Essays/linkedin/24-05-08 patents

📝 A patent gives you the right to stop others from making, using, selling, or importing your invention. But why have they become a pinnacle requirement for #scipreneurs ?

Last time I was at a pitching event, the objection I heard the most was: "But you don't have a patent". Followed by "we'll only support you if you make use of patents from the university."

Surprisingly, these objections were much more common when coming from public investors, such as regional development agencies or university affiliated investment funds. My impression was that private investors (not all) have a broader understanding of the value of a patent at such an early stage.

The innovative step, the one that is worth protecting with a patent, may be given after the basic science has been finished. Once a company starts exploring different use cases, implementations, or like patent lawyers like calling them: embodiments, it'll become clearer what is worth protecting.

A patent doesn't say anything about the feasibility of the invention. A patent doesn't even guarantee freedom to operate. It doesn't say anything about product/market fit.

In this context, the push for "patent all, disclose as little as possible" moves upstream, to the scientists. Is this attitude impacting basic research?

I just see that some scientists are taking retaliatory measures, trying to bypass rules set by their tech transfer officers. This means something must change at many levels.

What is your experience with the TTO of your university. Do you even know them?

-- 👋 Hi! I'm @Aquiles.

I'm a scientist turned entrepreneur. I share insights on the challenges of #scipreneurship

Follow me to get all my latest thoughts and reflections.