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
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by Mark Reyland » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:19 am
- Mark Reyland
- Green Belt
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:31 am
Don’t blame me….It’s the Law
Many times we see inventors work really hard at their ideas and come up with something that can’t actually be made. My wife for example is always asking me to do things that defy the laws of physics. When I tell her it can’t be done she gets frustrated.
Inventors often suffer from that same problem in the process of taking that great idea from their heads to their hands. So what is the fix? It’s simple, understand the laws that govern creation and invent within them.
As an example let’s look at the most well know set of these laws…The laws of motion.
Obviously the most well know sheriff in the land of physical law was Sir Isaac Newton. Newton was a tall slender gentleman with a love of mathematics who lived from 1643 to 1727….long before calculators & computers. Yet he managed to see things in the world around him and communicate them in such a way that it allowed us all to understand the intangible laws governing our universe
.
As an inventor motion is often a vital component of the transformation between innovation and invention. Many times this one principal is what makes the invention possible. More importantly understanding the laws of motion allows us as inventors to see the boundaries we have to invent within.
In Newton’s case he outlined 3 laws that will forever dictate what we as inventors can archive within our inventions.
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. (Simply put means if an object is moved from its original path of motion it will assume the same path as the force that moved it)
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
These 3 simple laws not only govern our universe they govern our daily actions. We don’t often think about the hundreds of times a day we come in contact with these principals - but as inventors we need to keep in mind these laws, and many more just like them govern what we can invent, and more importantly what can’t be invented.
Many times we see inventors work really hard at their ideas and come up with something that can’t actually be made. My wife for example is always asking me to do things that defy the laws of physics. When I tell her it can’t be done she gets frustrated.
Inventors often suffer from that same problem in the process of taking that great idea from their heads to their hands. So what is the fix? It’s simple, understand the laws that govern creation and invent within them.
As an example let’s look at the most well know set of these laws…The laws of motion.
Obviously the most well know sheriff in the land of physical law was Sir Isaac Newton. Newton was a tall slender gentleman with a love of mathematics who lived from 1643 to 1727….long before calculators & computers. Yet he managed to see things in the world around him and communicate them in such a way that it allowed us all to understand the intangible laws governing our universe
.
As an inventor motion is often a vital component of the transformation between innovation and invention. Many times this one principal is what makes the invention possible. More importantly understanding the laws of motion allows us as inventors to see the boundaries we have to invent within.
In Newton’s case he outlined 3 laws that will forever dictate what we as inventors can archive within our inventions.
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. (Simply put means if an object is moved from its original path of motion it will assume the same path as the force that moved it)
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
These 3 simple laws not only govern our universe they govern our daily actions. We don’t often think about the hundreds of times a day we come in contact with these principals - but as inventors we need to keep in mind these laws, and many more just like them govern what we can invent, and more importantly what can’t be invented.
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by Mark Reyland » Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:10 am
- Mark Reyland
- Green Belt
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:31 am
Hey ...That's my idea!
You have a great idea, but is it already out there? Did someone make and market a version of that idea long before you had your eureka moment?. Maybe….It happens far more often than you may think - but not always because someone stole you idea.
Why? – partly because of the way our brain works.
Picture this, a row of buckets, each containing a small, but different memory. As you travel through life your brain takes bits and pieces of the things you see and (consciously or unconsciously) creates “memories” to put into those buckets. Maybe just little fragments that eventually add up to a mental image.
When confronted with a problem to solve our brain instinctively reaches for the memory in the bucket that best fits as a solution – often manifesting itself as what we assume is an original thought. When it’s actually just an original memory, or compilation of memories banded together by our brain. This mental process can lead us to believe we “thought” of that solution for the first time, when in fact we simply remembered it.
Fast forward a day, a week, a month….you see that same “solution” on a store shelf in the form of a product and now all of a sudden someone stole your idea - but did they really?
I’m not saying this is what happens every time you have this situation. What I am saying is that understanding how our brains collect and distribute data helps us understand how this situation appears to happen so often.
We are human, and I’m 100% sure two people can, and do, have the same ideas sometimes. I’m also sure sometimes one person acts on the idea and one doesn’t.
So next time you see a product or invention you ”thought of” developed by someone else, at least consider the possibility your brain may have mixed up its buckets. .
You have a great idea, but is it already out there? Did someone make and market a version of that idea long before you had your eureka moment?. Maybe….It happens far more often than you may think - but not always because someone stole you idea.
Why? – partly because of the way our brain works.
Picture this, a row of buckets, each containing a small, but different memory. As you travel through life your brain takes bits and pieces of the things you see and (consciously or unconsciously) creates “memories” to put into those buckets. Maybe just little fragments that eventually add up to a mental image.
When confronted with a problem to solve our brain instinctively reaches for the memory in the bucket that best fits as a solution – often manifesting itself as what we assume is an original thought. When it’s actually just an original memory, or compilation of memories banded together by our brain. This mental process can lead us to believe we “thought” of that solution for the first time, when in fact we simply remembered it.
