Question
Can filing a patent application be a strategic disadvantage since one is inherently revealing their business model to competitors at the time of filing?
Answer
Yes, and this is a very deliberate decision for companies. At my former employer for instance, the internal review process for patent applications could recommend either a filing or retention of the invention as a trade secret.
There are basically 3 fundamental IP moves. File, do a defensive disclosure (publish without seeking a patent, mainly to prevent someone ELSE from patenting something that you want to use, but don't feel is worth the money to actually patent) or keep something secret. In recent times, some variety of open-source release of technology has also become an option.
This question is slightly naive: a business model will rarely hinge on a single patent except for a true outlier-startup.
Small companies and individual inventors basically don't understand how this game works because they are typically thinking in terms of just one patent or two. Big companies play a complicated game with 100s or 1000s of patents.
For complex technology spaces, patenting is basically like a game of Go. It is a territory war. In fact territory terminology is often used ("we need to claim that territory" or "are there any whitespaces here?"). When deep-pocket companies are competing in a high-tech space, everybody is treading on everybody else's turf so much that the only way to play the game is to cross-license patents.
If you try to play the licensing game with money, you will have to pay so much money, you are effectively locked out of the game, so for the incumbents, the patent game is also a way to create a barrier to entry. There is no real easy way for a newcomer to break into the printer market now, for instance, because big companies like Xerox, Canon and HP have basically carved out most of the territory among themselves.
On the other hand, they can easily buy YOU out on their terms, if you come up with a single critical new invention. The reason is that for you to take YOUR idea to market, you'll need all the other bits and pieces to make a full printer, and they'll be holding all the OTHER cards. They don't need you, but you need them (you need their IP to "practice" yours). You'll have to bargain.
If your business model hinges on a single patent, chances are you have no idea about the IP picture surrounding your technology. There is a very good chance that lots of big companies have plenty of patents that you are infringing to make your idea work. If they wanted to, they could come after you. If you suddenly started making tons of money, they might.
The only kind of business that can actually work with a single patent or two is a) a patent-trolling business (look for a critical unoccupied piece of real estate that you can squat on and use to blackmail everybody else in a game) or b) a TRUE radical, outlier new invention which is so far out from known territory, there is no claimed territory anywhere near it.
There are basically 3 fundamental IP moves. File, do a defensive disclosure (publish without seeking a patent, mainly to prevent someone ELSE from patenting something that you want to use, but don't feel is worth the money to actually patent) or keep something secret. In recent times, some variety of open-source release of technology has also become an option.
This question is slightly naive: a business model will rarely hinge on a single patent except for a true outlier-startup.
Small companies and individual inventors basically don't understand how this game works because they are typically thinking in terms of just one patent or two. Big companies play a complicated game with 100s or 1000s of patents.
For complex technology spaces, patenting is basically like a game of Go. It is a territory war. In fact territory terminology is often used ("we need to claim that territory" or "are there any whitespaces here?"). When deep-pocket companies are competing in a high-tech space, everybody is treading on everybody else's turf so much that the only way to play the game is to cross-license patents.
If you try to play the licensing game with money, you will have to pay so much money, you are effectively locked out of the game, so for the incumbents, the patent game is also a way to create a barrier to entry. There is no real easy way for a newcomer to break into the printer market now, for instance, because big companies like Xerox, Canon and HP have basically carved out most of the territory among themselves.
On the other hand, they can easily buy YOU out on their terms, if you come up with a single critical new invention. The reason is that for you to take YOUR idea to market, you'll need all the other bits and pieces to make a full printer, and they'll be holding all the OTHER cards. They don't need you, but you need them (you need their IP to "practice" yours). You'll have to bargain.
If your business model hinges on a single patent, chances are you have no idea about the IP picture surrounding your technology. There is a very good chance that lots of big companies have plenty of patents that you are infringing to make your idea work. If they wanted to, they could come after you. If you suddenly started making tons of money, they might.
The only kind of business that can actually work with a single patent or two is a) a patent-trolling business (look for a critical unoccupied piece of real estate that you can squat on and use to blackmail everybody else in a game) or b) a TRUE radical, outlier new invention which is so far out from known territory, there is no claimed territory anywhere near it.