Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.
Moderators: Michelle, Scrupulous, Roger Brown, citizen
Think Tank for Inventors - Membership Information (OLD)
by Average Inventor » Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:30 pm
-
Average Inventor - Brown Belt
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:52 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
We will be continuing the discussion started here: http://inventorspot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88 about creating a think tank comprised of inventors who would collaborate to create inventions that have mass market potential and ideally are socially beneficial.
The following is a list that is up for discussion and will later be refined into a working constitution for the private group and once ratified it will be the basis for entry into the private inventors think tank.
1. Only serious apply, members should be willing to work within the constraints of the group.
2. Willing to sign a co-inventor agreement, with % share to be determined after the group’s inception. You MUST Participate to earn a %, if you are unable to work on a project then you must notify the group so all members know the available talent pool to complete the proposed projects.
3. Humility, All ideas should be given fair merit and members should be provided an environment where they feel comfortable sharing their ideas.
4. Kindness, when rejecting an Idea. If you don’t have something constructive to say (either positive or negative) don’t say it.
5. Scope of Inventors Guild, it is to be understood that the ideas we cultivate and focus our intellectual capital on are either of benefit to society or have mass market potential.
6. Must be willing to sign an NDA and co-inventors agreement.
7. Experience, many great ideas come from varied backgrounds and perspectives so we would welcome new and experienced inventors alike as long as they are willing to consider the ideas of others.
8. Entry into the group requires an unpatented idea that is on par with the scope of our group, no free rides.
9. At the inception we will vote and work on one idea at a time until such time, to be determined later, we have grown large enough to efficiently work on more then one.
10. We take the Idea to a working embodiment of the best solution (taking into account cost, pricing point, and other marketing considerations) at which time we seek protection of our collective Intellectual property and work out an exit solution for our invention.
11. Good Faith, we all have to trust and give the benefit of doubt to fellow members. In order for us to thrive we must utilize our strengths and help cultivate hidden strengths of our fellow members.
12. We elect or appoint a 3 or 5 person board, they decide which ideas go forward and in what order. We should align our interest with successful inventors and successful companies that help inventors further their ideas and bring them to market. Our board should comprise at least in part key individuals who can provide experience and guidance in assessing which ideas to pursue and which to hold off on.
The following is a list that is up for discussion and will later be refined into a working constitution for the private group and once ratified it will be the basis for entry into the private inventors think tank.
1. Only serious apply, members should be willing to work within the constraints of the group.
2. Willing to sign a co-inventor agreement, with % share to be determined after the group’s inception. You MUST Participate to earn a %, if you are unable to work on a project then you must notify the group so all members know the available talent pool to complete the proposed projects.
3. Humility, All ideas should be given fair merit and members should be provided an environment where they feel comfortable sharing their ideas.
4. Kindness, when rejecting an Idea. If you don’t have something constructive to say (either positive or negative) don’t say it.
5. Scope of Inventors Guild, it is to be understood that the ideas we cultivate and focus our intellectual capital on are either of benefit to society or have mass market potential.
6. Must be willing to sign an NDA and co-inventors agreement.
7. Experience, many great ideas come from varied backgrounds and perspectives so we would welcome new and experienced inventors alike as long as they are willing to consider the ideas of others.
8. Entry into the group requires an unpatented idea that is on par with the scope of our group, no free rides.
9. At the inception we will vote and work on one idea at a time until such time, to be determined later, we have grown large enough to efficiently work on more then one.
10. We take the Idea to a working embodiment of the best solution (taking into account cost, pricing point, and other marketing considerations) at which time we seek protection of our collective Intellectual property and work out an exit solution for our invention.
11. Good Faith, we all have to trust and give the benefit of doubt to fellow members. In order for us to thrive we must utilize our strengths and help cultivate hidden strengths of our fellow members.