Fast forward a day, a week, a month….you see that same “solution” on a store shelf in the form of a product and now all of a sudden someone stole your idea - but did they really?
I’m not saying this is what happens every time you have this situation. What I am saying is that understanding how our brains collect and distribute data helps us understand how this situation appears to happen so often.
We are human, and I’m 100% sure two people can, and do, have the same ideas sometimes. I’m also sure sometimes one person acts on the idea and one doesn’t.
So next time you see a product or invention you ”thought of” developed by someone else, at least consider the possibility your brain may have mixed up its buckets. .
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by jackbnimble56 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:04 am
-
jackbnimble56 - Brown Belt
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:28 am
- Location: Massachusetts
With respect to the new "Barbie Cam" doll, this is what I posted at Edison Nation:
http://www.edisonnation.com/forums/ever ... ard-really
"This is a perfect example of how even companies that have been doing this for many years sometimes get it wrong. When they do it costs them millions of dollars. When an individual inventor makes this kind of mistake it can cost everything you own.
How do you handle this dilemma? Do you make a list of all the possible uses? Ask your family and friends? And do you take the time to design in “fixes” or “the work around” to these unintentional uses?"
If you follow my EN thread on this you'll see that this isn't the first time the folks at Mattel made a major gaffe with one of their toys. This is a product that should have been cancelled at the idea stage! It's unfathomable to me that this ever made it onto store shelves. What WERE they thinking? Can "Johnny Switchblade, Adventure Punk" really be far behind??
Jack
http://www.edisonnation.com/forums/ever ... ard-really
"This is a perfect example of how even companies that have been doing this for many years sometimes get it wrong. When they do it costs them millions of dollars. When an individual inventor makes this kind of mistake it can cost everything you own.
How do you handle this dilemma? Do you make a list of all the possible uses? Ask your family and friends? And do you take the time to design in “fixes” or “the work around” to these unintentional uses?"
If you follow my EN thread on this you'll see that this isn't the first time the folks at Mattel made a major gaffe with one of their toys. This is a product that should have been cancelled at the idea stage! It's unfathomable to me that this ever made it onto store shelves. What WERE they thinking? Can "Johnny Switchblade, Adventure Punk" really be far behind??
Jack
Nimble Jack Enterprises - Innovative Solutions to Everyday Problems
To purchase the Magic Toob product visit: http://www.magictoob.com/
To purchase the Magic Toob product visit: http://www.magictoob.com/
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by Mark Reyland » Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:31 am
- Mark Reyland
- Green Belt
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:31 am
We Patented Christmas....
Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanza…and Happy Holidays! It doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s all a celebration of one kind or another manifested in song and symbol. Of course, where there is song and symbol, there is something worthy of protecting.
My good friend Tom Gallagher sent out this list of Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents of those age old holiday memories we take for granted. I found it interesting and thought you may too.
Copyrights
Arguably the most famous Christmas songs of all time, "White Christmas”, was written by Irving Berlin and published in 1942. Most people don’t realize the copyright for "White Christmas" has a duration of 95 years. So if you play it or sing it in public before 2037 you’re actually infringing.
"Jingle Bells", on the other hand, was published in 1857 under the title "One Horse Open Sleigh". It is now in the public domain so feel free to sing it any place you like.
Trademarks
Many Christmas related phrases have been woven into our lexicon of language for many years, we often take them for granted as simply a phrase we are free to use, and sometimes they are – but in some cases they are actually protected and not open to public use. Here are a few examples
“KRIS KRINGLE'S” Didn’t start out as the jolly old guy; it was first registered as a service mark in 1974 for use as a restaurant name, but has since been abandoned.
“RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER” was registered in 1984 for filmstrips, coloring books, stuffed toys, and Christmas ornaments, among other goods. The registration was renewed in 2005 and is still in force.
“NORTH POLE” Has nothing to do with Christmas at all – it was registered in 2001 for magnets for therapeutic use to be worn as bracelets, arm bands, or knee bands and wraps containing magnets used for pain relief. The registration is still in force.
“FROSTY THE SNOWMAN” No one thought to register this mark until 2001, when it was first registered to cover motion picture films, videos, records, and CDs among a long list of goods. The registration is still in force.
“THE LITTLE DRUMMER BOY” was actually just registered in 2005 for action figures; glass orbs, namely, snow globes; plush dolls; Christmas tree ornaments except confectionery or illumination articles; and toy music boxes. The registration is still in force.
“JINGLE BELL” was registered in 1981 for electric light sets and Electric bulbs used as Christmas decorations. The registration is still in force for those items, but you can name your cat Jingle Bells if you like.
“KWANZAA” was registered in 2010 for Bath soaps in liquid, solid or gel form; Fragrances for personal use; Household cleaning preparations; Non-medicated skin care preparations. The
registration is still in force.
