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 BSME » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:54 am
- BSME
- White Belt
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:29 pm
- Location: Kentucky
Hello Roger,
I've thought through the food biz myself. Check out my barbecue page:
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/primecuts/
The problems with food marketing....
Did you know that you pay rental on grocery store shelf space? The bigger the space the more rent you pay. If your product isn't moving then the fixed cost runs you out of the store.
I've looked at restaurant start-up too. Did you know that half of new restaurants fail within the first couple of years?
A great product doesn't assure success.
I've thought through the food biz myself. Check out my barbecue page:
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/primecuts/
The problems with food marketing....
Did you know that you pay rental on grocery store shelf space? The bigger the space the more rent you pay. If your product isn't moving then the fixed cost runs you out of the store.
I've looked at restaurant start-up too. Did you know that half of new restaurants fail within the first couple of years?
A great product doesn't assure success.
A real possibility
by gbell » Thu May 10, 2007 3:52 pm
- gbell
- White Belt
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 pm
- Location: Los Angeles,CA
If we, as a group squints (odd thinkers) would truly band together and develop our own inventor’s basement, so to speak. If we were to take what our group puts together, things that we thought had real market value, and develop our own pipeline. We would be able to get a real market share; our biggest problem is the existing business structure. As long as business in the US is ran by COMPTROLERS, new or innovative will always equate to Cost, Risk or just an unproven problem.
We would also be able to work on the legislation arena and get each state as well as the federal government involved in creating an atmosphere conducive to creativity. E.g. Safety product development workshops and or possibly state sponsored inventor labs.
Personally I am tired of seeing gimmicks only, it is the RONCO type products or the "Dog antlers" that give us as a group the reputation that we have. I happen to know that most of us are decent people who are well grounded. We do think differently. That used to be celebrated in this country, not any more.
We would also be able to work on the legislation arena and get each state as well as the federal government involved in creating an atmosphere conducive to creativity. E.g. Safety product development workshops and or possibly state sponsored inventor labs.
Personally I am tired of seeing gimmicks only, it is the RONCO type products or the "Dog antlers" that give us as a group the reputation that we have. I happen to know that most of us are decent people who are well grounded. We do think differently. That used to be celebrated in this country, not any more.
by Scrupulous » Fri May 11, 2007 1:31 pm
-
Scrupulous - Black Belt
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
- Location: United States
I think you're right on, in a way. Consider it done.
I'm sure there are a few of us here that have had experiences with quality and safety. There's more to it. But then, there's more to the people here.
As much as I know, I don't see why you couldn't nudge an idea along responsibly from start to finish, with the help of the members of this forum. And, why worry about legislating it? The resources are probably already here.
It may help you, though, to consider other possible reasons why the collective efforts of bright people would be arbitrarily disparaged, when it comes to technology. I don't think it's the wacky inventions...
Good job.
I'm sure there are a few of us here that have had experiences with quality and safety. There's more to it. But then, there's more to the people here.
As much as I know, I don't see why you couldn't nudge an idea along responsibly from start to finish, with the help of the members of this forum. And, why worry about legislating it? The resources are probably already here.
It may help you, though, to consider other possible reasons why the collective efforts of bright people would be arbitrarily disparaged, when it comes to technology. I don't think it's the wacky inventions...
Good job.
Think Tank
by gbell » Fri May 11, 2007 4:05 pm
- gbell
- White Belt
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 pm
- Location: Los Angeles,CA
Legislation is to provide a physical place or a number of places that we could go and use to really vet out the items that we come up with. As well as a forum where we as a group could bounce ideas off of each other. This format as good as it is cripples me, I am terribly dyslexic. So, just to do a post here like this one will take me 30 minutes to 1 hour. But that is just me, how many other people are there like me, a few I am sure. You see I hold 8 patents, have seen 4 of my products go to market. I have 2 new ones in the pipeline now.
I also work in the arena of affordable housing, on the legislative level; I have had to testify in front of the state Senate quite a number of times just this year. It amazes me and others how quickly people like us, the ones who refrain from even visiting the "BOX" can find real and viable solutions in a very short amount of time. Our elected officials and their minion will labor over something seemingly simple forever.
My point is just this, in this format many will be excluded for fear of looking bad or stupid. And some real locations would allow us, as a group, to be extremely productive and prolific.
Glenn
I also work in the arena of affordable housing, on the legislative level; I have had to testify in front of the state Senate quite a number of times just this year. It amazes me and others how quickly people like us, the ones who refrain from even visiting the "BOX" can find real and viable solutions in a very short amount of time. Our elected officials and their minion will labor over something seemingly simple forever.
My point is just this, in this format many will be excluded for fear of looking bad or stupid. And some real locations would allow us, as a group, to be extremely productive and prolific.
Glenn
by Scrupulous » Fri May 11, 2007 9:13 pm
-
Scrupulous - Black Belt
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
- Location: United States
And what will we call this group?
by Average Inventor » Fri May 11, 2007 11:20 pm
-
Average Inventor - Brown Belt
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:52 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
The I Spot Lot... 
Think Tank
by gbell » Sat May 12, 2007 8:34 am
- gbell
- White Belt
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 pm
- Location: Los Angeles,CA
What was the name of Edisons shop ?
by bottleslingguy » Sun May 13, 2007 5:53 am
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
BSME said, "Then there are the companies that sign an agreement to pay royalties, and set the idea on the shelf because it competes with their existing product line. If they don't sell the patented product then they don't have to pay royalties on it. There is nothing the inventor can do about it unless the contract states a minimum production level. Now isn't that a sweet deal?"
