This is the VC cycle in a nutshell: venture capital does some PoC, business/tech R&D, and when it fails (usually does!) the lessons are still available to others.

It's no different even if the (defunct) startup has a patent: IP law doesn't really matter when the IP doesn't have any money behind it.

> It's no different even if the (defunct) startup has a patent

Not true - VC's are scared of giving money to anything that directly infringes a patent. If the company ever does wildly well, you can be sure whoever bought that patent for cents will be trying to collect millions...

I don't think VC's care about patents, they care about risk. A patent without any money behind it isn't a risk. A company that isn't making money to steal also isn't at risk. But if you have money, and the patent holder has money, then let the legal fireworks begin, and as a happy side-effect, the patent attorneys get to pay for their kids' college, and maybe an investment property or two.

> IP law doesn't really matter when the IP doesn't have any money behind it.

But that IP could end up owned by a patent troll that does have the money to enforce it in court, or at least threaten to do so.

Vine lives in a glass jar on the mantlepiece.

What a curious comment - care to elaborate? (I'm thinking a USB drive with Vine's source code is actually on your mantelpiece?)

It has to do with milkshakes.

Here’s a video for context:

https://youtu.be/GX-9wXFQRgA