Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.
by Road Show » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:42 am
-
Road Show - Brown Belt
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:39 pm
- Location: SoCal
Antonio,
Your idea is a good idea. It is NOT an original idea. Parents everywhere are concerned about the safety of their children. When we read about abductions, our hearts break. There is no shortage of opportunity for someone with an inexpensive solution to this need. I am not surprised when you mention the hundreds of positive responses you received with your mall survey, one of the most powerful motivators is fear, and another is a desire for peace of mind. This combination of fear of loss, combined with a 'peace of mind' solution, is the essence of the insurance industry. I live in an affluent community, and many kids carry cell phones for the very reason you created your panic button. Yes, the cell phone is the ideal device for keeping in touch with your kids, but it does not address the need for an inexpensive & inconspicuous solution; therefore, your invention is intriguing.
Now that you have identified a need, confirmed through a mall survey that parents are still concerned with the safety of their children, and actually come up with a prototype and business method, it is time to do the very critical part of the analysis...try to sink the idea. YES...you must discover the 'fatal flaw' (if there is one) early or you'll end up with a TITANIC failure. Heather brought up a good point about the resources necessary to support the system, and who picks up that tab, and whether false alarms will overburden the 911 system so that people in real need cannot get the help. When you sell someone a "panic button", you are not selling them a product...you are selling them 'peace of mind'. Should your system fail to deliver peace of mind, your system will not succeed.
The biggest issue I have with a panic button is this. As a device to alert the 911 system, there is no way to identify the nature of the issue. It could be a false alarm, a heart attack, an abduction, a slip and fall, someone stuck on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere. How does the system provide the person with the help they need if they are just responding to a generic panic allert? What would make it different from a flare gun?
If the device is used to prevent an abduction, what would prevent an abductor from removing the device from the abductee? Even if you limit the scope of your invention to just this aspect, one could invent a little GPS microchip patch to be sewn into clothing, then it would be activated once the child goes missing. The system could call the cell phone of the subscriber to give the location of the device. However, just as bank robbers have learned to look for similar devices used to 'bait' bank money, and remove them from the cash, so will criminals become aware of these devices, and make their victims remove their clothing, or at least search for the devices and cut them out of the clothing.
The process of critical thinking is often overlooked by the inventor who has come up with a product idea that solves a real need. If the product addresses an urgent need, there is even more of an inclination to skip the critical thinking stages. Don't do it. The process of trying to sink the idea can prevent a catastrophic mistake, and it can also yield a more viable alternative than was originally conceived.
I hope this helps.
RSG
Your idea is a good idea. It is NOT an original idea. Parents everywhere are concerned about the safety of their children. When we read about abductions, our hearts break. There is no shortage of opportunity for someone with an inexpensive solution to this need. I am not surprised when you mention the hundreds of positive responses you received with your mall survey, one of the most powerful motivators is fear, and another is a desire for peace of mind. This combination of fear of loss, combined with a 'peace of mind' solution, is the essence of the insurance industry. I live in an affluent community, and many kids carry cell phones for the very reason you created your panic button. Yes, the cell phone is the ideal device for keeping in touch with your kids, but it does not address the need for an inexpensive & inconspicuous solution; therefore, your invention is intriguing.
Now that you have identified a need, confirmed through a mall survey that parents are still concerned with the safety of their children, and actually come up with a prototype and business method, it is time to do the very critical part of the analysis...try to sink the idea. YES...you must discover the 'fatal flaw' (if there is one) early or you'll end up with a TITANIC failure. Heather brought up a good point about the resources necessary to support the system, and who picks up that tab, and whether false alarms will overburden the 911 system so that people in real need cannot get the help. When you sell someone a "panic button", you are not selling them a product...you are selling them 'peace of mind'. Should your system fail to deliver peace of mind, your system will not succeed.
The biggest issue I have with a panic button is this. As a device to alert the 911 system, there is no way to identify the nature of the issue. It could be a false alarm, a heart attack, an abduction, a slip and fall, someone stuck on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere. How does the system provide the person with the help they need if they are just responding to a generic panic allert? What would make it different from a flare gun?
