If you're doing software in Europe like me, patent protection is not available. And that's a good thing.

Assumptions: a) You believe in the value of patents and b) you have something that can be patented.

a₂) Your investors believe in the value of patents.

I had one investor tell me, "Patents are for losers." What he meant was that if you succeed, you don't really need the patent, and your time is better spent building your business than starting patent fights. If you fail, then at least you might be able to sell or license the patent. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an interesting perspective.

That's odd. I've always thought patent applications by smaller businesses are for defensive use. For example, when RFID was in a bubble the early companies patented and then licensed in a patent pool, but also had then for defensive purposes.

That's aligned with what I've seen, too.

For example, I saw a group of seed investors try to identify potential patents in their portfolio companies as a way to increase the scrap value of the firms in the worst-case scenario. But they weren't making go/no-go decisions on the basis of the patents, it was just a slight value-add after a go.

Patents only seem to be of primary importance in a few niches.

Your investors believe in product-market fit and huge markets at that. Your patents alone are not going to solve that, though. (edit: grammar)

Remember the days when all the websites had "Patent Pending" at the bottom of the page?

Yeah. We aren't doing that these days.