google is now worth way more than the pagerank patent would have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely yes.
Patents are supposed to be about progressing "science and the useful arts" - not just some piece of paper lawyers can wave around to get people to give them money.
I am trying to figure out the point where making a profit by developing IP is bad.
Nothing at all wrong with making a profit - unless you're doing it by stopping or slowing someone else from doing something useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please quote specifically what made you think that Mike is making that assumption.
Even I wouldn't say that all patent sales definitely lead to patent trolling, and I'm as anti-patent as they come. I will say however, that ever penny spent on patents and lawyers, whether filing your own patents, acquiring someone else's, or defending yourself from trolls, is money that could be better spent to make your products better, lower costs to your customers, or share profits with your investors.
It's misleading as heck to hold this company up as some sort of example of "feeding the trolls", isn't it?
It's not misleading at all. Not when the guy comes out and says both that he's likely one of the largest sellers of IP and that patent wars have started. I'll quote: "We sell tons of IP, and as you know, the IP wars have started" - he's admitting that he's feeding trolls himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not necessarily. Some patents are more valuable while the company is alive so as to obtain an injunction or threaten one under the ebay standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money is all that lawyers and Vulture Capitalists care about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's reaching to say that having patents HURTS start ups though. It can hurt them, I suppose, if the owners of said start up are not happy with a buy-out price. If they are, I don't see the harm? You either get another round of funding to continue the business (greenbacks) or you get the proceeds from the sale of your patents (greenbacks).
Not sure the startup guys care...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poison pill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poison pill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm missing something here...
If the company bought the patents as a defensive measure, then it's as if the company's office must be be wallpapered with sheets of gold, which can be salvaged if and when the company folds: starting the company requires extra capital for this, capital which can be recovered in liquidation.
If the company created the patents, then why can't the board sell them without closing the company? If they cover inventions which the company is actually using, the company could require a full license as part of the sale agreement-- this shouldn't diminish the market value of the patents at all, since they couldn't be used against a defunct company anyway, and they can still be used against everyone else in the market (unless the company stands to corner the market in a valuable product, in which case the board would be insane to consider liquidation).
What am I missing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the only chance to produce anything is to be part of a mega patent pool and pray that patent trolls don't come knocking on the door. Maybe this will force people to go to other countries to produce things and find new markets because the one inside the US is becoming a wasteland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USPTO removed the page there, for some reason they apparently don't want people going that route, maybe because it does have a high rate of refusal then their cavalier approach to patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Granting patents that could harm people's health.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The company saved it's investors millions by obtaining patents rather than just letting things go. They converted their ideas and concepts into valid, valuable assets. Those concepts are valuable enough that they can make more selling them than trying to exploit them, and in process, make their investors money.
Damn capitalist system!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Building a market based on gov't granted monopolies is not capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure it is, if those monopolies are the result of investing in lobbying the government or buying patents. That's what capitalism is, using money (investments) to make more money (as opposed to exchanging labor for it). Patent trolls are pure capitalism in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for Truthfully SHowing Why Patents are a Great Resource for Start-ups
Thanks for confirming what most of us already knew!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are patents a liability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are patents a liability?
Not at all. If you're going to use that analogy, it's much more like saying that people should not buy life insurance if the beneficiary of the policy is only focused on getting the most money possible out of the person and has a history of murdering 9 out of 10 others in the same situation.
Then the analogy works.
Patents do not help startups. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]