I thought the article was spot on except for two comments:

> Keep track of all your development and protection costs to help you put a value on your IP

No. McDonalds doesn't price its cheeseburger based on how much it costs but on how much a consumer would be willing to spend on it. That's a huge difference. How much you've worked and spent is meaningless in terms of the end value. The only question is how much would others value it.

And second, it doesn't clarify enough that inventors almost never make money on their inventions. The person who brings it to market makes all the money. Are Bill Gates and Steve Jobs inventors? Exactly.

Speaking as someone who just decided to try and see their first software idea to market, I actually found that particular comment in the article helpful, though not in the way I think they intended.

So I have an idea for a software. Let's say the awesome happens and, at some point of time T in the development cycle, someone wants to buy my company/idea/etc. How much is a fair asking price for my time, energy, ideas, etc.? Well, a good starting place would be the amount of fiscal and temporal resources already invested, plus some amount.

Now, I can't speak generally, but tend to be HORRIBLE at estimating hours or money invested in something after the fact. So tracking development costs makes sense to me, if for no other reason than it will give me an idea of how deep I'm into the project if I ever get to the point of negotiating financial issues with an outside party.

My process has only 3 steps:

1: Cut a hole in a box. 2: Put your junk in that box. 3: Make her open the box.

And that's the way you do it!

Made me go find the video.

You must remember the authors are government IP bureaucrats. These are the people who make IP lawyers look exciting and rational.

IP Australia would NEVER suggest that people actually DO SOMETHING without spending $100K on legal and consultants fees.

They would know what an innovation was if it bit them on the bum. They just do not get it.

I have been trying to teach people how to do a startups for nearly 20 years. (yes, I am old) Richard Hayes RHI

That is so right...

You may be old but you get it :-)

That site looks like it is aimed at physical products ("model", "manufacture") rather than software. Physical products are much easier to knock off than evolving, quality software; so IP protection and the like are probably more important.

I couldn't agree more. I think, in fact, that a great deal of the current confusion and chaos surrounding software IP issues can be traced to exactly this important distinction.

"Piracy? That's stealing software." Well, no, not exactly, since no physical instance is stolen. Physical things can be stolen. There are analogies in the software world, but they're usually imperfect.

"Let's patent our software widgit!" Again, kind of misses the mark. I mean, would it make sense for me to say: "Sweet, I'm gonna patent my English essay!"?

Anyway, I could rant on about this. Just a round about way of saying I think you're right, murrayh, that the physical/virtual distinction is a critical one and that it gets overlooked, both here and generally.

Many companies use software/business model patents like Saddam used WMDs - as a way to threaten without actually deploying the skill or resources they don't have.

Unfortunately it's usually a bad business decision to fight the system head on so only the worst intimidators ever encounter resistance.

Fair point.

It doesn't look like whoever wrote that has ever been involved in a startup.

Following the advice given in the article will give you tons of paperwork, and lots of stuff to do that isn't important.

Spend your limited resources wisely: build a product.