12. We elect or appoint a 3 or 5 person board, they decide which ideas go forward and in what order. We should align our interest with successful inventors and successful companies that help inventors further their ideas and bring them to market. Our board should comprise at least in part key individuals who can provide experience and guidance in assessing which ideas to pursue and which to hold off on.
by Average Inventor » Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:51 pm
-
Average Inventor - Brown Belt
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:52 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
To get the discussion started I like #1 #3-5 #7 #8 #10 #11 as written.
I do not like #2 because I feel it should be broken up into the willingness to sign a co-inventors agreement and an explanation of how our percentage based system would work so the perspective inventor would know before joining what their efforts would translate to. In that % agreement I think there should be a base % on all projects to be split equally between all inventors in the group that is not based on participation in a given project to allow for shared benefit of all members if one or more projects takes off and becomes a great success.
#6 seems redundant and as Scrupulous said we should only need to sign a co-inventors agreement and not a separate NDA.
#9 seems like something that shouldn't be written in the constitution and can be voted on later by the members who constitute the final group.
#12 I no longer feel we need a board as I feel the strength of smaller organizations is their adaptability and quickness to market. I feel a board is only needed if we needed to raise capital or oversee a larger organization. If we need a leadership group we can add that later as we grow.
I do not like #2 because I feel it should be broken up into the willingness to sign a co-inventors agreement and an explanation of how our percentage based system would work so the perspective inventor would know before joining what their efforts would translate to. In that % agreement I think there should be a base % on all projects to be split equally between all inventors in the group that is not based on participation in a given project to allow for shared benefit of all members if one or more projects takes off and becomes a great success.
#6 seems redundant and as Scrupulous said we should only need to sign a co-inventors agreement and not a separate NDA.
#9 seems like something that shouldn't be written in the constitution and can be voted on later by the members who constitute the final group.
#12 I no longer feel we need a board as I feel the strength of smaller organizations is their adaptability and quickness to market. I feel a board is only needed if we needed to raise capital or oversee a larger organization. If we need a leadership group we can add that later as we grow.
by Michelle » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:53 am
-
Michelle - Black Belt
- Posts: 1529
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:27 am
Thanks Average for the posting.
If this is a distraction from just discussing the first 12 points you raised, we can hold these off till later....so ignore until the 12 are done?
What about moderators for the forums and admin for paperwork?
How are decisions to be made?
I think these need to be addressed up front.
I don't know if this is a topic for open or closed discussions but I think you all need to think about proper structuring of the think tank so it can work in actual practice.
What is to be covered in open forum and what in closed?
What happens to ideas not pursued?
If an idea is pusued, but does not achieve commercialiaation, what happens to invention if it goes nowhere?
I wonder if this think tank should be a filter tank for new ideas that goes on continuously, but then one idea is selected and a new think tank-work group with fixed members working on it gets created.
So a Father Tank and Baby Tanks?
This way, you can get % allocated propertly. Perhaps the main think tank get 10% of whatever the work group think tank does. Once an idea is picked to be worked on, the work group think tank gets formed and uses as a default the allocation agreed upon by main think tank but can change it to suit the work group up to a point?
Then, as the main group changes constantly, you won't have constantly changing % and ownership issues with ideas. It may take years to commercialization and I think it'd be helpful to realistically look at it and how you allocated rights, no tjust to money but to the idea if it does not get pursued at level of zeal some in the group would want, etc.
I think what you are doing now perhaps is creating a think tank that will as it's first project come up with an appropriate structure and organization for how to handle working together, leveraging the power of the talent on this site's forum?
If I am stepping into this mid-way and confusing things, just ignore me.
If this is a distraction from just discussing the first 12 points you raised, we can hold these off till later....so ignore until the 12 are done?
What about moderators for the forums and admin for paperwork?
How are decisions to be made?
I think these need to be addressed up front.
I don't know if this is a topic for open or closed discussions but I think you all need to think about proper structuring of the think tank so it can work in actual practice.
What is to be covered in open forum and what in closed?
What happens to ideas not pursued?
If an idea is pusued, but does not achieve commercialiaation, what happens to invention if it goes nowhere?