Patents
A search for the word Christmas at the USPTO web site reveals 8980 associated patents. Some of them went on to become well known products, others….Not so much.
An Imitation Christmas Tree is described and claimed in US Patent 255902 issued in 1882. Since then several other artificial trees have received patents.
Gas Jet powered Christmas Lights were the subject of US Patent 484304 issued in 1892. This had to be extremely dangerous, but gas lights were common at the time.
A Design for a Christmas Stocking was granted US Patent D42346 in 1912.
Imitation Snow was issued a design patent In 1916, US Patent 1192372 was issued for a combination of raw cotton, asbestos, and flaked mica.
Electrically Illuminated Fireproof Christmas Wreath was granted US Patent 1436003 in 1922. It was a circular wreath with a single radially arranged electric candle. You may still see these today, though the patent expired in 1939.
______________________________________________
If you want to know more about Christmas copyrights, trademarks, and patents, or you need legal work, you can contact Tom Gallagher at http://www.gallagherip.com
Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanza…and Happy Holidays! It doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s all a celebration of one kind or another manifested in song and symbol. Of course, where there is song and symbol, there is something worthy of protecting.
My good friend Tom Gallagher sent out this list of Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents of those age old holiday memories we take for granted. I found it interesting and thought you may too.
Copyrights
Arguably the most famous Christmas songs of all time, "White Christmas”, was written by Irving Berlin and published in 1942. Most people don’t realize the copyright for "White Christmas" has a duration of 95 years. So if you play it or sing it in public before 2037 you’re actually infringing.
"Jingle Bells", on the other hand, was published in 1857 under the title "One Horse Open Sleigh". It is now in the public domain so feel free to sing it any place you like.
Trademarks
Many Christmas related phrases have been woven into our lexicon of language for many years, we often take them for granted as simply a phrase we are free to use, and sometimes they are – but in some cases they are actually protected and not open to public use. Here are a few examples
“KRIS KRINGLE'S” Didn’t start out as the jolly old guy; it was first registered as a service mark in 1974 for use as a restaurant name, but has since been abandoned.
“RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER” was registered in 1984 for filmstrips, coloring books, stuffed toys, and Christmas ornaments, among other goods. The registration was renewed in 2005 and is still in force.
“NORTH POLE” Has nothing to do with Christmas at all – it was registered in 2001 for magnets for therapeutic use to be worn as bracelets, arm bands, or knee bands and wraps containing magnets used for pain relief. The registration is still in force.
“FROSTY THE SNOWMAN” No one thought to register this mark until 2001, when it was first registered to cover motion picture films, videos, records, and CDs among a long list of goods. The registration is still in force.
“THE LITTLE DRUMMER BOY” was actually just registered in 2005 for action figures; glass orbs, namely, snow globes; plush dolls; Christmas tree ornaments except confectionery or illumination articles; and toy music boxes. The registration is still in force.
“JINGLE BELL” was registered in 1981 for electric light sets and Electric bulbs used as Christmas decorations. The registration is still in force for those items, but you can name your cat Jingle Bells if you like.
“KWANZAA” was registered in 2010 for Bath soaps in liquid, solid or gel form; Fragrances for personal use; Household cleaning preparations; Non-medicated skin care preparations. The
registration is still in force.
Patents
A search for the word Christmas at the USPTO web site reveals 8980 associated patents. Some of them went on to become well known products, others….Not so much.
An Imitation Christmas Tree is described and claimed in US Patent 255902 issued in 1882. Since then several other artificial trees have received patents.
Gas Jet powered Christmas Lights were the subject of US Patent 484304 issued in 1892. This had to be extremely dangerous, but gas lights were common at the time.
A Design for a Christmas Stocking was granted US Patent D42346 in 1912.
Imitation Snow was issued a design patent In 1916, US Patent 1192372 was issued for a combination of raw cotton, asbestos, and flaked mica.
Electrically Illuminated Fireproof Christmas Wreath was granted US Patent 1436003 in 1922. It was a circular wreath with a single radially arranged electric candle. You may still see these today, though the patent expired in 1939.
______________________________________________
If you want to know more about Christmas copyrights, trademarks, and patents, or you need legal work, you can contact Tom Gallagher at http://www.gallagherip.com
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by Mark Reyland » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:43 am
- Mark Reyland
- Green Belt
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:31 am
You do the Math....
So much of business can be boiled down to a simple math problem – and since the process of successful inventing always ends in the process of business it just stands to reason that in the end, your invention is going to end up as a set of numbers.
With that in mind I thought I would take a few moments and explain how a manufacturer takes your great idea and uses objective math to take out all your subjective emotion.
This image is a representation of the pricing and cost worksheet used in evaluating a product for market. The math adds to itself from the left of the chart until you get to Fulfillment and subtracts from itself from the right of the chart starting with Sell-In Price.
MFG Cost (+) Display (+) Freight (+) Fulfillment =
Sell In (–) License Royalties (–) Discounts (–) Sales Commissions =
Now that we know how the equation works, let’s take a look at each individual area so you can better understand what goes into each number.
