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
by bottleslingguy » Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:56 am
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
MOPAR78 wrote:Good day sir.
You already said that.
by bottleslingguy » Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:16 am
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
Mopar, it's your funeral. You're getting upset because you don't seem to be able to answer my honest questions concerning YOUR product. It doesn't seem as though you know and/or understand it very well. At the start of all this you said you welcomed questions and feedback in order for people to understand your product. Turns out not even you understand it very well and/or not have delved into areas you don't want to go.
To anyone else reading this: this is how Confirmational Bias works. You ignore certain issues that could actually sink your baby. It's a hard pill to swallow (especially when you've spent some money on it), but you have to be able to handle anything that comes your way because that is how it works in the real world. If you want to delude yourself and play nicey-nice with other inventors, that's fine. But if you want to be serious about your product and actually get some where with it you won't shy away from the tough questions.
To anyone else reading this: this is how Confirmational Bias works. You ignore certain issues that could actually sink your baby. It's a hard pill to swallow (especially when you've spent some money on it), but you have to be able to handle anything that comes your way because that is how it works in the real world. If you want to delude yourself and play nicey-nice with other inventors, that's fine. But if you want to be serious about your product and actually get some where with it you won't shy away from the tough questions.
by Michelle » Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:52 am
-
Michelle - Black Belt
- Posts: 1529
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:27 am
Hey guys:
I think we are done with this thread. Thanks everyone for your feedback.
BSG, you raised and shared your concerns with the product. To that extent, it was very constructive. It is now up to the inventor to determine the merits of your comments and use it as he sees best.
I think the tone of this is getting out of hand.
It started out as a request for productive and helpful comments and questions. He got some. Now, let's let the inventor do what he thinks best with it, ok?
The forums are to give helpful and positive support and critique. No battles, ok?
Thanks all,
Michelle
I think we are done with this thread. Thanks everyone for your feedback.
BSG, you raised and shared your concerns with the product. To that extent, it was very constructive. It is now up to the inventor to determine the merits of your comments and use it as he sees best.
I think the tone of this is getting out of hand.
It started out as a request for productive and helpful comments and questions. He got some. Now, let's let the inventor do what he thinks best with it, ok?
The forums are to give helpful and positive support and critique. No battles, ok?
Thanks all,
Michelle
by bottleslingguy » Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:16 am
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
No battle, my dear. Hopefully it was a learning experience for the other inventors who need to see how easy it is to make mistakes and overlook inherent flaws. This was a classic case of Confirmational Bias as we've discussed in other posts. It really is something real and people need to know how to recognize it. It can be the death knell for many inventions. Like I said before, you need to be ready willing and able to walk away from your ideas when the numbers and/or logistics don't work out. But hey, who am I to try to point that out?
by CriterionD » Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:56 pm
-
CriterionD - Blue Belt
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:23 pm
- Location: Tempe, AZ
Apparently, there was a whole thread on this here months ago.
viewtopic.php?t=2022&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10
No need for MOPAR to get too discouraged, invention and marketing are never easy. He should hopefully be able to take lessons learned here - and either tweak his product through new inventions in order to compete with the competition, or he should simply heed these lessons on his next project. The more adversity met, the more rewarding the end can be.
Personally, the VIP system @ odorlesstoilets.com, IMO seems to be much better than its competition, at least in theory. The homepage addresses that it operates quietly, does not involve renevation and any sort of complicated installation (I am not sure how Ventex compares in this sense, their website does not address that issue), and the air taken from the toilet bowl is not recirculated - inside or outside. I couldn't say for sure, but I would bet that if sophisiticated research were done, these three issues would be most important or at least among the most important to would be buyers.
http://www.odorlesstoilets.com/index.html
Looking over the rest of this thread once again, I would like to just add some slight additional feedback for MOPAR and any other inventors which might happen to come across the thread in the future -
This is good, but you want to sound more convincing. Like you have spent countless days and hours brainstorming and testing the prototype and none have come to light
Aside from feedback BSG provides - A popular misconception among inventors is that obtaining a patent is evidence that an invention is marketable. There are millions of patents out there, many disclose products that have never made it to the marketplace. A patent can be extremely valuable if you have a product which would otherwise be marketable, but it does not make you special by any means whatsoever.
Also, may prospective licensees will be more interested in relevant endorsements and feedback received from would-be clients than the extent of your patent protection - patent protection is a pass fail thing and they can possibly tweak it. They want some evidence that you are not looking past barriers to marketability, "would people pay X dollars for this price" is the main question they are asking themselves.
