Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The investment that didn't happen

k9.vc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#21

Post by nikcub »

Osiris wrote: post #10

Was there a reason that these guys hadn't gone through the process to file for a patent themselves, even as a defensive mechanism? I suppose their suggestion that there was a lot of prior art would have made that a non-starter for them as well. Anyone that suggests that software patents are good for innovation is clearly naive.

You could probably use a recent grad with software experience to write and file patents, but litigation is a different beast where even the smallest mistep or poor strategy can be costly.

You would definitely want an experienced patent litigation attorney and a small team.

I think they should have responded and called the bluff - I don't think Google would pursuit it far

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#22

Post by tomjen3 »

Man the two guys are taking this nicely. At the very least I would have put a much more nasty message on the page

And properly started a startup which brought patents and sued others, seeing as that is now the way to win.

But respect to these people.

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#23

Post by whyleym »

cynusx wrote: post #15

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that this company can restart operations? Who owns the IP now? The argument that the patent climate hasn't changed should not deter investors in a restart of this company, most startups would die if they are sued for patent infringement and in this case the aggressor has been pacified.

I agree - given that Google has now acquired Like.com and they would be (very) unlikely to bring any lawsuit, why can't the company just re-launch - even if they have to bootstrap ?

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#24

Post by mjdwitt »

geoffw8 wrote: post #18

As an FYI, and as a founder of a fashion shopping site (aggregator) I can tell you that people do not like shopping like that - as in, find me something that looks like x - you have to factor in what we refer to as "Store DNA". Your not comparing hoovers here, people don't just buy a "look" - they buy (from store x) because of the quality, the brands values etc.

But as a search engine for browsing/research prior to purchasing, it works great. Back when Modista was still operational, I myself bought three or four pairs of shoes that were either discovered or inspired by discoveries made while browsing their site. Each one of those purchases was made after looking into the brand that manufactured them, but–with the exception of one purchase–I had never heard of the brand before that and never would have without Modista or some inferior means of searching through such a massive inventory.

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#25

Post by geoffw8 »

mjdwitt wrote: post #24
geoffw8 wrote: post #18

As an FYI, and as a founder of a fashion shopping site (aggregator) I can tell you that people do not like shopping like that - as in, find me something that looks like x - you have to factor in what we refer to as "Store DNA". Your not comparing hoovers here, people don't just buy a "look" - they buy (from store x) because of the quality, the brands values etc.

But as a search engine for browsing/research prior to purchasing, it works great. Back when Modista was still operational, I myself bought three or four pairs of shoes that were either discovered or inspired by discoveries made while browsing their site. Each one of those purchases was made after looking into the brand that manufactured them, but–with the exception of one purchase–I had never heard of the brand befor…

Are you a guy?

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#26

Post by dhimes »

nikcub wrote: post #20

I hope this isn't the end for these guys. A few solutions to the problem which I am sure they are contemplating: a) Raise the round but cap legal expenses to 80-120k. This would get you a decent way down the road with discovery, pre-trial and potentially an early settlement. b) Find a patent litigation firm that would waive the remainder of the fees on the same terms as the investment round, to be converted at a late…

It's too bad they couldn't come forward with their prior-art portfolio. That may have squelched the Google-Like deal, giving the troll its due.

But part of me is thinking: If Google was looking for an acquistion in this space, how could they miss the Modista guys? Their stage of development kept them under the radar? Or perhaps there is more to the story than we are reading here?

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#27

Post by dhimes »

geoffw8 wrote: post #18

As an FYI, and as a founder of a fashion shopping site (aggregator) I can tell you that people do not like shopping like that - as in, find me something that looks like x - you have to factor in what we refer to as "Store DNA". Your not comparing hoovers here, people don't just buy a "look" - they buy (from store x) because of the quality, the brands values etc.

Those filters would be very easy to add once the hard (image) technology was worked out. Sadly, the company never got to that stage.

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#28

Post by tijs »

geoffw8 wrote: post #25
mjdwitt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But as a search engine for browsing/research prior to purchasing, it works great. Back when Modista was still operational, I myself bought three or four pairs of shoes that were either discovered or inspired by discoveries made while browsing their site. Each one of those purchases was made after looking into the brand that manufactured them, but–with the exception of one purchase–I had never heard of the brand befor…

Are you a guy?

Are you barefoot?

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#30

Post by geoffw8 »

dhimes wrote: post #27
geoffw8 wrote: post #18

As an FYI, and as a founder of a fashion shopping site (aggregator) I can tell you that people do not like shopping like that - as in, find me something that looks like x - you have to factor in what we refer to as "Store DNA". Your not comparing hoovers here, people don't just buy a "look" - they buy (from store x) because of the quality, the brands values etc.

Those filters would be very easy to add once the hard (image) technology was worked out. Sadly, the company never got to that stage.

Answered like a true techy :)

You can't build a filter for "I've worn a top from this store before and it fitted me nicely" or "I know garments from this store wash up nicely" or "I shop from this store because it defines part of my character"

Most shoppers buy into a store because of lots of things, quality, brand-values alignment, friends shop etc etc.

What I'm essentially saying is a lot more goes into buying a product than what it looks like.

Post reply on HN