MFG Cost – This is the basic manufactured cost of the good from the factory dock. It includes the product, packaging and freight packing.
Display Costs – This is exactly what it sounds like, the cost of a display you would provide to a retailer. If the display holds 20 parts, each part is responsible for 1/20 the cost of the display.
Freight Tariffs & Taxes – We use all 3 of these values in this space because it allows us to accommodate importing. Basically, this cost is from the factory to your warehouse. It is NOT the freight cost to the retailer – they normally pay that themselves.
Fulfillment – This is the cost warehousing, billing, coordinating the manufacturing, reporting, auditing, and disbursement of funds.
Sales Commissions - Most professional product reps will get between 5% and 15% of the Sell-In price as commission
.
Discounts – Not used on every product, but often a retailer will require manufacturers to offer a discount for shipping or advertising when they place large orders.
Royalties – This amount can vary between 1% and about 10% based on a number of factors. Either way it’s a cost, so it has to be factored in.
Unit Cost – All those things accounted for, it’s the final cost to the manufacturer
Sell-In (also called Wholesale) – The price the product sells for to the retailer.
MFG Gross Profit – The delta between the Developed price and the wholesale price
MSRP (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price - also called Retail Price, or Consumer Price) – The price the manufacturer recommends the retailer sell the item to the public for
Retail Gross Profit – The delta between the wholesale Price and the Retail
Price – keep in mind this is the gross profit for a retailer. It’s not actually the number they use in figuring out if they should take on the product. Retailers use “Net Profit” and they have a very strange way of calculating it. MSRP (-) Sell-in (/) MSRP = Retailer Net Profit
It all looks a bit more complicated than it really is, but it’s the mathematical equation every manufacturer uses to decide if the product they are developing can make money or not.
So next time you have that great idea you just know will make tons of money – Do the math. After all, it can be the greatest product in the world, but if you can’t get this math to work properly it’s never going anywhere.
So much of business can be boiled down to a simple math problem – and since the process of successful inventing always ends in the process of business it just stands to reason that in the end, your invention is going to end up as a set of numbers.
With that in mind I thought I would take a few moments and explain how a manufacturer takes your great idea and uses objective math to take out all your subjective emotion.
This image is a representation of the pricing and cost worksheet used in evaluating a product for market. The math adds to itself from the left of the chart until you get to Fulfillment and subtracts from itself from the right of the chart starting with Sell-In Price.
MFG Cost (+) Display (+) Freight (+) Fulfillment =
Sell In (–) License Royalties (–) Discounts (–) Sales Commissions =
Now that we know how the equation works, let’s take a look at each individual area so you can better understand what goes into each number.
MFG Cost – This is the basic manufactured cost of the good from the factory dock. It includes the product, packaging and freight packing.
Display Costs – This is exactly what it sounds like, the cost of a display you would provide to a retailer. If the display holds 20 parts, each part is responsible for 1/20 the cost of the display.
Freight Tariffs & Taxes – We use all 3 of these values in this space because it allows us to accommodate importing. Basically, this cost is from the factory to your warehouse. It is NOT the freight cost to the retailer – they normally pay that themselves.
Fulfillment – This is the cost warehousing, billing, coordinating the manufacturing, reporting, auditing, and disbursement of funds.
Sales Commissions - Most professional product reps will get between 5% and 15% of the Sell-In price as commission
.
Discounts – Not used on every product, but often a retailer will require manufacturers to offer a discount for shipping or advertising when they place large orders.
Royalties – This amount can vary between 1% and about 10% based on a number of factors. Either way it’s a cost, so it has to be factored in.
Unit Cost – All those things accounted for, it’s the final cost to the manufacturer
Sell-In (also called Wholesale) – The price the product sells for to the retailer.
MFG Gross Profit – The delta between the Developed price and the wholesale price
MSRP (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price - also called Retail Price, or Consumer Price) – The price the manufacturer recommends the retailer sell the item to the public for
Retail Gross Profit – The delta between the wholesale Price and the Retail
Price – keep in mind this is the gross profit for a retailer. It’s not actually the number they use in figuring out if they should take on the product. Retailers use “Net Profit” and they have a very strange way of calculating it. MSRP (-) Sell-in (/) MSRP = Retailer Net Profit
It all looks a bit more complicated than it really is, but it’s the mathematical equation every manufacturer uses to decide if the product they are developing can make money or not.
So next time you have that great idea you just know will make tons of money – Do the math. After all, it can be the greatest product in the world, but if you can’t get this math to work properly it’s never going anywhere.
Last edited by Mark Reyland on Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by Mark Reyland » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:45 am
- Mark Reyland
- Green Belt
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:31 am
I want a Divorce!
Divorce? Unfortunately It can happen in any relationship…..even Inventing.
