"Do you have any ideas you consider patentable?"

Patents are such tricky things. On one hand, they can be incredibly useful tools, encouraging a certain level of design in hopes of reward. On the other, they can be nothing more than an expensive minefield. Shake a patent around and threaten litigation, because everyone at the end of the day will choose settlement. Law is sometimes nothing more than very expensive bullying.

The whole process is designed to be something like a race. Publish a paper about it or article and don't patent it on time? Tough luck! Your own damn article prevents your patent since it's "prior work." What constitutes patent infringement, anyway? Alexander Graham Bell wrote a patent at the time that covered just about any form of communication through an electric wire. Would a keyboard be infringing? A completed patent is still not sure proof of "ownership" - every patent's fate is ultimately uncertain until you really duke it out in court. They're also incredibly expensive things as well, especially for someone with just a great idea and not enough cash - $10k+ minimum, since patent applications are such complicated things and the USPTO sure likes to take its sweet time. Why not attempt trade secrets instead?

If you have a really amazing, great idea to patent, something that "improves the sciences" like they're always harping about in patent law, then sure, go for it. But I don't think they're always necessary. Improvement of a current service alone is worth an attempt to compete, not just a brand spanking new idea nobody ever thought of.

To be honest, our answer was pretty vague. We do believe that somewhere down the road we may come up with some new tool or way of doing things that is patentable (heck, if Amazon can do it with "1-click"...) and will pursue that as it comes up.

In the larger picture, though, I don't think that this is going to make or break anybody. I went to a workshop a few weeks ago that was hosted by the Stern School of Business - they had a panel of VCs and one Angel Investor, a startup business pitching to them, and an audience full of people able to ask questions. What was interesting was that one of the first questions the VCs asked after the pitch was "do you have any patents?" The answer was a pretty straight-forward "no." BUT, when asked about it later by someone in the audience, all of the VCs agreed that they didn't really care that the team didn't have anything patented - that they'd rather see a startup spending their time and energy on implementation than on developing a patent portfolio. Really, they just asked the question because they HAVE to ask the question.

I think the larger question here is "why can't someone else do what you're doing?" and the "do you have any patents?" question is the first logical step in answering that. But it's not the end-all be-all. I'm pretty sure Amazon's success really has very little to do with "1-click" and that this wan't even patented until a couple of years ago. (I should check some sources on that...)

I simply wrote, "I do not consider software patentable."

http://www.philsalin.com/patents.html

I believe they refer to the ideas involving what comprehends your solution to a problem (idea). It's obvious that the problem(idea) you are solving it self cannot be patented, although I think you could just refer to just the problem(idea) you are solving...

A patent (software patent) should never be presented as algorithm in the patent application, but rather as a mechansism that automates a process and has results that solve the problem. This is essential difference between papers. And if you study software patents, you will see a ton of claims reffering to the previous claims, in order to describe your mechanism, in order someone could re-create your solution, thats why some companies decide to go the trade-secret way...

Patents are intellectual property, when you are acquired they the buying company looks for and pays for to justify the acquisition. Having strong IP is an asset like any other, even if it doesn't prevent a competitor from entering your space, it just make it harder.

This is a hard question.

First of all, ideas are not patentable. And given the sorry state of patents today, some rather obvious things might be.

Second, although I have published research papers, I do not have any patents. I don't know what the typical patent is like nor how it would compare to the technical contributions of a research paper.

Third, my service is currently an early prototype and it is hard to see what sort of patents might be applicable at this early stage.

Any advice? What did you write for this question?

My brother's friend is an exterminator and gave me an amazing mouse trap. You don't need something patentable to make a successful business. Sure, smart and creative people may be great inventors, but many times it's the copycats who execute better or have a strategic advantage. I'd rather have half of Toyota and a smaller market share than all of Ford and GM with their legacy problems.

Hey why not lean on the optimistic side and answer yes and describe them. It is not like this will make or break your application or your patent chances. On the other hand it could lead to something good even if not a patent.