If the device is used to prevent an abduction, what would prevent an abductor from removing the device from the abductee? Even if you limit the scope of your invention to just this aspect, one could invent a little GPS microchip patch to be sewn into clothing, then it would be activated once the child goes missing. The system could call the cell phone of the subscriber to give the location of the device. However, just as bank robbers have learned to look for similar devices used to 'bait' bank money, and remove them from the cash, so will criminals become aware of these devices, and make their victims remove their clothing, or at least search for the devices and cut them out of the clothing.
The process of critical thinking is often overlooked by the inventor who has come up with a product idea that solves a real need. If the product addresses an urgent need, there is even more of an inclination to skip the critical thinking stages. Don't do it. The process of trying to sink the idea can prevent a catastrophic mistake, and it can also yield a more viable alternative than was originally conceived.
I hope this helps.
RSG
by Heather615 » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:32 am
- Heather615
- White Belt
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:47 pm
- Location: Charleston, SC
Road Show,
That is an excellent idea about having the device only activated if the child goes missing. I know that the cell phone companies can "find" your phone and activate it remotely somehow. That would be a wonderful resource to have should the worst happen and your child gets abducted. Like you said though, the abductor would then be aware such a device could be on the child and make them remove all clothing. I wonder how small the device could be made? If it could be made small enough maybe it could actually be put in the child's skin similar to the ID microchips that they put in pets. Then you may have the abductor cutting the child many times to try to find the device though? Maybe it could be randomly placed each time so that it would be known and marketed as impossible to find? I would get one placed in my children if I had the option. I bet if you could create such a device it would take forever to get FDA approval. Somebody should hurry and get started now.
That is an excellent idea about having the device only activated if the child goes missing. I know that the cell phone companies can "find" your phone and activate it remotely somehow. That would be a wonderful resource to have should the worst happen and your child gets abducted. Like you said though, the abductor would then be aware such a device could be on the child and make them remove all clothing. I wonder how small the device could be made? If it could be made small enough maybe it could actually be put in the child's skin similar to the ID microchips that they put in pets. Then you may have the abductor cutting the child many times to try to find the device though? Maybe it could be randomly placed each time so that it would be known and marketed as impossible to find? I would get one placed in my children if I had the option. I bet if you could create such a device it would take forever to get FDA approval. Somebody should hurry and get started now.
by Michelle » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:29 am
-
Michelle - Black Belt
- Posts: 1529
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:27 am
A big fear is that we will all one day be forced to wear RFID chips under our skin, can you say Big Brother.
I would fear for the tiny percentage of kids getting abducted 100% of the people would have to wear these chips or whatever else you come up with.
I read that some prisons are already forcing prisoners to wear chips. Yes, there's a good argument to use them, but please people, you are treading on some scary scary sounding stuff in the name of "child safety."
So if I take it to the logical conclusion, all kid would need to wear them and then soon be mandated from birth to have them, and for our safety, we'll all be tracked 100% of the time so we can be "safe".
JMHO.
I would fear for the tiny percentage of kids getting abducted 100% of the people would have to wear these chips or whatever else you come up with.
I read that some prisons are already forcing prisoners to wear chips. Yes, there's a good argument to use them, but please people, you are treading on some scary scary sounding stuff in the name of "child safety."
So if I take it to the logical conclusion, all kid would need to wear them and then soon be mandated from birth to have them, and for our safety, we'll all be tracked 100% of the time so we can be "safe".
JMHO.
by Heather615 » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:48 am
- Heather615
- White Belt
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:47 pm
- Location: Charleston, SC
It would be great for those that CHOOSE to do this.
I can't ever imagine that laws could ever be passed to make it mandatory for kids to have such a device. There are too many people afraid of "Big Brother" to probably ever have a majority of voters get it passed. People were furious about the government monitoring cell phones for national security. Personally though since I have nothing to hide I am all for monitoring my cell phone calls if it means I am safer in my own country and will save innocent lives. I personally would have no problem being "tracked" because again I have nothing to hide. But I think this kind of device could be an invaluable tool to find and save the thousands of kids that go missing for the people that CHOOSE to use it. I don't think it should be dismissed and not developed because of the fear of Big Brother or to potentially protect those that are doing wrong things. Our children are far more important and sadly it seems as if more and more children are abducted and the crimes against them are getting worse. I would choose to have this to keep my children safe and I would be willing to pay quite a hefty price tag for it as well.
