21,221 Members | 30,161 Reviews
6,703 Ratings - 9,603 Comments
13,855 Partners - 30,746 Feedback
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: http://real-software-components.com and https://www.researchgate.net/profile/...
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 (pioneer-soft.com) 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. NSF.gov, NITRD.gov, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Private: 914 Chars
For many years, people believed that entrepreneurship and creative success were innate and were thus impossible to measure. As statistical analysis has progressed, the inaccuracy of this old world-view becomes much more clear.
At the Founder Institute, an idea-stage accelerator that spawned out of TheFunded.com, we have enlisted some of the world's top social scientists to create a system of quantitative analysis for entrepreneurial potential. Since 2009, over 30,000 aspiring entrepreneurs have taken our "Entrepreneur DNA test", and we have been able to correlate this data with the real world performance of over 2000 companies to determine the unique skillset required to be a successful entrepreneur.
Recently we published a presentation outlining some of our findings, which you can see below.
I would love to get your feedback on this. What skillset do you think is required to be a strong entrepreneur?
Asked by Partner to meet in person. Made effort to show up to location to have an associate tell us he was tied up in an 'emergency' board meeting.
Private: 211 Chars
I had a warm intro to Schwark. My contacts said he was very sharp and knew payments very well. This turned out to be very true. I've pitched a number of firms and Schwark is way ahead of anyone else I pitched. He very quickly got to the key decision point of our business. Although he turned us down, he did two really classy things that really stand out in my mind: 1) promptly made a decision and told me 2) gave me valuable feedback on where he thought the biggest problem would be and the best to overcome it. Most people wouldn't have bothered after a turn down to write such a detailed email. A real class act. And I've known Ajay for years since he started Pinnacle in his garage. A real entrepreneur and a great guy.
We are a healthcare technology startup company (pre-revenue stage) located in GA. We have spent significant amount of our time (last 8 years with a global team, around $1M invested) working on the technology that we feel would change the way healthcare is done. We are about to launch the cloud-based enterprise class product platform. We put together business plan, financial projections, pitch deck. We are planning to raise about $3.5M. Having not raised any capital before, I am not sure about the best approach:
1. Consultants: Every one I spoke with wants upfront money (or hourly fee) and it is hard to allocate money until capital is raised (based on our current situation). Also, most of them do not have broker-dealer license.
2. Investment Bankers: I tried to contact couple of investment bankers and none of them responded. As per my understanding, they charge a percentage and do not require any upfront investment. Can you suggest few firms? Is this a good approach?
3. VCs: They usually need introductions and I do not have any connections in this area.
4. Crowd Platforms: I am not sure if this is suitable for our type of capital raise. I checked into EquityNet and it looks like, I need to contact each individual investor.
I know lot of you have the expertise on the subject. If you can share any thoughts / suggestions or contact suggestions, it would be greatly appreciated. If you would like to speak with me privately, please suggest.
Thank you for your time.