drostan

Seems to be some logical inconsistencies in the startup community over what is and is not ok to copy. Usually, like anything, it comes back to whatever is self-serving to the person doing the talking. Investors speak out against patents on methods of doing business because their well-funded current or future portfolio companies could "build on" the ideas and use the cash lead to make a ton of money. Digital media distribution platforms want online content to be freely distributed off of or outside of the publishers' sites that paid for the content to be produced. This is all still pretty new and the rules of law and of decency are still being determined (and, in the case of the latter, are different for each individual). I think the more productive outcome of this line-crossing is this exact discussion to help shape those rules.

Nice look and feel. I don't yet have the need, but I'd try it when I do. Your home page has an info-graphic and some advantages/benefits, you also have a how-it-works walk-through and you have a 4-page tour. Seems like overkill, but you probably know better than I do: 1. which of these is converting? 2. which are most prospects (not people like me who just wanted to look at the app) visiting and spending time on? 3. were any of these pages or sub-pages a direct response to customer requests (implicit or explicit)?

I'm not asking for a defense - I'm asking because the answers would really help us our with our own site!

Thanks.

Does it really promote innovation to advantage 2nd movers? Sure it is possible to add to the software and improve it, but often, the innovation is simply execution, buzz, sales and other non-trivial business things. How can there be a reward for the equally important talents of having the vision for new solutions and ability to create them if there is no patent or licensing protection?

Also, it scares me a bit when someone as influential as Fred takes this to his blog - read by so many startups. VCs make money from execution and have an (or another) incentive to suggest that patents are not an acceptable tool for startups.

I agree with the need for patent reform, actually, but a) I'm not sure eliminating software patents is the answer and b) would encourage each startup to make their own decision on how to use the current laws to give them every advantage they can get.

I think people exist in circles, but they don't necessarily talk or share in circles. If Google, or anyone, wants to mimic real social interaction, they need to find a way to enable talking to the right people for that moment and that content. Even the closest circles don't work in daily life. Rarely do I think "I'd like to go skiing with 'best friends' or 'school friends'". I'm much more likely to think of who skis, who hasn't just had a kid, who hasn't just lost her job, who has a job that allows vacation, etc. Maybe I make a circle for just that, but it seems a) difficult and b) overkill. The outreach and sharing only to that circle just isn't the hard part of the communication. Seems like all that solves is "I can't find that email thread about the ski trip in my inbox".

I'd love replies to this line of thought b/c it actually was a bit of a look in the mirror on some stuff I'm working on.

well, you make the laws. that's the beauty. personal responsibility - I would have guessed that an entrepreneurial community would expect people to look out for themselves. sure, don't cheat people, but also don't expect that a system totally eliminates cheating. no free lunch.

If 2x the money wins the race, then get 2x the money. A good idea has a case that can be made for it and, at least, an expectation of the value you will create. That is what you (and others) invest against. There shouldn't be such thing as "they have more money" for an idea that you expect to generate well more than that investment. There is only "they were willing or able to get more money". This isn't trivial - believing in the projections and selling your passion and networking to find investors are all really hard.

Losing to the competition is a possible outcome, but not necessarily the "likely outcome". Anyway, the way to manage that is still to execute better. Competition helps teams that need competition to rise to the occasion, but rising to the occasion is what is needed. Without it, losing is the likely outcome whether there was competition or not.

Seems like the argument for 1st mover advantage is: first mover = funding = success rather than first mover = success. sure, I do believe that funding can lead to success -- any resource advantage leads to success. Yet, I do think first mover advantage has some more important benefits. Things like taking most of the market out of the gate (why would we need a second brown fizzy sugar water?) or defining the landscape (oh, a good carfax score is what tells you a used car is good). I think certain circumstances make first movers better and others make 2nd, 3rd or later-movers better, but an absolute is pretty hard to prove.

I would say you need customer feedback or maybe expert feedback. Some sort of feedback always helps. But, so does vision. However you get to a good product is how you need to get to a good product. You just need to know and do that. The reason feedback - specifically from actual customers - is usually chosen is because it is more on the science side than the art side, but I surely can't knock those people and teams that can deliver product excellence due to vision, luck or art.