I can't ever imagine that laws could ever be passed to make it mandatory for kids to have such a device. There are too many people afraid of "Big Brother" to probably ever have a majority of voters get it passed. People were furious about the government monitoring cell phones for national security. Personally though since I have nothing to hide I am all for monitoring my cell phone calls if it means I am safer in my own country and will save innocent lives. I personally would have no problem being "tracked" because again I have nothing to hide. But I think this kind of device could be an invaluable tool to find and save the thousands of kids that go missing for the people that CHOOSE to use it. I don't think it should be dismissed and not developed because of the fear of Big Brother or to potentially protect those that are doing wrong things. Our children are far more important and sadly it seems as if more and more children are abducted and the crimes against them are getting worse. I would choose to have this to keep my children safe and I would be willing to pay quite a hefty price tag for it as well.
Chicago AI Turnout
by P. Brown » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:45 pm
- P. Brown
- White Belt
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:38 pm
- Location: Ohio
Hi Tony and everyone else,
I'm back home from Chicago. Had a lot of fun and made lasting friendships. During interviews, a common phrase we all heard was "It's not the kind of product we're looking for." In other words, like Tony said, they have a plan. It's a production. It's not about the product or the inventor, it's about how to make the most money from high t.v. ratings. My product didn't even make it through the first round, and when I heard the dreaded words, "It's not ..." I was relieved in a way to be done with it! My friend, however, made it to the second interview. She's an older woman who's passionate about her product, which saves newborn babies' lives. The first judge (all judges were young and cocky) hesitatingly gave her a "yes" to move on the the next round. He asked her if she was going to show any excitement since he so kindly gave her a "yes". She lost it! She asked him if he was going to show any excitement for her product that saves babies' lives. He said that wasn't his responsibility, but because she has such fire, he's going to show some grace and allow her to move on.
When my friend interviewed with Clay, the executive producer who interviewed the second round inventors, he treated her the same as the first judge. Ridiculed and insulted her product, but then said "no". Clay got the wrath of Kay worse than the young protege. Her experience was definitely worse than mine, because all inventors are at the mercy of these judges who won't "get" your product. Fortunately, my first round judge, although young and a bit flaky, never insulted my product and was very kind to me. I busted in through the curtains a second time to argue my case, and he was still very kind to me!
You just have to think positive about the whole experience, thinking we're all better off not having our inventions and ourselves humiliated on national t.v.! They do it plenty enough during the interviews. I urge anyone new to this board who is planning on attending any future auditions, put on some thick skin. While the other inventors "get" your invention(s), the judges probably won't! They know what they're looking for, it's just a secret to us but hopefully, just maybe your invention will fit that mold, whatever it is.
Thanks Tony for answering my question about the retail marketability of your product. Sounds pretty awesome. I have 3 children under the age of 8, and 3 years ago had a nightmare about one of my children being kidnapped. I woke up determined to find a solution. All I could find was this huge, ugly wristwatch that locked onto your child's wrist. Yuck! I met with my patent attorney about doing exactly what you invented, but when we did the patent search, we found different types of panic alarm patents from, I think, Hawaii or California, can't remember. Anyway, I resolved to just wait until it was on the market. I'm curious about the alarm button. Do you have to hold it down for 2-3 seconds? I have an idea for you to consider adding to your small device, a fool-proof button that would've set my idea apart from the other gps panic alarms. Never pursued it, obviously, but I'm thrilled to be writing to the one who did! Your product isn't the kind of product AI is looking for ... it's just too good.