I wonder if this think tank should be a filter tank for new ideas that goes on continuously, but then one idea is selected and a new think tank-work group with fixed members working on it gets created.
So a Father Tank and Baby Tanks?
This way, you can get % allocated propertly. Perhaps the main think tank get 10% of whatever the work group think tank does. Once an idea is picked to be worked on, the work group think tank gets formed and uses as a default the allocation agreed upon by main think tank but can change it to suit the work group up to a point?
Then, as the main group changes constantly, you won't have constantly changing % and ownership issues with ideas. It may take years to commercialization and I think it'd be helpful to realistically look at it and how you allocated rights, no tjust to money but to the idea if it does not get pursued at level of zeal some in the group would want, etc.
I think what you are doing now perhaps is creating a think tank that will as it's first project come up with an appropriate structure and organization for how to handle working together, leveraging the power of the talent on this site's forum?
If I am stepping into this mid-way and confusing things, just ignore me.
by DannyB » Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:13 pm
- DannyB
- Green Belt
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:02 am
- Location: TX
I say yes to all but #2 as it is written as well. When you think about it we will not only be members of the think tank, but will be partners, hopefully of royalties or the sale of a Patent. And like Michelle said, it could be years before a sale or income stream could be realized. I think it would complicate matters to have a bunch of different contracts established over time, such as a different contract for each idea / invention.
Also I think it would be helpful to establish some additional criteria for an idea to be pursued, similar to what Evergreen has. Here is what Evergreen lists on their contact page for one to ask themselves before approaching them with an idea.
· Is your idea in the consumer goods area, especially household goods, personal care, and outdoor?
· Do you have evidence that your product will meet a compelling consumer need?
· Have you done a Google search on your product to see what similar products already exist?
· Is your invention's appeal broad enough to be sold at Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Home Depot, or your favorite grocery store?
· Is your invention something OTHER than a toy, game, sports training aid, article of clothing, or new food/drink product?
· Is your invention low-tech? Please note: we don't pursue inventions that are high-tech (medical devices, MP3-related, digital camera related, wireless/bluetooth/cellular, Internet-related, video game, etc.)
An additional criteria that I have adopted personally for my own pursuits is: Could the general public easily duplicate, (make or manufacture), the product themselves, avoiding the need to buy my product? This criteria caused me to drop one of three projects that I am working on myself.
Also, I am not suggesting adopting each and all of Evergreen’s criteria. This is just a general suggestion for setting up some broad criteria to follow.
Also I think it would be helpful to establish some additional criteria for an idea to be pursued, similar to what Evergreen has. Here is what Evergreen lists on their contact page for one to ask themselves before approaching them with an idea.
· Is your idea in the consumer goods area, especially household goods, personal care, and outdoor?
· Do you have evidence that your product will meet a compelling consumer need?
· Have you done a Google search on your product to see what similar products already exist?
· Is your invention's appeal broad enough to be sold at Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Home Depot, or your favorite grocery store?
· Is your invention something OTHER than a toy, game, sports training aid, article of clothing, or new food/drink product?
· Is your invention low-tech? Please note: we don't pursue inventions that are high-tech (medical devices, MP3-related, digital camera related, wireless/bluetooth/cellular, Internet-related, video game, etc.)
An additional criteria that I have adopted personally for my own pursuits is: Could the general public easily duplicate, (make or manufacture), the product themselves, avoiding the need to buy my product? This criteria caused me to drop one of three projects that I am working on myself.
Also, I am not suggesting adopting each and all of Evergreen’s criteria. This is just a general suggestion for setting up some broad criteria to follow.
Think
by inventor-x » Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:27 pm
-
inventor-x - Brown Belt
- Posts: 907
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:44 pm
There is a lot that needs to be worked out.
Number (8.) makes no sense to me.
Whatever the ground rules are for the think tank or whoever is a member of the group, the number (1) thing that the think tank needs to have in order to move forward is a front person with access to capital & manufacturing resources along with the ability to get celebrity endorsements or media exposure.
Advertising & Marketing need to be in place to promote this web site & an Idea/Product as well.
