The last three days have been quite hectic. I continue to face legal barriers and am questioning how to proceed. Do I continue to build my product out or do I first ensure that it is legally possible? The latter seems to be the logical decision; however, I wish it were that simple. The law is fuzzy and is subject to varying interpretations. My searches on Quora, my questions on Reddit, my working of personal connections, have all resulted in differing interpretations of the legalese.
Thus I am at a cross roads. Do I (a) build my product assuming no legal restrictions (within reason) and attempt to accommodate the later legal restrictions? or do I (b) ensure that my proposed idea is entirely legal?
The problem with (b) is that the legal opinion you get, unless you find a cowboy lawyer, is likely to be sceptical and conservative. The problem with (a) is that my efforts could go to waste. True innovators push the boundaries of the law; they are able to manoeuvre around legal obstacles. Their innovation thus attracts much attention. I assume that these innovators, however, have retained some pretty awesome legal counsel.
I think my move will be to get my revised idea down on a business model canvass, examine its value proposition, its revenue streams, and then consider scenarios in which the law prohibited many of these. If I've still got a workable product, then I'll proceed. If I don't, well then you'll read about it in a blog post....