I'm back home from Chicago. Had a lot of fun and made lasting friendships. During interviews, a common phrase we all heard was "It's not the kind of product we're looking for." In other words, like Tony said, they have a plan. It's a production. It's not about the product or the inventor, it's about how to make the most money from high t.v. ratings. My product didn't even make it through the first round, and when I heard the dreaded words, "It's not ..." I was relieved in a way to be done with it! My friend, however, made it to the second interview. She's an older woman who's passionate about her product, which saves newborn babies' lives. The first judge (all judges were young and cocky) hesitatingly gave her a "yes" to move on the the next round. He asked her if she was going to show any excitement since he so kindly gave her a "yes". She lost it! She asked him if he was going to show any excitement for her product that saves babies' lives. He said that wasn't his responsibility, but because she has such fire, he's going to show some grace and allow her to move on.
When my friend interviewed with Clay, the executive producer who interviewed the second round inventors, he treated her the same as the first judge. Ridiculed and insulted her product, but then said "no". Clay got the wrath of Kay worse than the young protege. Her experience was definitely worse than mine, because all inventors are at the mercy of these judges who won't "get" your product. Fortunately, my first round judge, although young and a bit flaky, never insulted my product and was very kind to me. I busted in through the curtains a second time to argue my case, and he was still very kind to me!
You just have to think positive about the whole experience, thinking we're all better off not having our inventions and ourselves humiliated on national t.v.! They do it plenty enough during the interviews. I urge anyone new to this board who is planning on attending any future auditions, put on some thick skin. While the other inventors "get" your invention(s), the judges probably won't! They know what they're looking for, it's just a secret to us but hopefully, just maybe your invention will fit that mold, whatever it is.
Thanks Tony for answering my question about the retail marketability of your product. Sounds pretty awesome. I have 3 children under the age of 8, and 3 years ago had a nightmare about one of my children being kidnapped. I woke up determined to find a solution. All I could find was this huge, ugly wristwatch that locked onto your child's wrist. Yuck! I met with my patent attorney about doing exactly what you invented, but when we did the patent search, we found different types of panic alarm patents from, I think, Hawaii or California, can't remember. Anyway, I resolved to just wait until it was on the market. I'm curious about the alarm button. Do you have to hold it down for 2-3 seconds? I have an idea for you to consider adding to your small device, a fool-proof button that would've set my idea apart from the other gps panic alarms. Never pursued it, obviously, but I'm thrilled to be writing to the one who did! Your product isn't the kind of product AI is looking for ... it's just too good.
THANK YOU
by antoniodiwplaca » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:05 pm
- antoniodiwplaca
- White Belt
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:38 am
- Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Once again I have to express my sincere gratitude to everyone that has posted their responses to my original posting. At the same time for one reason or another people's perceptions of how the device is used as well as who will be using the device is suddenly myopic. So I am going to try to address everything in this posting.
1. As an ex-United States Marine, I have been trained to think beyond the box -- especially because the lives of my men (and women) and others depended upon it. Therefore, before I pursued development of the device I invested a considerable amount of research. That means I did everything possible to investigate if a similar device existed, and if it did how similar was it, what had been patented, and so on.
2. As a medical case manager for high profile cases (celebrities and so on) the extent of my research was extended even further. In thirty (30) years we haven't lost a case or a patient and that is because we leave no stone unturned and in the courts we not only pursue our case, but we also assume the role of the defence insuring that we haven't overlooked anything. Therefore, we have never lost a case.
3. Although I found a similar device (if a Ford can be compared to a Toyota) there were a considerable number of disadvantages to the device. A) It was extremely expensive to purchase and there were monthly fees making it entirely unaffordable to most people. B) The device was confusing to use and in an emergency confusion is usually the first thing to set in (especially if you experiencing a heart attack). C) The device was always on and that meant additional costs including but not limited to constantly replacing batteries.
4. At the same time that I was developing this device, DISNEY and SPRINT both were preparing to annouce their program which permitted parents and others to track their children and/or friends via their cell phones. The problem with this arrangement is that a cell phone has a short battery life while on and can also be easily damaged. Secondly, a cell phone can be tracked to a location, but it can't narrow movement to as little as fifty feet. Therefore, if a child left a playground and was abducted and the individual disposed of the cell phone, the parent would have no idea that the child wasn't at the location of the cell phone because it wouldn't show that the cell phone was just laying in a bush.