Here you are, sitting around the den with a couple of friends on a Friday night and talk turns to some problem one of you has been experiencing. Maybe it’s a car issues, or a laundry issue….or whatever. Suddenly someone says “Wow – what if we invented one of …..” The discussion gets animated, you get excited, they get excited and before you know it you have the paper and pens out, you’re designing this new idea and they are throwing concepts around, you are throwing concepts around…the night goes on like this and by the end of the night you are partners in a new “Invention” ….How exciting!
Exciting, that is, until you find out this person is a great friend, but a really bad “partner”. At that point you will inevitably wish you had taken the time to put some agreement in place. You sometimes see these kinds of contracts euphemistically called “divorce papers”…because essentially that’s what they are. They set out the terms of the divorce up front in the event it happens….and sad to say in inventing – it does normally happen.
The agreement does not have to be anything elaborate, just a simple letter contract stating who initially came up with the idea, what each party is going to contribute to the process of taking the idea to market. and an outline of what happens when things don't work out so well.
Short of something that amicably “dissolves” the collaboration, you need to look to the future if you have any plans at all of monetizing the invention. If you did all the “heavy lifting” on the product in terms of design you can ask the other party to sign a “Letter of Indemnification” It is simply a document that asks them to hold you harmless against any claims they may have to rights on the product, now or in the future.
In fact - one of the first things we look for when licensing a product from an inventor are these “loose ends” that may be floating around. We tell the inventor it is their responsibility to get letters of indemnification from anyone who could even think they had any kind of claim to this idea or invention.
Additionally, the license contract always contains a clause where the inventor is swearing there are no unaddressed claims of ownership to the invention. If there ends up being someone who causes a legal battle with the manufacturer later on, and the inventor never disclosed that person – Safe bet you will find yourself in court on the wrong end of a law suit seeking the manufacturer’s investment back with damages.
All that being said - “The Laws of Fairness” State: Compensation should always be commensurate with contribution….so although you want to protect yourself - you can’t use these tools to block people from what is rightfully theirs.
Divorce? Unfortunately It can happen in any relationship…..even Inventing.
Here you are, sitting around the den with a couple of friends on a Friday night and talk turns to some problem one of you has been experiencing. Maybe it’s a car issues, or a laundry issue….or whatever. Suddenly someone says “Wow – what if we invented one of …..” The discussion gets animated, you get excited, they get excited and before you know it you have the paper and pens out, you’re designing this new idea and they are throwing concepts around, you are throwing concepts around…the night goes on like this and by the end of the night you are partners in a new “Invention” ….How exciting!
Exciting, that is, until you find out this person is a great friend, but a really bad “partner”. At that point you will inevitably wish you had taken the time to put some agreement in place. You sometimes see these kinds of contracts euphemistically called “divorce papers”…because essentially that’s what they are. They set out the terms of the divorce up front in the event it happens….and sad to say in inventing – it does normally happen.
The agreement does not have to be anything elaborate, just a simple letter contract stating who initially came up with the idea, what each party is going to contribute to the process of taking the idea to market. and an outline of what happens when things don't work out so well.
Short of something that amicably “dissolves” the collaboration, you need to look to the future if you have any plans at all of monetizing the invention. If you did all the “heavy lifting” on the product in terms of design you can ask the other party to sign a “Letter of Indemnification” It is simply a document that asks them to hold you harmless against any claims they may have to rights on the product, now or in the future.
In fact - one of the first things we look for when licensing a product from an inventor are these “loose ends” that may be floating around. We tell the inventor it is their responsibility to get letters of indemnification from anyone who could even think they had any kind of claim to this idea or invention.
Additionally, the license contract always contains a clause where the inventor is swearing there are no unaddressed claims of ownership to the invention. If there ends up being someone who causes a legal battle with the manufacturer later on, and the inventor never disclosed that person – Safe bet you will find yourself in court on the wrong end of a law suit seeking the manufacturer’s investment back with damages.
All that being said - “The Laws of Fairness” State: Compensation should always be commensurate with contribution….so although you want to protect yourself - you can’t use these tools to block people from what is rightfully theirs.
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by Mark Reyland » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:06 am
- Mark Reyland
- Green Belt
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:31 am
Play the Odds.....
The Inventors Protection Act of 1999 requires all Invention Promotion companies to disclose the odds of success based on previous sales within that company. This is important, because although the odds of success in the inventing industry are notoriously low anyway, this at least gives inventors an opportunity to make an informed decision about the purchase of these services.
These are the odds for the Davison Invention submission company. Not to pick on Davison, they just happen to be one of the few invention companies that abides by the law and discloses the odds of an inventor actually making money using their services. So in that sense good for them!
Unfortunately these are not very unique odds to just this one company - most invention companies have about the same numbers (some better, few worse). The fact is if you do the math you can see the business model is not to make money from the sale of your product to a manufacturer - but rather from the sale of their services to you.
After all, the only people who really made money in the 1849 Gold Rush were the people selling shovels.
"AFFIRMATIVE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You should read all of this information carefully before proceeding.
