Successful Startups and Patents?

An anonymous reader asks: "Is there a strategy for software startups wanting to make it big with a product in this world of software patents? Particularly, how can a software startup, wishing to take its product to the international market, hope to compete with the large software companies and their armada of patents?" "No matter whether or not the startup has an innovative product, a patent or two, a little or a lot of funds, it seems that if the large software companies decide that they wish to crush them with law-suits regarding patent infringement, valid or invalid, they can tie them up long enough in court to drive them out of business (via bankruptcy, or to cause them to lose any market lead they may have had). Can anyone suggest a strategy (or discussions on strategies) that could help a software company thrive, without playing the same game? Or are those days over — and the current crop of software companies are so well entrenched (thanks to the patent system) that there is no hope for a a new player?"

Comments

Here are your options

[jbeaupre]

In no particular order, here are some general strategies. These strategies can be applied to non-software products as well.

Find something at least 17 or 20 years old and clone it. Minimize any changes that aren't old or obvious. (color pong anyone?)

Build using existing components to reduce risks. (API's, scripts, etc)

License from someone else's portfolio. (Unisys GIF patent)

Learn about patents, research them like mad, create a product that doesn't infringe (PNG)

Create an invention, patent it, license it to others (like NTP)

Pay someone else to create and accept liability (can't think of a good example of spec developed software here).

Build something and cross your fingers (RIM: Blackberry)

Build and sell where patents don't apply.

Am I forgetting any? If you don't have money, want to create a unique product, and don't have faith in crossed fingers, you're going to have to learn about patents or restrict your market pretty heavily.

Re:Do without, but read legalese

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the advice, especially on spending more time reading the published patents.

I would feel more comfortable taking this route if:

1) I believed I could understand the patents, their implications, how they would be interpreted by lawyers and judges etc. etc. I think I quite smart but I am not an experience patent lawyer (the sue-ing or defend-ing kind).

2) If I could find a patent lawyer who we could afford - I'd be willing to spend quite a bit - AND who could really understand the technology behind our proposed product - not just pretend they do.

I also would like some help finding what in our proposed product is really patentable and how well we could defend our product with said patents, but most patent attorneys say that's our problem.

The problem is I vacillate between thinking the ideas behind the product are really innovative and absolutely obvious, and then I see patents for absolutely obvious things (which probably wouldn't hold up in court, but that's not the point).

To me its not about innovative ideas any more as strong-arm tactics to prevent the small software company from threatening the larger companies - they want the smaller companies to sell out, but what if they want to grow big themselves?