Elon Musk, Vaccines, and Coffee Capsules: Why Startups Must Protect Innovation?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a global debate emerged about the need to waive vaccine patents. Some argued that, without intellectual property rights, it would have been easier to manufacture and distribute vaccines around the world. But the reality is more complex: without intellectual property protection, the innovations that made those vaccines possible likely wouldn’t have existed in the first place.

Although the COVID vaccines were commercialized by pharmaceutical companies, the mRNA technology on which they were based was developed at a U.S. university and protected through patents. That protection enabled the negotiation of licenses and attracted the investment needed to scale the technology in record time. Intellectual property was not an obstacle but an enabler of exploitation—it made the business viable and allowed the innovation to reach the market.

For startups, the lesson is clear: protecting technology through patents is neither excessive nor bureaucratic but an essential condition for attracting investors and capitalizing on a business. Patents give startups something they would not otherwise have: the exclusive right to exploit an innovation for a specific time and in a specific territory, which is crucial when resources are limited and competition can come from anywhere in the world. When obtaining a patent is not possible, there are other mechanisms of protection, such as designs, trademarks, and even copyright.

The exclusivity granted by intellectual property rights gives economic value to innovation in the eyes of investors who are looking for projects that cannot be easily copied or replicated.

The Coffee Capsule Case: Finding Where the Real Value Lies

A particularly illustrative example is that of a well-known coffee capsule brand. Instead of protecting only the coffee machine—a product relatively easy to copy—the company also protected the capsule’s design, its materials, and its piercing mechanism, which were the true heart of the business. While the machines could become a commodity, the capsules required specific licenses to be manufactured and sold. That smart intellectual property strategy allowed the company to control the consumer ecosystem and build a multi-million-dollar business.

The lesson for startups is that the greatest value often lies not in protecting everything, but in identifying the critical component that makes the difference—and then building the entry barrier for competitors from there.

The False Sense of Security Around Patentability

A very common misconception among entrepreneurs is failing to distinguish between patentability and freedom to operate. Having a patent means that an innovation meets the requirements to be patented, but it does not guarantee that it can be freely commercialized. There may be third-party patents in force that restrict or block the possibility of using the innovation. This issue was also particularly evident in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines: although the base technology was owned by a university, the pharmaceutical companies had to ensure they were not infringing on third-party rights in order to bring their products to market.

Many startups are unaware of this critical difference. Conducting a freedom-to-operate analysis—to verify that a technology does not infringe the rights of others—is a far more complex and sensitive process than evaluating patentability. That’s why it’s not always accessible in early stages, but it must become a priority when the product or service is ready to be launched on the market.

The Key Role of Investors and Incubators

Investors know this. They don’t just invest in ideas—they invest in intellectual property assets. It is increasingly common for incubators and accelerators not only to encourage the development of IP strategies, but even to finance them. In many cases, they directly require the existence of patent applications as a condition.

The message from investors to startups is clear: without intellectual property assets, there are no entry barriers; without entry barriers, there is no business.

That’s why protecting innovation is not optional: it is about building the asset on which all of a company’s value will be based.

There are well-known figures, like Elon Musk, who have recently made statements downplaying the importance of intellectual property. Musk has even said that “patents are for the weak.” But context matters: Elon Musk operates on a different scale—a global one—with a vast patent portfolio and a powerful brand reputation.

In conclusion, intellectual property does not hinder innovation—it drives it. It is what enables a startup to go from having a great idea to having a viable business that is attractive to investors and ready to grow.