There is a clear difference between bashing and providing feedback. If you cannot explain why your product is more useful to a would-be user, then you don't have anything to sell.
I apologize, but this is hilarious. The USPTO does not consider marketability or the quality of product function when approving a patent. You should be aware that 90 something percent of big name products that have been recalled due to serious safety issues were likely patented, and you should be aware that the USPTO has granted at least one patent in the past disclosing an invention utilizing a non-insulated electric circuit inside of a diaper.
Maybe, but it would not necessarily be foolish. First you should be able to get a reasonable idea of whether or not your patent will issue if you conduct sufficient competitive research. Second, research and development is often required to better suit a product to customers' needs. In fact, good research and development often can mean the difference between a large money maker and a loss of money, and often leads to tweaks in product design which you do want protected by a patent. In your situation, you have clear competition including competition from a well financed company, so I would assume that time is of the essence for you....unless perhaps you have good reason to believe that your patent will issue and that you will be able to sue your competition (despite that your competition appears to be ahead of you)
viewtopic.php?t=2022&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10
No need for MOPAR to get too discouraged, invention and marketing are never easy. He should hopefully be able to take lessons learned here - and either tweak his product through new inventions in order to compete with the competition, or he should simply heed these lessons on his next project. The more adversity met, the more rewarding the end can be.
Personally, the VIP system @ odorlesstoilets.com, IMO seems to be much better than its competition, at least in theory. The homepage addresses that it operates quietly, does not involve renevation and any sort of complicated installation (I am not sure how Ventex compares in this sense, their website does not address that issue), and the air taken from the toilet bowl is not recirculated - inside or outside. I couldn't say for sure, but I would bet that if sophisiticated research were done, these three issues would be most important or at least among the most important to would be buyers.
http://www.odorlesstoilets.com/index.html
Looking over the rest of this thread once again, I would like to just add some slight additional feedback for MOPAR and any other inventors which might happen to come across the thread in the future -
MOPAR78 wrote: Do you know for sure if there are any inherent bugs or potential hazards? 6. None found yet.
This is good, but you want to sound more convincing. Like you have spent countless days and hours brainstorming and testing the prototype and none have come to light
MOPAR78 wrote: Maybe some sort of endorsement would help? 12.When the patent is issued, that should be endorsement enough.
Aside from feedback BSG provides - A popular misconception among inventors is that obtaining a patent is evidence that an invention is marketable. There are millions of patents out there, many disclose products that have never made it to the marketplace. A patent can be extremely valuable if you have a product which would otherwise be marketable, but it does not make you special by any means whatsoever.
Also, may prospective licensees will be more interested in relevant endorsements and feedback received from would-be clients than the extent of your patent protection - patent protection is a pass fail thing and they can possibly tweak it. They want some evidence that you are not looking past barriers to marketability, "would people pay X dollars for this price" is the main question they are asking themselves.
Pit yours against the VIP and show how/why yours is better. 28.I do not feel the need for product or idea bashing as some people do. I have better character than that.
There is a clear difference between bashing and providing feedback. If you cannot explain why your product is more useful to a would-be user, then you don't have anything to sell.
How can you assure me, after all the extra expense, that it won't blow up my house? 32.Again, I am sure the USPTO will not approve any unsafe items.
I apologize, but this is hilarious. The USPTO does not consider marketability or the quality of product function when approving a patent. You should be aware that 90 something percent of big name products that have been recalled due to serious safety issues were likely patented, and you should be aware that the USPTO has granted at least one patent in the past disclosing an invention utilizing a non-insulated electric circuit inside of a diaper.
The theory has been proven through the working proto type. As mentioned, the invention is in its early stages. Once a patent is issued, then that would be the time to do a comprehensive research and development. Once would be foolish to spend that kind of money up front without an approved non-provisional patent in hand.
Maybe, but it would not necessarily be foolish. First you should be able to get a reasonable idea of whether or not your patent will issue if you conduct sufficient competitive research. Second, research and development is often required to better suit a product to customers' needs. In fact, good research and development often can mean the difference between a large money maker and a loss of money, and often leads to tweaks in product design which you do want protected by a patent. In your situation, you have clear competition including competition from a well financed company, so I would assume that time is of the essence for you....unless perhaps you have good reason to believe that your patent will issue and that you will be able to sue your competition (despite that your competition appears to be ahead of you)