I would like to get involved so count me in for whatever help I can offer.
Or just my 2 cent opinion.
Number (8.) makes no sense to me.
Whatever the ground rules are for the think tank or whoever is a member of the group, the number (1) thing that the think tank needs to have in order to move forward is a front person with access to capital & manufacturing resources along with the ability to get celebrity endorsements or media exposure.
Advertising & Marketing need to be in place to promote this web site & an Idea/Product as well.
I would like to get involved so count me in for whatever help I can offer.
Or just my 2 cent opinion.
by mojo62 » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:24 am
-
mojo62 - Black Belt
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 4:54 pm
- Location: Texas
All,
I agree to items 1-12. Some legitimate questions and concerns have been raised about several of the items. Let's go ahead and start working it out. Item #6 of course, will be ( I think) the most difficult to hash out, but we can get it done. It is still not clear to me who the serious players are at this point. Also, it may be wise to do a provisional on two or three simple items and shop these to potential manufacturers, then build capitol for more complex inventions which may require more funding, I like the Roger Brown approach to inventing to start our group out.
Regards,
Jim
I agree to items 1-12. Some legitimate questions and concerns have been raised about several of the items. Let's go ahead and start working it out. Item #6 of course, will be ( I think) the most difficult to hash out, but we can get it done. It is still not clear to me who the serious players are at this point. Also, it may be wise to do a provisional on two or three simple items and shop these to potential manufacturers, then build capitol for more complex inventions which may require more funding, I like the Roger Brown approach to inventing to start our group out.
Regards,
Jim
by Average Inventor » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:28 am
-
Average Inventor - Brown Belt
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:52 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
I think #6 should be taken out because it's redundant as I commented before. #2 I feel the co-inventors agreement should be separated and made into #6 and the % should be clearly defined since I feel we will need a separate contract that clearly defines this. I think the agreement will need to say that any ideas that are used by the group are own 100% by the group and the group has total control of what is done with the invention. If it's not set up this way any of the co-inventors can sell the invention (legally) for whatever they want and can exclude all other even if they had limited input into the idea. This could cause huge problems and thus I think Scrupulous or another person well versed with contracts would be needed to properly construct an agreement to prevent this problem and allow for % ownership for the individual inventions we create within the group.
As Michelle has touched upon we should decide on how we would like to conduct major decisions. I feel we should just do majority rule and if we have an even number of members the last member inducted or maybe to vote will not be counted for that decision.
Also Michelle touched on the ideas that we presented and how they would be handled if they were not chosen. I think we should institute and set a time, maybe 3 months, for any ideas that are presented to be moved on by the group; if not than the idea originator can have full rights back and pursue it independently of the group if they so desire.
Voting on a moderator and admin can be done after the group is assembled. Any objections?
I think before we split into smaller groups we should try and get at least one project off the ground and combine all members in the effort to see how well we all work together and what we can accomplish.
I like DannyB's ideas about creating a template to hone in the ideas we would like to go after and to target our idea generation towards areas with the largest market.
I'm not sure if inventor-x has read what we are trying to build here so I think his/her comments are very coherent with where we are going or focused on. Maybe read the thread we are building from?
As Michelle has touched upon we should decide on how we would like to conduct major decisions. I feel we should just do majority rule and if we have an even number of members the last member inducted or maybe to vote will not be counted for that decision.
Also Michelle touched on the ideas that we presented and how they would be handled if they were not chosen. I think we should institute and set a time, maybe 3 months, for any ideas that are presented to be moved on by the group; if not than the idea originator can have full rights back and pursue it independently of the group if they so desire.
Voting on a moderator and admin can be done after the group is assembled. Any objections?
I think before we split into smaller groups we should try and get at least one project off the ground and combine all members in the effort to see how well we all work together and what we can accomplish.
I like DannyB's ideas about creating a template to hone in the ideas we would like to go after and to target our idea generation towards areas with the largest market.
