Past and Future
Start-up companies are the most popular hopeful way innovators chose, but is it wise?
Well, although I have not chosen the option of StartUp to Exit option and did not see the terms of getting rich by a “takeover” process, but I see it is very profitable for the growth of the monopoly who took over smaller companies with new concepts mostly in the software and hardware electronic industries, as well as the medical industry. The monopolies are more able to make the real big profits from the product or service that the original developers sold for significantly less. This is not a bad choice, if preferred by the original owners, and is in fact similar to the pre-patent partnering option itself, it is just that the pre-patent partnering option is not as costly or risky to the original founders of the original owners of the IP for the Patent, and is a better deal for the monopoly or the wise collaborating partner which is intrigued, interested, is committed and suitable for the project.
At a glance
| Startup-to-exit | Pre-patent pre-partnering | |
|---|---|---|
| Main goal | Grow to be acquired | Bring a market-ready project to a committed major partner |
| Cost and risk for founders | High (funding rounds, dilution) | Lower (shared with the partner) |
| Value captured by original IP owners | Often sold for significantly less than its later value | Negotiated share of the long-term value |
| Fit | Software, hardware, medical | Any industry where a major player controls the route to market |
Read the full comparison: Startup-to-exit vs. pre-partnering, and licensing vs. joint venture vs. assignment.