The total number of consumers who submitted new product ideas to Davison during the past five years is five hundred seventy seven thousand nine hundred seventy three (577,973). Davison does not provide evaluation of commercial potential; thus, it has provided no positive or negative evaluation of this or any other product idea in the last five years. The total number of consumers who were offered a Pre-Development agreement (or similar contract for research services) is three hundred twenty six thousand nine hundred three (326,903). The total number of consumers who were offered a Contingency Agreement (or other contract for licensing representation) is three hundred twenty six thousand nine hundred three (326,903). The total number of consumers who purchased a Pre-Development Agreement or similar contract for research services is fifty thousand one hundred sixty one (50,161). The total number of consumers who signed a Contingency Agreement or other licensing representation agreement is fifty thousand one hundred sixty one (50,161).
The total number of consumers who were offered a New Product Sample Agreement (or any other contract for design services for a virtual or a product sample) is thirty eight thousand four hundred ninety nine (38,499). The number of consumers who signed a New Product Sample Agreement or similar agreement is thirteen thousand eight hundred seventy (13,870). The number of consumers who obtained a written license with a company that is not affiliated with Davison is three hundred fifty six (356). The total number of consumers in the last five years who made more money in royalties than they paid, in total, under any and all agreements with Davison, is fourteen (14). The percentage of Davison’s income that came from royalties paid on licenses of consumers’ products is .001%."
Numbers current as of March 16, 2010
The Inventors Protection Act of 1999 requires all Invention Promotion companies to disclose the odds of success based on previous sales within that company. This is important, because although the odds of success in the inventing industry are notoriously low anyway, this at least gives inventors an opportunity to make an informed decision about the purchase of these services.
These are the odds for the Davison Invention submission company. Not to pick on Davison, they just happen to be one of the few invention companies that abides by the law and discloses the odds of an inventor actually making money using their services. So in that sense good for them!
Unfortunately these are not very unique odds to just this one company - most invention companies have about the same numbers (some better, few worse). The fact is if you do the math you can see the business model is not to make money from the sale of your product to a manufacturer - but rather from the sale of their services to you.
After all, the only people who really made money in the 1849 Gold Rush were the people selling shovels.
"AFFIRMATIVE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You should read all of this information carefully before proceeding.
The total number of consumers who submitted new product ideas to Davison during the past five years is five hundred seventy seven thousand nine hundred seventy three (577,973). Davison does not provide evaluation of commercial potential; thus, it has provided no positive or negative evaluation of this or any other product idea in the last five years. The total number of consumers who were offered a Pre-Development agreement (or similar contract for research services) is three hundred twenty six thousand nine hundred three (326,903). The total number of consumers who were offered a Contingency Agreement (or other contract for licensing representation) is three hundred twenty six thousand nine hundred three (326,903). The total number of consumers who purchased a Pre-Development Agreement or similar contract for research services is fifty thousand one hundred sixty one (50,161). The total number of consumers who signed a Contingency Agreement or other licensing representation agreement is fifty thousand one hundred sixty one (50,161).
The total number of consumers who were offered a New Product Sample Agreement (or any other contract for design services for a virtual or a product sample) is thirty eight thousand four hundred ninety nine (38,499). The number of consumers who signed a New Product Sample Agreement or similar agreement is thirteen thousand eight hundred seventy (13,870). The number of consumers who obtained a written license with a company that is not affiliated with Davison is three hundred fifty six (356). The total number of consumers in the last five years who made more money in royalties than they paid, in total, under any and all agreements with Davison, is fourteen (14). The percentage of Davison’s income that came from royalties paid on licenses of consumers’ products is .001%."
Numbers current as of March 16, 2010
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by Mark Reyland » Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:57 am
- Mark Reyland
- Green Belt
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:31 am
Get YOUR invention on TV!
The UIA was contacted about a new show being produced about inventors. This happens quite often actually, and when it does we spend some time talking with the producers about the format of the show, the impact it has on the inventors who participate, and the legal issues associated with showing an invention on national TV. About ½ the time it works out that they are producing a well thought out show that helps the inventors – the other ½ of the time, well, we just don’t talk about those shows.
We were contacted a few weeks ago by Silent Crow productions about a new inventor show that starts production in January. Like us, you may not know Silent Crow but you know their work. Shows like, After the Catch, Lobstermen, and The Next Big Bang, prove they not only work well with major networks like NBC, CBS, Discovery, and The Science Channel, but they show respect to the subject matter and people they feature.
We can’t tell you the network that this show will air on (it’s a TV thing) but we can tell you that after several in-depth conversations with the producers the UIA feels they will do a great job working with the inventing community. So what are you waiting for? Show the world your invention!
From the producers at Silent Crow Productions
In January 2011, production begins on a major television series celebrating backyard inventors in America. It's a fantastic opportunity for you to receive public acclaim through an ethical, well-respected cable network.
