As a solo founder in the thick of it right now, I would consider it.
Given your constraints (fulltime job, side gigs, family) it could help balance the workload, and if you find the right one, maybe offload things you don't like or aren't good at. Not to mention the comradery component and having someone to go through the difficult times with you.
I'd find the ying to your yang, so if you the technologist, find someone good at business, sales, marketing, product, etc. That's my two cents.
You don’t need a co-founder, but doing everything yourself while you have another job will be slow. Competitors may be able to get around your patent and scale up faster than you.
Having someone else also means you’re accountable to them, which puts a bit more urgency on getting things done, in addition to being a sounding-board for your ideas.
You only have 12 months after filing the provisional application to get the full patent application in. You might not need a cofounder, but you definitely need a plan with a timeline.
If it's a choice between being too slow, losing the market timing and the provisional patent protections or finding a co-founder, then find a cofounder. Is it more work to find the cofounder vs develop it yourself? You can try posting a linkedIn job ad for a cofounder, someone found me that way, and yes it was upfront about the salary situation but there are people out there who might be in the right circumstances to take you up on what you can bring to the table.
Don't listen to those other people who tell you you can do it alone. You can't.
You have 4 kids, there is no way you have that kind of time.
Regarding the patent: I know this is going to sound harsh, but what is likely is that it's going to be harder to find someone who finds your invention cool than to defend against anyone who might want to steal it.
Patents defend technical inventions useful in the industry, a social media gizmo not so much. Filing a patent will take a lot of time, and you won't have the money to litigate anyone who steals it anyways.
In your position, I would just throw the idea out there, make a kickstarter campaign or something. Try and get anyone interested. If there is interest, then it's easier to find a cofounder who might want to be in with you on this.
There is a good chance that the kickstarter result is a giant "meh" from the world. And you can go back raising your children and chase that GS15 (Idk what that is).
Also if you do this just to scratch your own itch, build the stuff just for yourself (LLMs and 3D printers make everything quite simple these days), and post a youtube video about it.
Anyways my take is:
- you need a cofounder to launch something
- but you need to validate the idea before finding a cofounder.
also don't be greedy with your cofounder, split 50 50 or close to that, it may be your idea, but you can't do it without the other person.
Well, the patent attorney was very clear that a kickstarter (at least any that offer anything remotely like a 'sale' or anything) 'voids' a lot of the protections of the provisional, and maybe even the full patent.
I don't know anything about provisional patents, but if selling a product that embeds patented ideas voided the protections of a patent, patents would be pretty useless.
Maybe there's some context or nuance that didn't get conveyed that I'm missing.
I would imagine you can't get treble damages from willful infringement on a provisional patent, given that they're not published... so if you publicize your item on kickstarter while the patent is provisional and/or pending, less potential damages from infringers ... but I dunno how many people get treble damages anyway.
The provisional serves as a timestamp only. It's literally not reviewed. The only reason at all to file a provisional is if you're going to file the proper one. Goods that are actually patented are under the 'proper' ones, and do not get the classic "protection" that we think of. The only thing the provisional really does is serve as the 'timestamped-steak-in-the-ground' that only you can claim as your timestamp. But it comes with conditions. You can't start selling your goods as-though-patented until you file the patents. You can put 'patent pending' on them after you file the big one and it's under review. But the provisional one doesn't really get you the 'patent pending' part at all. That's my not-even-close-to-a-lawyer version that I've learned in the last few months.
But what complicates this even more is that I don't really want to sit on the tech at all. I want it to become ubiquitous and (eventually) a standard (like how Yubico/Yubikey led to FIDO/FIDO2 later).
But others in the thread also bring up a totally valid point: I need to prove this has teeth with real people somehow.
I think I may have to bight the bullet and fork over some savings to get the proper patent done. I need to get busy with R&D to finalize the design.
Yes, I know, but my point is you don't need a patent in the first place. Your patent is going to cost you a bunch, and it's not going to help at all.
If your product does not interest a lot of people, the patent is going to be useless, cause nobody will want to steal your idea.
If your product does interest a lot of people, some people may want to steal it, but:
- would you sue a Chinese company for selling copies of your stuff on AliExpress? How would you even sue that company?
- would you sue a major tech firm, while it's likely that anything that you built is likely infringeing on at least one of their patents?
- in the case you want sue, what are the odds of winning? Your patent may be void for a variety of reasons, and a copying product may not be considered as infringeing, if it has enough difference with the patented invention. What time frame are you looking at? 5 years, 10 years? Do you want to spend 10 years in litigations? What legal costs are you facing? Probably in the tens of thousands.
My advice to you as a failed startup founder myself, is to cool your head down, and stop imagining that what you invented is the next telephone, and pitch pitch pitch. If you pitch a room with 100 people, you'll be lucky if 2 guys come up to you at the end telling you your stuff is a good idea.
The patent is keeping you in a fantasy world, and that's not good.
As a solo founder in the thick of it right now, I would consider it.
