[FnG]magnolia;23984549 said:
I mentioned this subject to one of our Senior legal types over lunch earlier today when we were talking about something else entirely (engaging Consultancy firms as a Bank if you care which you don't, it's very messy) and her words, paraphrased, were, "Yes, if you have the money to try to implement and to defend this, which no one realistically does."
My thoughts exactly.
I've looked at patenting in depth.
In general, even if you have an active patent which is infringed upon, you will need the money to defend your idea in a Court of law. If another company copies my idea and is getting rich off of it, if I don't have money to bring the case to Court, then the patent is next to useless.
Furthermore, you will also have the spend £1000s on getting the patent passed.
The likes of Apple are patent kings. The difference here is that they have a huge department devoted to patents, who can spend all their time checking through patents and fighting copycats in Court.
There is one area though, where patents for start-ups "may be" worth it. And that is if you are seeking investors. Investors may be more inclined in investing in your idea, if you have a patent passed or pending.
For an internet start-up with limited funds, I cannot advise going the patent route unless you have a very specific reason (eg. an investor has agreed to invest, but only if you get your patent granted). Personally, I'd much rather spend my time/money/resources improving the idea and building up a user-base.
The decision is something which the directors of the company/idea have to make. There is no absolute wrong/right decision.