5. Once I pointed out these problems to DISNEY and SPRINT suddenly the entire "campaign" appeared to be scrapped and very little has been heard about it since. Too, of course there was a $10.00 a month charge for each unit being tracked. Moreover, if a parent can track a device, so can a hacker.
6. Once I ascertained all of the problems with their system and the existing systems, with the help of child psychologists, and a host of other individuals, I devised this system.
7. Key to the system is that it is not ever using battery life because IT IS NOT ON until it has been activated in an emergency.
8. It can not be accidentily activated because you must slip your finger under a cover to activated the device. Further, when activated, the perpetrator doesn't know what you're doing since all he/she sees is your hands in your pocket. And since a perpetrator is looking to dispose of the cell phone, they are not going to be looking for that additional device.
9. Regardless, it is not created just for children and that is what most seem to be concentrating on. The device is created for use by children AND teenagers, adults and senior citizens. Although there are "alarm" systems that seniors can use at home, once they leave the home the system is no longer feasible. And even if they have a cell phone, when a person is in a panic, dialing 911 failed 83 times out of 100. All because the individual was in a panic. In the case of patients having a heart attack, they couldn't dial at all. So what is the good of a cell phone if you can't dial it let alone see to dial it.
10. In the case of children owning the device, they will be trained how to use it and when to use it by instructional videos that come with the device. Most importantly, with the help of child psychologists, if a child is approached by a stranger, but the stranger's attempts are thrwarted, a child will usually not bring it up later to his/her parents. Therefore, the individual now has the opportunity to strike again. Moreover, if the individual does strike, usually the initially intended victim is not going to associate the identity of the individual with the person that approached them; so the individual continues to move about all the longer undetected. Thus, we designed the instructional video to encourage children to press the button if a stranger approached them and suddenly asked them to help them look for a lost cat or dog, get a candy bar with them, or even take a ride. Even though the child runs, PUSH THE PANIC button because when police respond to the alarm, they will instantly be able to approach the child and get a description of the culprit before he/she now has the chance to actually abduct a child. If they can get to the perpetrator before he/she can execute a successful abduction, you have now narrowed the possibility of successful abductions.
11. To "Road Show." I believe now I have answered your question in regard to your comments about the law firm that allegedly is involved in representing the show. But further, from the time we were handed the announcement that we had made it to the next round and the time that the Asian judge contacted us, there was absolutely no possible way for the judges to have done any research because my research alone took almost a year to perform and that was above and beyond any research they could have done in five minutes. Likewise, the development of this device would not have created a "conflict of interest" because we were not suing ATT or NEXTEL. If a lawfirm represents ATT and NEXTEL, and you state that they then repesented us, wouldn't a conflict already exist since they are already representing two different cell phone carriers?
12. The issue here is that the judges already had a very distinct idea of who they were looking for just as I have a very distinct idea of whom I am looking for when seeking an associate to work with me. I make those needs and limitations known immediately since that would help narrow the "playing field" and would also help anyone applying judge whether or not the job would be suitable for them. Simply, since we travel a great deal, an associate who has a family and three children might find it difficult to be away from the family for weeks, if not months working on a client case. So he/she would know not to apply. And the same goes for AMERICAN INVENTOR. I know now -- from inside sources that are helping us -- that AMERICAN INVENTOR knew exactly what they were looking for and they didn't tell anyone. Further, the reason they didn't walk through the line and dismiss people was because they allegedly needed everyone in the room for "visual" effects. If they had dismissed everyone that didn't meet their criteria, they wouldn't have had anything to tape. And because only 1/4th of the people showed up this time to audition, they had to keep people around and that is what upset me. They used us, they lied to us, and all for fourteen (14) long hours without food or drinks.
And why would we need AI to launch such a product? The reason we sought to launch it through AI was because we wanted to help not only those organizations we were dedicated to serving, but work with people we thought we could trust. If anyone has approached the many companies that say they will get your invention to market, you will find instead that they only take their $10,000 or $15,000 and nothing more becomes of the idea. That is not to say that not all firms are not reputable; but it appears there are a large number out there just taking everybody's money. Further, it was our way of letting the "world" know we were on our way to helping others. If by our appearance people contacted us for aid and support, then our outreach had been expanded and that is what it is all about -- helping other people.