Given your constraints (fulltime job, side gigs, family) it could help balance the workload, and if you find the right one, maybe offload things you don't like or aren't good at. Not to mention the comradery component and having someone to go through the difficult times with you.
I'd find the ying to your yang, so if you the technologist, find someone good at business, sales, marketing, product, etc. That's my two cents.
You don’t need a co-founder, but doing everything yourself while you have another job will be slow. Competitors may be able to get around your patent and scale up faster than you.
Having someone else also means you’re accountable to them, which puts a bit more urgency on getting things done, in addition to being a sounding-board for your ideas.
You only have 12 months after filing the provisional application to get the full patent application in. You might not need a cofounder, but you definitely need a plan with a timeline.
If it's a choice between being too slow, losing the market timing and the provisional patent protections or finding a co-founder, then find a cofounder. Is it more work to find the cofounder vs develop it yourself? You can try posting a linkedIn job ad for a cofounder, someone found me that way, and yes it was upfront about the salary situation but there are people out there who might be in the right circumstances to take you up on what you can bring to the table.
You don't NEED one, but you probably SHOULD have one. It just helps speed things up immensely and lowers the chances that you'll burnout.
"If you want to go fast, go by yourself. If you want to go far, go together."
Don't listen to those other people who tell you you can do it alone. You can't.
You have 4 kids, there is no way you have that kind of time.
Regarding the patent: I know this is going to sound harsh, but what is likely is that it's going to be harder to find someone who finds your invention cool than to defend against anyone who might want to steal it.
Patents defend technical inventions useful in the industry, a social media gizmo not so much. Filing a patent will take a lot of time, and you won't have the money to litigate anyone who steals it anyways.
In your position, I would just throw the idea out there, make a kickstarter campaign or something. Try and get anyone interested. If there is interest, then it's easier to find a cofounder who might want to be in with you on this.
There is a good chance that the kickstarter result is a giant "meh" from the world. And you can go back raising your children and chase that GS15 (Idk what that is).
Also if you do this just to scratch your own itch, build the stuff just for yourself (LLMs and 3D printers make everything quite simple these days), and post a youtube video about it.
Anyways my take is:
- you need a cofounder to launch something
- but you need to validate the idea before finding a cofounder.
also don't be greedy with your cofounder, split 50 50 or close to that, it may be your idea, but you can't do it without the other person.
Well, the patent attorney was very clear that a kickstarter (at least any that offer anything remotely like a 'sale' or anything) 'voids' a lot of the protections of the provisional, and maybe even the full patent.
I don't know anything about provisional patents, but if selling a product that embeds patented ideas voided the protections of a patent, patents would be pretty useless.
Maybe there's some context or nuance that didn't get conveyed that I'm missing.
I would imagine you can't get treble damages from willful infringement on a provisional patent, given that they're not published... so if you publicize your item on kickstarter while the patent is provisional and/or pending, less potential damages from infringers ... but I dunno how many people get treble damages anyway.
The provisional serves as a timestamp only. It's literally not reviewed. The only reason at all to file a provisional is if you're going to file the proper one. Goods that are actually patented are under the 'proper' ones, and do not get the classic "protection" that we think of. The only thing the provisional really does is serve as the 'timestamped-steak-in-the-ground' that only you can claim as your timestamp. But it comes with conditions. You can't start selling your goods as-though-patented until you file the patents. You can put 'patent pending' on them after you file the big one and it's under review. But the provisional one doesn't really get you the 'patent pending' part at all. That's my not-even-close-to-a-lawyer version that I've learned in the last few months.
But what complicates this even more is that I don't really want to sit on the tech at all. I want it to become ubiquitous and (eventually) a standard (like how Yubico/Yubikey led to FIDO/FIDO2 later).
But others in the thread also bring up a totally valid point: I need to prove this has teeth with real people somehow.
I think I may have to bight the bullet and fork over some savings to get the proper patent done. I need to get busy with R&D to finalize the design.
Yes, I know, but my point is you don't need a patent in the first place. Your patent is going to cost you a bunch, and it's not going to help at all.
If your product does not interest a lot of people, the patent is going to be useless, cause nobody will want to steal your idea.
If your product does interest a lot of people, some people may want to steal it, but:
- would you sue a Chinese company for selling copies of your stuff on AliExpress? How would you even sue that company?
- would you sue a major tech firm, while it's likely that anything that you built is likely infringeing on at least one of their patents?
- in the case you want sue, what are the odds of winning? Your patent may be void for a variety of reasons, and a copying product may not be considered as infringeing, if it has enough difference with the patented invention. What time frame are you looking at? 5 years, 10 years? Do you want to spend 10 years in litigations? What legal costs are you facing? Probably in the tens of thousands.
My advice to you as a failed startup founder myself, is to cool your head down, and stop imagining that what you invented is the next telephone, and pitch pitch pitch. If you pitch a room with 100 people, you'll be lucky if 2 guys come up to you at the end telling you your stuff is a good idea.
The patent is keeping you in a fantasy world, and that's not good.