
Startup Lessons - mqt
http://mattmaroon.com/?p=604
======
randomwalker
Hey, what is with the black backgrounds? Maybe my eyes are unusually weak but
I just can't read pages with black backgrounds. I mean, it's not a preference
-- I just can't. (Which is also a tip to designers out there.)

Anyway, here's what I use on those pages:
<http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html> (there's one called zap
colors)

------
rantfoil
For most hacker founders though -- $500k is a much better sum to raise than $5
million. Do you really want to have to hire marketing people, give up board
seats, give up more of your company than you should, and significantly reduce
the % probability of success?

For many founders, raising $5 million is like pouring gasoline all over
yourself when you're on fire.

Syndicating a bunch of smart angels who have been there and want to help you
may be harder to do, it's probably the right call for most startups.

------
spencerfry
Who is Matt Maroon? I see his blog posts always get a lot of attention here.
Just a quick bio would be appreciated!

~~~
markessien
He's the Kim Kardashian of YCombinator - you are not really sure why he's
famous, but for some reason everyone seems to be paying attention to him.

~~~
mattmaroon
I don't know who Kim Kardashian is, so I'll just take that as a compliment.

~~~
markessien
Read more MediaTakeOut. You'll know with time, oh yes, you'll know with
time...

~~~
mattmaroon
I have a feeling that in this case, ignorance is bliss.

~~~
markessien
Actually, on a more serious note, I'm disappointed that you don't know who she
is. If you want to be an entrepreneur, then you need to be aware of things
that are outside of your field. You need a diversity of information, not just
pre-filtered information.

You don't need to follow her antics, but being totally unaware of her shows a
serious hole in your exposure to popular culture, which would make me wonder
how you can create a product for the masses, when you are not aware of what
media they are consuming.

You see what I'm saying?

------
natrius
Patent trolls serve no useful function. There already is a secondary market
for innovation. Companies buy and sell patents all the time, and the buyers
often use those patents to create innovative products. The problem is the
patent trolls, which I define as a company that owns and litigates patents
without actually _using_ the patents for anything. You should have to be using
the patent or at least show a clear intent to use the patent to be able sue
people for infringing it. This part is probably more complicated than I'm
making it out to be, but that is clearly the intent of patent law, so it
should be changed to reflect that intent.

~~~
anamax
> Patent trolls serve no useful function. There already is a secondary market
> for innovation.

Are you saying that independent inventors should not be compensated or that
they should only be compensated when they sell to practitioners?

~~~
ericb
If you sell a great idea to someone who ensures it will never be realized
(patent troll), you should not be compensated--you have caused the destruction
of a great idea from the world of possibilities, which is akin to vandalism.

Patents are intended to spur innovation, but when there is no production, the
greater good suffers.

~~~
mattmaroon
Patent trolls buy patents with the intent of licensing them to people who
produce. In fact, they often as such spur on production. They sue only when a
patent is infringed upon. It's not typically their goal to do so, their goal
is to license.

~~~
ericb
Right, but now there is a _toll_ on the bridge to producing that item. If the
best items command the highest toll (license price), great ideas are now de-
incentivized. The public good has not been served.

The need for a patent license prevents, delays, or slows the idea from being
executed upon by adding a cost to it, and the execution is the valuable part.

~~~
mattmaroon
I still don't think you understand. There's always a toll for any patent you
didn't register. Patent licensing often lowers it. Buying a patent is often
more expensive than renting, especially if the renting is non-exclusive.
Patent trolls often buy the patent and license it out to multiple companies,
creating competition and lowering the barrier to entry.

The best patents commanded a high price even before there were patent
licensing businesses. In fact, now the amount you can make off of a great
patent is higher because the demand is.

It's really only because they occasionally sue that people complain, but
without lawsuits their business model wouldn't work.

~~~
ericb
Why would I start a business based around a patent when I have no guarantee
the licensing fee won't be onerous?

There is always a toll-- _if there is a patent_. Why would I pat someone on
the back for licensing me something that was once free, until a BS patent was
created and sold to an extortionist?

>> lowering the barrier to entry

I think the difference is that I am stepping outside of the current system to
make my point, and you're saying patent trolls and licensing improve the
current system. It seems clear to me fees in general are disincentives. I
agree with you that a lower fee is a lower disincentive, but still more of a
disincentive than _no fee at all_.

Individuals without defensive patent portfolios are at a severe disadvantage
in the current environment.

Without the current sham system, there is no "toll for patents I didn't
register." This is not to say that there should be no system--only that the
system is broken and does not accomplish its aims effectively.

~~~
mattmaroon
I think the innovations we've seen over the last 100 years of our current
system would be proof that you're wrong. American inventors have made huge
leaps and bounds in every area in which innovation is possible. I don't see
how it's possible to look at the last century and say our patent system is
anything but amazing.

~~~
ericb
There is no way to to look at America over the last hundred years _without_
the patent system, or better yet, with a more functional system. So those
innovations, while great, are not proof of anything.

I would contend the system did not start going off the rails until more
recently, anyhow.

------
abstractbill
_Angels are just wealthy people who typically sums of between $10 and $100k,
with $50k probably being a good average._

Did you accidentally the verb? (sorry, couldn't resist).

~~~
mattmaroon
Oh, I somehow omitted the word invest.

------
netcan
_Certainly the trolls go too far sometimes, but on the whole it’s a
respectable business model, and one that I think encourages, rather than
stifles, technological progress._

I think this is sort of missing the point. Proper trolls make their money by
stopping the application of that invention or by significantly raising the
cost of applying it.

If the patent is owned by a troll it is more likely that anyone applying it
will get sued, rightly or wrongly. In fact, it is almost always wrongly in a
sense because if the patent troll didn't exist, noone would be sueing.

So with one hand they provide some cash to inventors. With the other they take
more off the application developers. The difference is probably huge & is
split between profits & legal bills on both sides.

It's like a tax on innovation.

------
rokhayakebe
Startup lesson 1: Better have a marketing plan. EDIT: That is assuming you
already have a great team building the product.