Gosh I hope that helps answer everyone's questions, but if somehow I have failed, please don't hesitate to write. Notwithstanding, remember: the device is for children AND teenagers, adults and senior citizens. TOO, the device is not on until it is activated preventing anyone for tracking your child, adult or senior citizen's movements. Lastly, yes there is a battery tester function which permits the owner to determine when the battery needs to be replaced. And at least every year it should be replaced; and that cost is usually about five ($5.00) dollars.
Sincerely, Antonio Di
by Road Show » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:32 pm
-
Road Show - Brown Belt
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:39 pm
- Location: SoCal
Antonio,
I appreciate your detailed response to all the posts commenting on your invention. I think you are a bright and thorough individual...so were the guys who built the Titanic, and then billed her as "unsinkable". Your response is nothing more than a defense of your invention; therefore, I must conclude that you either missed the point of my post, or that you refuse to acknowledge the validity in trying to get your system to fail. You said:
How can you assume that the perpetrator is going to be looking for a cell phone to dispose of? Some will, some won't. Isn't it also an assumption that the perp won't be looking for "that additional device"? Like I mentioned, there are electronic 'baits' used by banks to locate bank robbers. Many bank robbers know to look for the baits and dispose of them to avoid capture. Your device sounds like it is easily discovered by an abductor and disposed of. A child, when confronted with someone who threatens to kill them if they don't hand over their panic button, will fold like a cheap lawn chair and hand it over. This is a real problem. The more publicity your device gets, the more ineffective it becomes in the case of child abductions.
Another potential problem that I pointed out is how the 911 system is ill-equipped to deal with generic alerts. Not being able to distinguish an abduction, whereby a police unit rolls, with a hear attack, whereby an ambulance is dispatched, can be a real issue, and a real waste of resources. I guess all of us inventors suffer from the same affliction, being blinded by our vision of our "successful" invention.
RSG
I appreciate your detailed response to all the posts commenting on your invention. I think you are a bright and thorough individual...so were the guys who built the Titanic, and then billed her as "unsinkable". Your response is nothing more than a defense of your invention; therefore, I must conclude that you either missed the point of my post, or that you refuse to acknowledge the validity in trying to get your system to fail. You said:
8. It can not be accidentily activated because you must slip your finger under a cover to activated the device. Further, when activated, the perpetrator doesn't know what you're doing since all he/she sees is your hands in your pocket. And since a perpetrator is looking to dispose of the cell phone, they are not going to be looking for that additional device.
How can you assume that the perpetrator is going to be looking for a cell phone to dispose of? Some will, some won't. Isn't it also an assumption that the perp won't be looking for "that additional device"? Like I mentioned, there are electronic 'baits' used by banks to locate bank robbers. Many bank robbers know to look for the baits and dispose of them to avoid capture. Your device sounds like it is easily discovered by an abductor and disposed of. A child, when confronted with someone who threatens to kill them if they don't hand over their panic button, will fold like a cheap lawn chair and hand it over. This is a real problem. The more publicity your device gets, the more ineffective it becomes in the case of child abductions.
Another potential problem that I pointed out is how the 911 system is ill-equipped to deal with generic alerts. Not being able to distinguish an abduction, whereby a police unit rolls, with a hear attack, whereby an ambulance is dispatched, can be a real issue, and a real waste of resources. I guess all of us inventors suffer from the same affliction, being blinded by our vision of our "successful" invention.
RSG
by Michelle » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:42 pm
-
Michelle - Black Belt
- Posts: 1529
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:27 am
Road Show wrote:I guess all of us inventors suffer from the same affliction, being blinded by our vision of our "successful" invention.
RSG
I can't help myself since this is such a good setup for this great article:
Top 10 Lies of Inventors
http://www.americaninventorspot.com/top ... _inventors
by Michelle » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:48 pm
-
Michelle - Black Belt
- Posts: 1529
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:27 am
I found this article from Ape Apr in the comments. I thought it was interesting as it says pretty much what Antonio has been saying about things done to craft the American Inventor television show story.
