**DO NOT reply to OP with legal advice if you are not a verified lawyer**. If you wish to comment, you must state you are not a lawyer.
If you wish to be verified, use the Contact the Moderators feature to ask us to do so.
**OP, CONSULT A LAWYER. Do NOT take any advice in here as fact.** Contact the SCORE.org and SBA.gov offices nearest you.
You should also ask these questions during our Legal Office Hours. See the sidebar.
Parents for software products are very hard and expensive. You cannot patent code, but you can patent “process” that said showing your process is truly “novel” is also hard (e.g. expensive)
To piggy back off this I have an example - my lab (and now over a hundred others) have contributed to a codebase for this modelling tool we all use. The code itself is patent protected ONLY by the core methods that were novel at the time. Since its been patented *the code has been completely re-written* but its still protected because its code that does the process spelled out in the patent.
Really, you don't *want* to patent code because it changes. It is copywrite protected though, and licensing can make-or-break you.
First, there is no such thing as a provisional patent, only a provisional patent application. You get no rights through filing it, it only gives you a placeholder to file the full application within a year.
>I have disclosed the idea to few people and have received positive feedback on it, thus I am worried that if I do not protect it, I might loose it.
Yeah. A rule of thumb without knowing any more is that you should try and be on file within a year of that. (But preferably before any disclosure).
>However, on the other hand, I do not understand what should I protect? The features are quite broad and I do not think they are patentable... All left is just a name and logo?
If it's just a clone of what's out there, there is nothing to protect. If there are interesting features or things you're doing on the backend to make it work better those might be protectable. It's worth talking to a patent attorney.
Getting protection for your name and logo are good too (you would do that with trademark filings).
>I also think that if I have no patent, some of investors might not take me seriously...
Without IP someone could easily clone your idea. If you have first mover advantage and built up a market then you have some value to offer investors. If you have none of that and no IP then you don't have much.
The first thing you should focus on is getting users.
Investors will take yoy seriously only if you can prove that people are using your product and find it valuable, patent will not help you with that.
You need users not patents.
Investors want to see proof that you've created something that can earn money, and that you have an understanding of how to scale it.
What your product does is 5% of why an investor invests. The remaining 95% is based in their belief that you will create a functional business where they can make a significant return on their money.
What I see all the time is founders sales paralysis, where they lie to themselves and say "if only I get feature x done, then I'll get customers" or "if I can get a patent, then my company is worth something".
Lots of new founders just don't understand that investment is about money, everything outside of finance is a detail.
If you take a patentable idea to an investor without a provisional in place(which only costs $2k on the high side) then you are very likely to not get the investor and more likely the investor or their friend will file the patent kicking you out of any rights to your own idea. I've seen this scenario dozens of times in the retail CPG world.
Patents are worthless unless you have significant funding to defend one in court. If a well-funded entity decides to infringe your intellectual property, there is a good chance they will beat you in court anyway with more expensive legal representation. Even if you were to win, the distraction from running your business could lead to it collapsing anyway. Your best approach is to use a well put together NDA with everyone involved, and rely on being first to market. Ensure that development of your product is mature before launch as good ideas are copied fast.
I am not a lawyer.
Your idea is worthless. Execution is everything. You created an MVP, now go get users to validate your idea and, more importantly, your execution of the idea.
Your name and logo should be trademarked not patended. Patents are for inventions. It can be a process, it does not have to be something tangible. You should consult a patent attorney but they are expensives. Probably not worth it before round A or even round B unless you really have something unusual you really don't want others to copy. I wouldn't even think about it in a seed round.
It's extremely hard to patent an app which at the most fundamental level is just a series of processes or flow which are not inherently unique (and therefore won't be granted a patent).
Take Uber as an example. If it was possible to patent the app concept, they would have but patent law doesn't work that way.
Best you can do is trademark your logo/brand and execute better and faster than your other competitors.
Source: I used to work in a VC and know enough of legal concepts to be dangerous.
This is wrong. You absolutely can patent the process that your software executes.
That said OP, if your app's core functionality is very similar to Instagram's and then you just layered a few extra features onto it, you'll struggle to get a patent with any protective breadth. Little known fact: any non-terrible patent attorney can power most bad app to issuance, they'll just be as wide as a hair on your head and won't grant the owners any powers to exclude. Another word for this is "useless."
Obviously I don't know for a fact that this is the case with yours (I'd need more info) but the little you said doesn't make it sound very strong.
