As an inventor in a large company, that issue was perhaps easier to manage for me at the time. I think it is a tougher question to ask of small startups.
In large companies, there is usually a number of folks in the process pipeline to help guide the decision. Some factors that are valuable:
Is the idea related to a specific product or portfolio - this is usually for the business value part of things. Patents cost money/time so it has to be worth putting the time/resources into it.
Do you have meaningful results and work to back up the invention - this is the "no vaporware" filter. In general most of the things I patented were tied to research projects we worked on, in which there was a functional implementation as well as peer-reviewed conference publications that helped validate the ideas.
Is this invention narrow or broad - this is the "can people work around it" filter. Narrow inventions are usually less valuable since they allow others to get nearly-good-enough results by simply going around that narrow claim. Broad inventions are more valuable but harder to defend if they are TOO broad. Knowing the right balance takes experience.
Are there other approaches (related work) and is it detectable (can I tell if someone uses it).
In general I found patents and research publications were similar in their ability to separate good ideas from great ones. A good idea is one that solves a problem but you can easily come up with other ways to approach it if you give it some thought. A great idea is one that has had substantial thought (exploring all issues and finding solutions to them) which makes it harder to replicate.
Most companies have reviewers, committees and subject matter experts to help simplify the process.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
As an inventor in a large company, that issue was perhaps easier to manage for me at the time. I think it is a tougher question to ask of small startups.
In large companies, there is usually a number of folks in the process pipeline to help guide the decision. Some factors that are valuable:
Is the idea related to a specific product or portfolio - this is usually for the business value part of things. Patents cost money/time so it has to be worth putting the time/resources into it.
Do you have meaningful results and work to back up the invention - this is the "no vaporware" filter. In general most of the things I patented were tied to research projects we worked on, in which there was a functional implementation as well as peer-reviewed conference publications that helped validate the ideas.
Is this invention narrow or broad - this is the "can people work around it" filter. Narrow inventions are usually less valuable since they allow others to get nearly-good-enough results by simply going around that narrow claim. Broad inventions are more valuable but harder to defend if they are TOO broad. Knowing the right balance takes experience.
Are there other approaches (related work) and is it detectable (can I tell if someone uses it).
In general I found patents and research publications were similar in their ability to separate good ideas from great ones. A good idea is one that solves a problem but you can easily come up with other ways to approach it if you give it some thought. A great idea is one that has had substantial thought (exploring all issues and finding solutions to them) which makes it harder to replicate.
Most companies have reviewers, committees and subject matter experts to help simplify the process.