The original post and thread is here:
http://www.americaninventorspot.com/sea ... ors?page=2
* * * *
From what I understand, you dont have to wait at all. When we didnt get a yes to move on (6 hours ago, I am in Chicago now), we were handed a paper that read...
"As you have not been selected to move forward in the competition, you are under NO obligation to the show or ABC with respect to rights in your invention, and you are free to independently pursue any other avenues for marketing and distributing your invention."
That is what I have right here.
After we didnt make it today I got on this site. Now I am actually happy to have not made it. It makes me want to work harder to market our invention so we can be so-called "American Inventor rejects that made it!"
We have a tool that has some serious global potential. I mean we have no competition in the field and there is such a great need for what we have to offer. I was seriously confused because I saw some of the junk they accepted... I mean, did it really have global potential? Could they really make that much money off of it? My answer was no.
When we were waiting in line outside in the rain (for about 8 hours)at the Navy Pier, I started to think...
This is all for a show. I walked around and there was plenty of room to house us. We were friggin freezing and wet and the line barely moved! I went to a gift shop and the lady says she cant understand why they didnt bring us inside??!??!?!
haha joke was on us.
Thanks to everyone for hearing what you have to say about the show, I feel better knowing everyone isnt all about it.
April
The original post and thread is here:
http://www.americaninventorspot.com/sea ... ors?page=2
* * * *
From what I understand, you dont have to wait at all. When we didnt get a yes to move on (6 hours ago, I am in Chicago now), we were handed a paper that read...
"As you have not been selected to move forward in the competition, you are under NO obligation to the show or ABC with respect to rights in your invention, and you are free to independently pursue any other avenues for marketing and distributing your invention."
That is what I have right here.
After we didnt make it today I got on this site. Now I am actually happy to have not made it. It makes me want to work harder to market our invention so we can be so-called "American Inventor rejects that made it!"
We have a tool that has some serious global potential. I mean we have no competition in the field and there is such a great need for what we have to offer. I was seriously confused because I saw some of the junk they accepted... I mean, did it really have global potential? Could they really make that much money off of it? My answer was no.
When we were waiting in line outside in the rain (for about 8 hours)at the Navy Pier, I started to think...
This is all for a show. I walked around and there was plenty of room to house us. We were friggin freezing and wet and the line barely moved! I went to a gift shop and the lady says she cant understand why they didnt bring us inside??!??!?!
haha joke was on us.
Thanks to everyone for hearing what you have to say about the show, I feel better knowing everyone isnt all about it.
April
Think positive
by P. Brown » Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:36 am
- P. Brown
- White Belt
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:38 pm
- Location: Ohio
Speak for yourself, Michelle, I had a great time standing in the cold rain for 8 hours (sarcastic tone)!
In all seriousness, we need to be thankful that we still have 100% rights to our products. What do we have to fear?
Roadshow, Tony has a great product, but your evaluation on its secrecy is correct. If the alarm would get too much publicity, perps, indeed, would know exactly what to search for on the child. Perps watch the American Inventor, too!!
Given Tony's background and understanding on the topic, I can only assume he's already thought the 911 issue out, he just hasn't and possibly won't give any further details about his safety device, and I don't blame him.
Lastly, congratulations Michelle on making it so far in the auditions. I commend you on having such a positive attitude and you'll surely go far with it!
In all seriousness, we need to be thankful that we still have 100% rights to our products. What do we have to fear?
Roadshow, Tony has a great product, but your evaluation on its secrecy is correct. If the alarm would get too much publicity, perps, indeed, would know exactly what to search for on the child. Perps watch the American Inventor, too!!
Given Tony's background and understanding on the topic, I can only assume he's already thought the 911 issue out, he just hasn't and possibly won't give any further details about his safety device, and I don't blame him.
Lastly, congratulations Michelle on making it so far in the auditions. I commend you on having such a positive attitude and you'll surely go far with it!
33 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4