How do we structure a company with one Founder who invented a product while others finance and run operations?

The answer is yes, but it always depends. Let me begin by saying that the more knowhow, etc. involved, the easier it is to sell something without any patent protection. Otherwise, you are trying to sell something without protection and you get no protection until the patent issues, which may take years. The acquirer may just run with it (I would) without licensing knowing there is no cost until your patent issues. Then, when you file, they will see your claims and try to modify their product around your claims. It is slightly vicious in nature. That said, I may not act much different if you file first, unless I can buy your patent or the license costs are very inexpensive. Secondly, many countries have absolute novelty and you will not be able to protect your invention there ever, even if a licensee arises and wants to enter those markets. This too, is a serious limitation for licensing. My conclusion would be that you are underfunded to address your IP and that I can get away with murder. Filing the application is your way of telling people that you are serious. That said, it is not necessary and I have a lot of clients that file later or never file.

This is a typical problem with any start-up, i.e. intention to trade everything for equity. I am assuming that you're trying to trade equity for cash. In that case I would suggest you to look out for individuals with diversified skills and competencies. The reason being, less the number of individuals less the amount of equity that would be required to trade. Second option could be to look out for agencies to whom you could outsource the business process. I am not at all ashamed to mention that my own company is one such agency. However, my only piece of advice to to try and add some retainership component to your model, apart from equity, as in a long term it's easier for people to lose motivation in absence of any capital gains. The reason being, people don't understand the value of equity in startup. Rather, the time it could take for that equity to turn into something big; it may not happen as well. That's why they say there's nothing called free lunch. In my more than a decade experience working with entrepreneurs and helping them bootstrap, I have learnt that the market out there is crowded with individuals with a lust to join startup as a equity holder. In a short term, they may speak all those rosy language that may sound like coming directly from the Horse's mouth. But, in a long term you realize not everything is hunky-dory. As far as finding a co-founder or a CTO or any other executive team member is concerned, ensure that you put down the roles and responsibilities attached with each title. Apart from above, ensure that you communicate your expectation lucidly and understand the values everyone is required to bring on the table. Usual people who could be a good fit for you, apart from any agency, are people who aren't big on title. Is there anything specific you're looking at? Please feel free to revert with more clarity to receive clarity. I am just a call away. All the best!!

Simple answer. Assign the ownership of the patent prior to closing any investment that is sufficient to market validate your invention. Investors will require an absolute assignment of ownership of any intellectual property. Given that you don't actually have a patent yet, you will be doing a general assignment that will include all assets and rights around the idea. I would also caution you not to over-emphasize the value of a provisional patent or patent application in-process. There is *zero* value to a provisional patent or patent in-process so don't let this distract you from operating your business and building out your product/service.

There's only one answer to this question and it might sound pretentious: experience. As you go along, you might find some of your experiences remind you of certain stuff other entrepreneurs have said but you will very often find yourself going your own way even if they advise against it. You may be wrong but then again, they might be wrong also. The worst thing you could do is read or listen to too much of what others have done, in their own way, and try to mimic them, believing that the same things will work for your business as well. Take the issue of time, for example. Depending on the stage of their entrepreneurial life, some will argue you should always find time for the gym and disconnect at least a day a week. Ask a 22 year old guy who's pulling in 20K/month, in his pocket, after 2 years of absolute dedication to work and he'll say disconnecting just for the sake of disconnecting is wasted time. Then again, someone who's a master of automating his business may tell you 2 hours / day will get you to the right place in no time. Another example is sales. The world changes at a very fast pace these days. Better communication tools, better CRMs, globalization - the "rules" of who to sell to, where and how to pitch, the very traits that make your product worthy or not, they're constantly evolving. Whatever worked 2 years ago might still work today, but there could be a completely different way to sell that is faster, more cost effective and more in tune to your communication style. Waste too much time being taught about sales when doing a start-up and you'll be blind to your own instincts that may very well be revolutionary :) My advise is to develop and nurture a mindset that allows you to adapt rather than imitate. Of course, if you fell what I said is dumb and would rather be taught entrepreneurship, then that's what you should do. I don't mean that in a bad way. I really think you should follow your gut on what makes a great entrepreneur. Being successful by trying to be someone you're not will be less fun :) Here's an article I wrote about a similar topic, "how startup news is killing your startup": http://thebottomofthings.com/6-reasons-startup-news-is-killing-your-startup/ Good luck!

A provisional patent is good for two things. It is a date-stamped proof of invention and gives you time to determine whether to incur the cost of filing a full patent. Yes, so long as the individual component pieces you think are useful are sufficiently described in detail within the one general application, it sets you up to later claim utility patents for any and all of these, providing they really are unique. But in general, I would really caution you from spending time and money to file patents for a software company. I've built many innovative software products over 20 years of work in our industry and only filed one patent in my life, and even that patent is only to protect people from abusing a truly transformative and world-changing technology. That said, a provisional patent is inexpensive and if any expense is going to be incurred here, a catch-all is sufficient if you feel inclined to file anything at all. If your goal is an acquihire or acquisition, utility patents do actually make a difference in the acquirers valuation (at least for now) but if you're thinking about it from an actual defensive perspective, I'd really advise that it's not worth your time (and distraction) and money. The best defence is a great offence. Scale up, get great engagement from users who love your product and you'll be in a much stronger to fight competitors. Lastly, if you do decide to file a provisional patent, don't claim to anyone that you have I.P. You don't. :) Happy to talk through this in a call with you. Best of luck!