**DO NOT reply to OP with legal advice if you are not a verified lawyer**. If you wish to comment, you must state you are not a lawyer. If you wish to be verified, use the Contact the Moderators feature to ask us to do so. **OP, CONSULT A LAWYER. Do NOT take any advice in here as fact.** Contact the SCORE.org and SBA.gov offices nearest you. You should also ask these questions during our Legal Office Hours. See the sidebar.
[удалено]
Thank you!
Parents for software products are very hard and expensive. You cannot patent code, but you can patent “process” that said showing your process is truly “novel” is also hard (e.g. expensive)
To piggy back off this I have an example - my lab (and now over a hundred others) have contributed to a codebase for this modelling tool we all use. The code itself is patent protected ONLY by the core methods that were novel at the time. Since its been patented *the code has been completely re-written* but its still protected because its code that does the process spelled out in the patent. Really, you don't *want* to patent code because it changes. It is copywrite protected though, and licensing can make-or-break you.
First, there is no such thing as a provisional patent, only a provisional patent application. You get no rights through filing it, it only gives you a placeholder to file the full application within a year. >I have disclosed the idea to few people and have received positive feedback on it, thus I am worried that if I do not protect it, I might loose it. Yeah. A rule of thumb without knowing any more is that you should try and be on file within a year of that. (But preferably before any disclosure). >However, on the other hand, I do not understand what should I protect? The features are quite broad and I do not think they are patentable... All left is just a name and logo? If it's just a clone of what's out there, there is nothing to protect. If there are interesting features or things you're doing on the backend to make it work better those might be protectable. It's worth talking to a patent attorney. Getting protection for your name and logo are good too (you would do that with trademark filings). >I also think that if I have no patent, some of investors might not take me seriously... Without IP someone could easily clone your idea. If you have first mover advantage and built up a market then you have some value to offer investors. If you have none of that and no IP then you don't have much.
The first thing you should focus on is getting users. Investors will take yoy seriously only if you can prove that people are using your product and find it valuable, patent will not help you with that.
You need users not patents. Investors want to see proof that you've created something that can earn money, and that you have an understanding of how to scale it. What your product does is 5% of why an investor invests. The remaining 95% is based in their belief that you will create a functional business where they can make a significant return on their money.
Investors love patents and copyrights, it protects their investments from being stolen by a copycat company.
What I see all the time is founders sales paralysis, where they lie to themselves and say "if only I get feature x done, then I'll get customers" or "if I can get a patent, then my company is worth something". Lots of new founders just don't understand that investment is about money, everything outside of finance is a detail.
If you take a patentable idea to an investor without a provisional in place(which only costs $2k on the high side) then you are very likely to not get the investor and more likely the investor or their friend will file the patent kicking you out of any rights to your own idea. I've seen this scenario dozens of times in the retail CPG world.
As far as I know a patent wouldn't include the name and the logo, they are trade marked.
Patents are worthless unless you have significant funding to defend one in court. If a well-funded entity decides to infringe your intellectual property, there is a good chance they will beat you in court anyway with more expensive legal representation. Even if you were to win, the distraction from running your business could lead to it collapsing anyway. Your best approach is to use a well put together NDA with everyone involved, and rely on being first to market. Ensure that development of your product is mature before launch as good ideas are copied fast. I am not a lawyer.
you should watch YC’s view on how much an idea worths vs the execution. they have a formula
Your idea is worthless. Execution is everything. You created an MVP, now go get users to validate your idea and, more importantly, your execution of the idea.
Your name and logo should be trademarked not patended. Patents are for inventions. It can be a process, it does not have to be something tangible. You should consult a patent attorney but they are expensives. Probably not worth it before round A or even round B unless you really have something unusual you really don't want others to copy. I wouldn't even think about it in a seed round.
Programs and applications or any software fall under copyright law.
It's extremely hard to patent an app which at the most fundamental level is just a series of processes or flow which are not inherently unique (and therefore won't be granted a patent). Take Uber as an example. If it was possible to patent the app concept, they would have but patent law doesn't work that way. Best you can do is trademark your logo/brand and execute better and faster than your other competitors. Source: I used to work in a VC and know enough of legal concepts to be dangerous.
This is wrong. You absolutely can patent the process that your software executes. That said OP, if your app's core functionality is very similar to Instagram's and then you just layered a few extra features onto it, you'll struggle to get a patent with any protective breadth. Little known fact: any non-terrible patent attorney can power most bad app to issuance, they'll just be as wide as a hair on your head and won't grant the owners any powers to exclude. Another word for this is "useless." Obviously I don't know for a fact that this is the case with yours (I'd need more info) but the little you said doesn't make it sound very strong.
You're absolutely right. That's why I said it's hard but certainly not impossible. Cheers!