The network is looking for just 12 of the greatest, most extreme idea people out there, presently in the midst of wiring, welding, melting, fusing and harnessing together their wildest dreams. We are not looking for the next "get-rich-quick" invention. We are looking for inventors that execute their larger-than-life, useful-or-useless vision, because they have to. Your invention may not save the world tomorrow or the next day, but the steps you take to make it do what it does, just might. Ideally, your invention(s) should be visually appealing and completely unique, whether the science is ground-breaking or not.
This is NOT a reality show or anything that will make you look bad. Quite the contrary. We are looking to tell the grassroots inventor's story, and in the process we will watch you reveal your most recent project(s), tweak it with our help, and demonstrate it in front of millions of viewers.
And the best part is, anything you create with us on camera is yours. We don't own any part of it. We just want it to be a success.
Please reply via e-mail to inventors@silentcrow.com with a brief description of your project, your contact information and a recent photograph of you. We will respond with a phone interview.
The UIA was contacted about a new show being produced about inventors. This happens quite often actually, and when it does we spend some time talking with the producers about the format of the show, the impact it has on the inventors who participate, and the legal issues associated with showing an invention on national TV. About ½ the time it works out that they are producing a well thought out show that helps the inventors – the other ½ of the time, well, we just don’t talk about those shows.
We were contacted a few weeks ago by Silent Crow productions about a new inventor show that starts production in January. Like us, you may not know Silent Crow but you know their work. Shows like, After the Catch, Lobstermen, and The Next Big Bang, prove they not only work well with major networks like NBC, CBS, Discovery, and The Science Channel, but they show respect to the subject matter and people they feature.
We can’t tell you the network that this show will air on (it’s a TV thing) but we can tell you that after several in-depth conversations with the producers the UIA feels they will do a great job working with the inventing community. So what are you waiting for? Show the world your invention!
From the producers at Silent Crow Productions
In January 2011, production begins on a major television series celebrating backyard inventors in America. It's a fantastic opportunity for you to receive public acclaim through an ethical, well-respected cable network.
The network is looking for just 12 of the greatest, most extreme idea people out there, presently in the midst of wiring, welding, melting, fusing and harnessing together their wildest dreams. We are not looking for the next "get-rich-quick" invention. We are looking for inventors that execute their larger-than-life, useful-or-useless vision, because they have to. Your invention may not save the world tomorrow or the next day, but the steps you take to make it do what it does, just might. Ideally, your invention(s) should be visually appealing and completely unique, whether the science is ground-breaking or not.
This is NOT a reality show or anything that will make you look bad. Quite the contrary. We are looking to tell the grassroots inventor's story, and in the process we will watch you reveal your most recent project(s), tweak it with our help, and demonstrate it in front of millions of viewers.
And the best part is, anything you create with us on camera is yours. We don't own any part of it. We just want it to be a success.
Please reply via e-mail to inventors@silentcrow.com with a brief description of your project, your contact information and a recent photograph of you. We will respond with a phone interview.
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by Mark Reyland » Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:01 am
- Mark Reyland
- Green Belt
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:31 am
Just the latest one....
It happens all the time in this business, someone has a product, they have a little success, and now all of a sudden they are selling services to other inventors.
Let me paint the picture for you – Dad invents a little refrigerator product for organizing the junk on the refrigerator. Not a bad idea, after all we all have that refrigerator junk, so good for Dad for tackling the problem and designing a useful tool. At this point Dad has tasted the cool aid of people telling him he’s smart, and talented, and he’s invested a bunch of money in the project and all the while his daughter, who is, and should be immensely proud of Dad has been watching him make it all look so easy.
At one point the hours of discussion turn from "we could do this again", to "we should invent for a living", to "we should charge other inventors to do the things people charged us to do". Before you know it the plan is in place, the site is built, and “The Product Network” is born. Now I wasn’t there, and I don’t know for a fact that the process went the way I describe, but I do know after seeing many such efforts spring to life over the last 2 years that we as an industry have a major problem on our hands.
“The Product Network” (I don’t give you their link because inventors should not use sites like this) appears to simply be the latest in a long line of “ASOTV” focused, somewhat predatory companies who are now riding the wave of ASOTV popularity and designing creative ways to separate inventors from their money.
This one has it all, a monthly fee to be part of their “network” and list your products. (Information they later use to increase sales of these fees by giving higher paying members full access to your information). It has the full line of bogus ASOTV offerings, where they can produce, market, and test your TV spot; actually I suspect they have a nice Rolodex of “friends” in the industry to pass you around to for a fee. They have an “affiliates” program where you can make 20% for signing up other inventors, and they even have their own Tammy Faye Baker style professional pitch woman to make you feel successful. One stop shopping of people ready and willing to tell you how smart you are, tell you what a great product you have, take your money and send you on your way.
The bottom line is this – Real ASOTV companies don’t charge inventors a penny!. Companies, like AllStar, Telebrands, IdeaVillage….they are all professional ASOTV companies who regularly take product ideas from inventors and invest their money in the project. They are very selective about the product ideas they accept, because it’s their money at risk, not yours.
