Pro_bity

Taxis, even in San Francisco, were woefully inadequate prior to Uber. Further, it not as if taxis were driver friendly. The majority of the money went the the medallion holder. The medallion holders artificially constricted service to keep rates high via a monopoly. So, there was no pre-rideshare paradise to return to.

I am curious, when HN became reddit? This seems like a total social shit post not in keeping with HN.

For the lazy - Conclusions:

A patent strategy can indeed affect a tech startup company’s growth. The data indicates that companies that have patents in earlier rounds (especially before obtaining funding, or in Rounds 1 and 2) are able to obtain more total funding. This occurs in all markets, but is especially so in Biotechnology/Agriculture, IT/Hardware and Medical devices, in which the largest patenting activity tends to happen in the beginning of the company’s life. This suggests that patenting early may be more important for start-ups than what some views in venture capital may predict.

Surprisingly, most start-ups that patented filed their first application before even receiving any reported funding. A possible explanation is that these companies were aware of the potential signaling value of the patents, and that they strategically filed their patents early, despite the relatively high burden of patenting costs for an early-stage venture.

Also surprisingly, companies located in California patented more than companies located elsewhere. The study supports the idea that California provides unique conditions for start-up growth, and points out to the patenting activity in the state, a factor that is not commonly discussed in the startup environment.

Companies that were venture-backed also filed more patents that those which did not receive venture capital in any stage. This is consistent with previous studies, and reaffirms a strong connection between patents and venture capital.

Moreover, the results indicated that the number of patents (and not merely the fact that the company had patents) was highly correlated with total funding. The effect of each additional patent for companies in the dataset was 530,000 USD more in funding per additional patent application that the company had.

Finally, the analysis also supported the idea that patents account for only for a fraction of start-up success. While the contribution of patents to startup funding seems to be positive, what is the importance of a patent in comparison to other factors? The results back the position that while patents have a positive effect on funding, their contribution to start-up growth is somewhat limited: one factor among many of those that influence investor’s decisions. Patents can only explain increased funding in a limited number of cases, around 10% to 15% of them.

So are we in a position to solve the “patent dilemma”? While the study alone may not solve the dilemma for all companies, it serves to shed an empirical light on it, which is uniquely useful to entrepreneurs, lawyers and the startup ecosystem. Patents may not be a fundamental requirement to receive funding or be acquired, but they prove to be an advantageous tool for early-stage signaling of startup’s value and potential.

Great, thanks!

Great article, is there any place where I can read more about the technology behind the company?

Good article, although his use of the word "chemicals" as a negative is pretty silly. Particularly, in this sentence "Fermentation and curdling involve hundreds of chemical reactions that produce a multitude of complex flavor compounds with a depth that can't be replicated by chemicals."

Original WSJ article (paywalled) - http://www.wsj.com/articles/canarsie-hedge-fund-collapses-14...

I would exclude from this explanation, state funded VCs or sovereign wealth funds that invest in later stages. They are most commonly investing for strategic reasons or just piling onto an already established leader.

This is why the landing pad is run autonomously.

What really happens with most government run investment where funds are allocated to outside investment people or groups (ex. EU funds), is that the investors have limited incentives to actually/help create successful companies.

In fact, what often happens is that the investors manage to funnel a large portion of the funding back to their own pockets by requiring the startups to pay for bootcamps and trips that are run by the investor and mentors (i.e. investor's buddies) and pay for services and facilities that the state provides the investors for free.

On top of this, the investors get very generous salaries and reimbursed for many if not all expenses (i.e. a great opportunity to double dip, see above).

Finally, if the investor has any money at risk in the fund it is normally all but fully insured by the government and they get the lion's share of any returns, if there are any. All in all, it is a great deal for the investors with almost no accountability and little net benefit for the startups.

Relevant: Sony cancels the movie's release - http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-interview-120132...

I would love to say this is shocking, but it has become routine to see double digit percentage increases in San Francisco rents. I am curious to see if the increases were as extreme outside on the city.

Literacy too started by a small group of individuals making most of the content and having a near strangle-hold over communication. Then ask literacy expanded, so too did the communication, creativity and variety of content.

There is no question that this is an ad. It is also devoid on any informational or actionable content. This is pure click bait.

And another reason to switch to Android.

I'll just leave this here - http://uncrunched.com/2013/10/29/thoughts-on-techcrunch-disr...

This is the best attempt thus far in the smart watch category. However, all of the predecessors seemed like a great idea too, until you actually put them on your wrist and wore it for a few days.

I think that there is a difference between rules intended to protect consumers and those designed to protect incumbency. In many cases, such as taxi medallions and other types of business licensing, what once was designed to be a light weight way to protect the public because cumbersome and anti-competitive. These are the areas ripe for disruption.

However, regulations that still predominantly serve the public interest, such as those set out by the EPA, FDA and SEC (though not perfect) are much less open.

This is the best TechCrunch article ever written. I wish they let their journalist spend more time doing well researched pieces like this.

Forget the phone, this is technology is ideal to merge into Google Glass.