21,135 Members | 30,102 Reviews
6,693 Ratings - 9,569 Comments
13,840 Partners - 30,555 Feedback

Good for Investors Bad for Founders

Jerusalem Venture Partners

Got the vision and balls to invest when all other VC's only follow the heard
have zero loyalty to the founders

Private: 268 Chars

Bee Partners and Romulus Capital Don't Answer Discussion

How to “Get In” the VC’S Network. Discussion

Conflicts of Interest Tainted Our Experience

Life Science Angels

They had conflicts of interest they didn't disclose, trashed talked us to other investors, and their tech screener claimed to know a lot about our field but was completely clueless. They were so disruptive and misinformed, in fact, that it was a huge relief to be turned down by them. Our biggest fear was that they would push to have their screener sit on our board, which would have been the single biggest mistake our company ever made and might have guaranteed our failure as a business. Steer clear!!

Private: 834 Chars

5 Points for Start Ups Seekng Financing Discussion

Techcrunch's San Francisco Disrupt. Discussion

What Minimal Protections Should I Demand Subsuming My Startup Into a New Co? Discussion

Can Drag and Kill Your Fundraising

Storm Ventures, Inc.

Be careful not to be dragged into time buying tactics

Private: 313 Chars

Suspect Brain Rape

Battery Ventures

pitched to an associate and a principal combo with the promise that a partner will join. the partner did not join and it seemed like a brain rape.

Private: 258 Chars

Stock Options & Non Compete Discussion

Holdbacks? Discussion

Pulling Metrics Out of My Ass Discussion

VC Partner Starts His Company and Become CEO Discussion

Run Own Investment Club to Fundraise Own Startup? Discussion

Personal Bankruptcy Discussion

How Much to Lift My (Our) Skirt Discussion

Is It Possible to Find Investors, Who Have Lot of Patience and High Intellectual Curiosity? Advice

Dear Friends,

I am seeking advice and information. Is it possible to find investors or partners, who could spend few days on even up to couple of weeks to validate our scientific discoveries and inventions, which will revolutionize software engineering? We secured following US patents on our inventions 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177 so far.

Nearly 15 years long software research resulted in inventions of real-software-components for COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Software Design). Real CBD increases overall productivity of software developers by 3 to 7 folds based on complexity (i.e. overall productivity can go as high as 10 folds for very complex software). All the evidence is openly provided in many web sites, to name a few: and

This kind of inventions requires inventing enabling Tools, technologies and processes. For example, we invented CASE-tools for automating many tasks for assembling and managing communication interfaces between the real-software-components and worlds first GUI technologies for building real-software-components. No other GUI-technology exists today (i.e. from Microsoft or Apple) is capable of creating larger real-software-components.

I built a small team ( of engineers for creating most advanced GUI Library in the world for building complex real-time data-driven GUI applications by investing about US$100K. We are running on shoestring budget can’t afford to invest on flashy web site or marketing. We are very poor beauticians to make our GUI components look colourful. Our competitors invest 2 to 3 times our annual budget on designing flashy web sites. Should I hire UX designers at US$120K/year to make my web site look great, which off course have no value addition to our GUI solutions?

If the GUI components look good in the theme of our competitors web sites, doesn’t mean the GUI components look good in the web applications of customers. Each customer must hire a UX designer to design a theme for the web-application and use appropriate colours, styles and fonts to configure look and feel of each GUI component in the application. Our GUI components are more configurable (to apply any colours, styles or fonts) than the GUI components of our competitors.

All our scientific discoveries and patented inventions can be validated upfront beyond any reasonable doubt. I feel, our patents for GUI technologies alone worth few million dollars. The foundational concepts for software components and CBSD are rooted in flawed belief, which alone is responsible software crisis (that already cost trillions of dollars so far), and would end up costing trillions more to the world economy in coming decades.

If we can prove our discoveries are true to scientific community and we are able to build wide enough awareness among scientific community, our inventions could be worth several hundred millions to billions. We own patents for real software components and COP (Component Oriented Programming). Can anyone imagine building large physical products (e.g. cars, computers or airplanes) without using components? When we become successful, I believe, almost every large and complex software application and product will be designed and built by using COP (i.e. assembling replaceable components). If it is True, what is the value of such inventions, Tools, technologies and processes?

We are willing to give reasonable liquidation preference to protect investment to protect the investment. Our patents alone can cover their investment. I believe, it would cost US$ 3 to 5 million on PR and promotional campaign to create enough awareness among research community and compel the government funded research organizations (e.g.,, DoD and CMU/SEI etc.) to validate our discoveries and evidence. Our discoveries help the USA defend and strengthen its leadership in software engineering.

I contacted hundreds of researchers and the government funded research organizations for past several years, but not able to get an opportunity to present our evidence and proof. I am extremely frustrated with scientific community. Are there any investors who are willing to investigate such disruptive scientific discoveries and patented inventions? They can invest only when their experts are 100% satisfied that I am right. But it may take few days or up to couple of weeks. Do the investors have that kind patience? I am looking for people, who have unusually high intellectual curiosity. It can be proved beyond any doubt, because it is a discovery of scientific facts, which are backed by demonstrable and repeatable evidence.

The accuracy of scientific discoveries are not influenced by popularity context. A real scientific discovery is still true, even if every expert in the world don’t believe it. Let me give you an analogy: If a researcher invents vaccine for cancer, it still work even every medical expert thinks it won’t work. If it doesn’t work, it still can’t work, even if every medical expert beliefs that it would work. The perception of mankind may change the value and use of inventions, but can’t change the degree of Truth of a real scientific discovery. Is it possible to find investors, who have patience and high intellectual curiosity to investigate disruptive scientific discoveries?

Sorry for long message.

Best Regards,

Yoon Choi Good Person

SAIC Venture Capital Corporation

SAIC is the largest auto maker in China. They are interested in strategic investments for automotive technologies. I met with one of their Directors, Yoon Choi, and found her very straightforward, helpful and with low ego. She felt that we were too early and that we should return to he for our series A.

Has Anyone Had an Experience with Granite Bay Financial Group or Bill forkner? Discussion

Full of Bs. Pumping for Info for Competitor Investment. Stay Away.

Andreessen Horowitz

Pitched. Received a boilerplate no after several weeks. We then find out they are funding a competitor and likely took the meeting to pump us for info.

VC Recommendations for Series a Medical Device Startup Discussion

Fraud or Real? "Closing Fees Need to Be Paid Before Funding", Spv, Credit Insurance Wrap Discussion

Asia / Pacific Software/B2B First Round Terms Term Sheet

Is Funding Mostly Dead for This Cycle? Discussion

Very Supportive VC, Engaged at the Right Level


We have been working with Walden VC, and Matt Miller now for a year, and it has been very good. When we went through a complex closing of two convertible notes into a single equity round, Matt and Walden were extremely practical and accommodating. Then Matt in Board Meetings and other meetings is engage, and leverages his years of operational background and early stage company experience to help us out. Frequently, Matt is helping us think about our strategy and top priorities. He does this in a fashion that is helpful, not threating. Given Matt's load, his availability is impressive and he is efficient with my time, which is key for a busy CEO. Close Walden if you can.

Prev | Next