The growing problem in the industry are companies like “The Product Network” (and many others) who charge inventors for parts of a much larger process and could care less if the product ever sells - because at that point they have their money. What you are left with is a huge bill, a crappy commercial, and a bad taste in your mouth for the inventing process.
So be careful, I’m not saying these folks are crooks by any means, but rather that the Products, Services, and Memberships they are selling are not normally the best investment for inventors.
Here is a link to Dad’s refrigerator video – I think it speaks for itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwqu81tr ... r_embedded
It happens all the time in this business, someone has a product, they have a little success, and now all of a sudden they are selling services to other inventors.
Let me paint the picture for you – Dad invents a little refrigerator product for organizing the junk on the refrigerator. Not a bad idea, after all we all have that refrigerator junk, so good for Dad for tackling the problem and designing a useful tool. At this point Dad has tasted the cool aid of people telling him he’s smart, and talented, and he’s invested a bunch of money in the project and all the while his daughter, who is, and should be immensely proud of Dad has been watching him make it all look so easy.
At one point the hours of discussion turn from "we could do this again", to "we should invent for a living", to "we should charge other inventors to do the things people charged us to do". Before you know it the plan is in place, the site is built, and “The Product Network” is born. Now I wasn’t there, and I don’t know for a fact that the process went the way I describe, but I do know after seeing many such efforts spring to life over the last 2 years that we as an industry have a major problem on our hands.
“The Product Network” (I don’t give you their link because inventors should not use sites like this) appears to simply be the latest in a long line of “ASOTV” focused, somewhat predatory companies who are now riding the wave of ASOTV popularity and designing creative ways to separate inventors from their money.
This one has it all, a monthly fee to be part of their “network” and list your products. (Information they later use to increase sales of these fees by giving higher paying members full access to your information). It has the full line of bogus ASOTV offerings, where they can produce, market, and test your TV spot; actually I suspect they have a nice Rolodex of “friends” in the industry to pass you around to for a fee. They have an “affiliates” program where you can make 20% for signing up other inventors, and they even have their own Tammy Faye Baker style professional pitch woman to make you feel successful. One stop shopping of people ready and willing to tell you how smart you are, tell you what a great product you have, take your money and send you on your way.
The bottom line is this – Real ASOTV companies don’t charge inventors a penny!. Companies, like AllStar, Telebrands, IdeaVillage….they are all professional ASOTV companies who regularly take product ideas from inventors and invest their money in the project. They are very selective about the product ideas they accept, because it’s their money at risk, not yours.
The growing problem in the industry are companies like “The Product Network” (and many others) who charge inventors for parts of a much larger process and could care less if the product ever sells - because at that point they have their money. What you are left with is a huge bill, a crappy commercial, and a bad taste in your mouth for the inventing process.
So be careful, I’m not saying these folks are crooks by any means, but rather that the Products, Services, and Memberships they are selling are not normally the best investment for inventors.
Here is a link to Dad’s refrigerator video – I think it speaks for itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwqu81tr ... r_embedded
Re: From The Inventor Blog
by Mark Reyland » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:30 am
- Mark Reyland
- Green Belt
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:31 am
Tenacity...it's not magic
Tenacity
“tending to stick firmly to any decision, plan, or opinion without changing or doubting it”
This is Webster’s definition of Tenacity; however Tenacity itself is the world’s definition of an inventor - at least in part.
My wife often tells me I’m just too stupid to know I can’t do it. I prefer to think of it as being tenacious, but who knows- she may be right. Either way, any successful inventor will tell you tenacity is a prime ingredient to that success.
Unlike what you may see on TV, Inventing is often a long, difficult, and lonely process. You start with an idea or a theory and without giving up you have to find all the parts and pieces to prove your idea, but that’s only the first part of the process. When you’re done inventing you have to start the long process of commercializing your new invention.
A great example of this tenacity is a novice inventor named Jack D’Alelio. Jack is the inventor, designer, sales man, and champion of his product MAGIC TOOB, The lampshade Leveler. http://www.magictoob.com/
For months now I have watched Jack as he ran head first into the marketplace armed with a product, a passion, a dream, and the tenacity of 10 men.
Morning, noon, and night from MAGIC TOOB world headquarters in his kitchen, Jack does everything it takes to make the retail world pay attention. From researching the market, constantly developing crossover uses and refining the product’s applications, to putting on clean underwear and making drop in sales calls to local lamp shops. Jack is willing to do whatever it takes to see this through – and in the end, that will be his greatest success.
You see, Jack may not know it, but he’s getting a degree in inventing from the school of hard knocks. MAGIC TOOB may not be the thing that makes Jack and his family wealthy, but the process Jack has so doggedly undertaken is what will make Jack a successful and well respected inventor.
“You will have success when you deserve it, and you will deserve it, when you have earned it” Rick Pitino