I'm not sure if inventor-x has read what we are trying to build here so I think his/her comments are very coherent with where we are going or focused on. Maybe read the thread we are building from?
by Average Inventor » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:33 am
-
Average Inventor - Brown Belt
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:52 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
Last thing. I'll be at the INPEX show for the next few days so I don't think I'll have internet access therefore I won't be following up with people's suggestions until I get back. Scrup was doing a fantastic job of moving things along before maybe he will help organize things over the next few days. Road Show...What do you think? Roger Brown can you share some of your thoughts? I think we are making a lot of progress and hopefully soon we can get it all finished.
by inventor-x » Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:05 pm
-
inventor-x - Brown Belt
- Posts: 907
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:44 pm
Sorry I did not read all 19 pages of the other thread.
It was way to confusing & it did not seem like all the talking about the think tank was going on in the forum.
Some of the stuff you folks are trying to do sounds good, but do you folks put yourself in a third (3) party as to what you are saying or trying to do.
You want someone to join the team with NO experience with patents or Inventions to pass judgement on an idea/product - Wrong
You want that person to give the think tank 100% control of idea/patent -
Would you?
Guidance - Not control
The think tank should only get a flat % for each & every idea/product.
Co-Inventor - It sounds like your an Invention Submission Group.
The tink tank should be there to help people with there idea/product.
If the idea/product qualify's for assistance to help develop it, manufacture it, define it's market or help Advertising & Marketing patented products.
The Inventor & think tank want to make money & get exposure for patented products by Inventor pier's.
The Inventor think tank needs to be a place where Inventors get respect from Inventor pier's, that the Inventor, Public, Manufacture, Advertisng & Marketing companies will acknowledge has serious Inventors, NOT a place where silly crazy wacky idea/products come from.
The think tank needs to have Capital, Manufacture, Advertising & Marketing in place for just about any product.
The direction the think tank is going sounds like an Invetion Submission Company.
Someone in the group needs to be able to write & apply for Federal Grants.
Get ahold of Doug Hall & ask him how his Inventor think tank group works.
From what I got it was a group that a company goes to, pay's them money up front to solve a problem by coming up with a patent or idea that is tailor made for there needs.
If you want Inventors to come to you & the general public to acknowledge the think tank group has a serious web site for Advertising & Marketing patented idea/products then the group needs change it's focus.
Has an Inventor, I would not appoach the think tank at this time with my idea/product.
It was way to confusing & it did not seem like all the talking about the think tank was going on in the forum.
Some of the stuff you folks are trying to do sounds good, but do you folks put yourself in a third (3) party as to what you are saying or trying to do.
You want someone to join the team with NO experience with patents or Inventions to pass judgement on an idea/product - Wrong
You want that person to give the think tank 100% control of idea/patent -
Would you?
Guidance - Not control
The think tank should only get a flat % for each & every idea/product.
Co-Inventor - It sounds like your an Invention Submission Group.
The tink tank should be there to help people with there idea/product.
If the idea/product qualify's for assistance to help develop it, manufacture it, define it's market or help Advertising & Marketing patented products.
The Inventor & think tank want to make money & get exposure for patented products by Inventor pier's.
The Inventor think tank needs to be a place where Inventors get respect from Inventor pier's, that the Inventor, Public, Manufacture, Advertisng & Marketing companies will acknowledge has serious Inventors, NOT a place where silly crazy wacky idea/products come from.
The think tank needs to have Capital, Manufacture, Advertising & Marketing in place for just about any product.
The direction the think tank is going sounds like an Invetion Submission Company.
Someone in the group needs to be able to write & apply for Federal Grants.
Get ahold of Doug Hall & ask him how his Inventor think tank group works.
From what I got it was a group that a company goes to, pay's them money up front to solve a problem by coming up with a patent or idea that is tailor made for there needs.
If you want Inventors to come to you & the general public to acknowledge the think tank group has a serious web site for Advertising & Marketing patented idea/products then the group needs change it's focus.
Has an Inventor, I would not appoach the think tank at this time with my idea/product.