As a co-founder of a startup, my most worrying thoughts are not finding customers or improving the product. They're "when will I get a scary legal letter that asks for millions over a patent I've never heard of".
The biggest part of the problem is that companies (and founders) are forbidden from speaking up after licensing deals are made. Perhaps you could post anonymously, but you'd still be violating the NDA in spirit and you'd be punished if discovered.
In other words, if three companies down the block signed millions away to Intellectual Ventures, you would have no idea. Maybe the risk is overblown. Unfortunately we have no idea of knowing.
They try to hammer this point home in the podcast.
It occurred to me there is simple legislation that might chip away at all this shadiness: Pass a law that forbids NDAs in patent licensing deals.
You'd know it if it happpened. Management may not do a PR, but people talk. Remember the lawsuit and NDA agreement are proceeded by talks. At the very least you'd know they were approached and then suddenly went silent on the matter.
If it did work it would be the greatest conspiracy ever pulled off. A company extracting a billion hostile dollars and people not even posting on anonymous sites? So not likely.
The genius of IV's NDAs isn't that they have millions of companies paying them, but that they can create the mythology that they might. And you might be next.
I'm literally about 100x more worried that my architect gets hit by a bus than I am of being sued over patents.
But for every successful indie dev there are already many more unsuccessful ones irrespective of patents. The question is, how many successful devs get hit out of the pool of successful devs?
The odds are already pretty long for being a successful dev, but if these letters take out 10, 15, or 20% of the would-be successful ones, that's a big deal.
I agree they are rare and there are 100 potential pitfals before patents would become a concern for a startup, but they are still starting to scare a lot of people with the current press they are getting. It is a tricky issue for me to decide on. On one hand I fully understand the need for patents, there would be a lot more horror stories of the little guys getting squashed without them. On the other hand I hate the way huge companies are using them as a revenue stream. I personal would like to see patents become unenforcible if you can not show that you are currently working on a product that utilizes the patent or have a product in production that utilizes it. Stop letting companies just own a patent for the hell of it.
I doubt there would be "a lot more horror stories of the little guys getting squashed without them."
The reason google, facebook, etc... would rather buy startups that are breaking new ground is because it's faster and cheaper than just copying/cloning an idea and building it from scratch - especially these days, when innovation happens much quicker.
I guess the reason I find them more worrying is the lack of control. I know I can write good software, I think I've got a great product idea, and I know where I can get help in the areas I lack. These are all issues I can manage. Bruce Schneier writes a lot about how people fear things that are new, and things that are outside their control, this seems to apply.
The only way for me to "manage" some sort of patent lawsuit would be buying insurance against it (is that even possible?), and even then the insurance company would likely settle, handing over more cash, and further validating the business model.
I agree with you and I feel the same! As a co-founder, I recently did risk analysis for next iteration of our product; for everything we had risk mitigation strategy in place. But for "getting sued"; we will be screwed and shut down the business (if its hundreds of thousands dollar claim)