This is why you would negotiate a performance clause. You mentioned a 'minimum production level'. If (and I realize that a big if) a company with legitimate intentions towards your product is willing to sign a deal with you, they shouldn't have a problem with one. Actually I think the contract focusing on that type of deal would be more attractive to both parties involved. Give the company an incentive to not only sell your product, but sell a lot. Your end comes from their manufacturing costs. In higher unit volumes, less percentage of their profit goes to you. If you get a dollar per unit in volumes up to, say for example 100k it only behooves them to make 1001k. It's one of those little trade-offs you have to accept when dealing from the inventor's position. Let's not be greedy.
You can also set limits on how long a company doesn't act on your idea. If they say in their contract, you know something like, "Oh right. Uh, we reserve the right to make all kinds of excuses or even not have to include you at all as far as whether or not we even sell this product.". Spell it right out in the negotiations, "If you do not produce, not manufacture, not promote, or in any other detrimental or non-productive way market or not market said product, all bets are off and your company loses all rights to the product. And pays me $5,000,000 for wasting my time."
If they won't go for it, then forget it. That's how you can get an idea of what their true intentions were in the first place. It's flattering when a real company shows an interest in your product. But remember there can be sharks just below the surface. Make sure to keep that in mind when you negotiate your deal. Sort of that Reaganesque philosophy of "Trust but verify." You have to make things attractive to the company while heading off any detrimental-to-you-clauses-or-omissions in the contract.
And don't forget not to talk about any secrets about your invention or marketing ideas you have until after you've negotiated their value. Don't offer up all the goodies when selling the idea- you know all those little important details you found out about your invention during that extensive research you performed when you were incubating it? (you DID remember to do that, didn't you?)
As far as I care, royalties schmoyalties. I don't care that your company only makes three cents and I get five percent of that. I don't care that you gave a thousand away as promotions and I don't get paid for them, or that five thousand were destroyed in a tractor trailer fire. I want X amount for every one that was made. And if you build more than R you can pay me Y% less than X. If you don't even begin to build them within however long it takes to make X amount (you should have this estimate from your research) you pay me $5,000,000. And if you build X amount but don't sell any for whatever reasons, then that's YP, not MP.
As far as the Think Tank don't they already exist? What would make ours different? I agree this writing malarky is for the birds but I like it because it allows you to take time and reflect on the discussion and what you want to say and everyone is not talking over each other. On the otherhand it's not always easy to get your point across without those extra little communication tools like inflection, tone and body language (emoticons don't always cut it). Writing down ideas defintely has it's limitations, that's why this site should shift it's emphasis to peer videos.
Maybe that's where we could lobby from?
This is why you would negotiate a performance clause. You mentioned a 'minimum production level'. If (and I realize that a big if) a company with legitimate intentions towards your product is willing to sign a deal with you, they shouldn't have a problem with one. Actually I think the contract focusing on that type of deal would be more attractive to both parties involved. Give the company an incentive to not only sell your product, but sell a lot. Your end comes from their manufacturing costs. In higher unit volumes, less percentage of their profit goes to you. If you get a dollar per unit in volumes up to, say for example 100k it only behooves them to make 1001k. It's one of those little trade-offs you have to accept when dealing from the inventor's position. Let's not be greedy.
You can also set limits on how long a company doesn't act on your idea. If they say in their contract, you know something like, "Oh right. Uh, we reserve the right to make all kinds of excuses or even not have to include you at all as far as whether or not we even sell this product.". Spell it right out in the negotiations, "If you do not produce, not manufacture, not promote, or in any other detrimental or non-productive way market or not market said product, all bets are off and your company loses all rights to the product. And pays me $5,000,000 for wasting my time."
If they won't go for it, then forget it. That's how you can get an idea of what their true intentions were in the first place. It's flattering when a real company shows an interest in your product. But remember there can be sharks just below the surface. Make sure to keep that in mind when you negotiate your deal. Sort of that Reaganesque philosophy of "Trust but verify." You have to make things attractive to the company while heading off any detrimental-to-you-clauses-or-omissions in the contract.
And don't forget not to talk about any secrets about your invention or marketing ideas you have until after you've negotiated their value. Don't offer up all the goodies when selling the idea- you know all those little important details you found out about your invention during that extensive research you performed when you were incubating it? (you DID remember to do that, didn't you?)
As far as I care, royalties schmoyalties. I don't care that your company only makes three cents and I get five percent of that. I don't care that you gave a thousand away as promotions and I don't get paid for them, or that five thousand were destroyed in a tractor trailer fire. I want X amount for every one that was made. And if you build more than R you can pay me Y% less than X. If you don't even begin to build them within however long it takes to make X amount (you should have this estimate from your research) you pay me $5,000,000. And if you build X amount but don't sell any for whatever reasons, then that's YP, not MP.
As far as the Think Tank don't they already exist? What would make ours different? I agree this writing malarky is for the birds but I like it because it allows you to take time and reflect on the discussion and what you want to say and everyone is not talking over each other. On the otherhand it's not always easy to get your point across without those extra little communication tools like inflection, tone and body language (emoticons don't always cut it). Writing down ideas defintely has it's limitations, that's why this site should shift it's emphasis to peer videos.
Maybe that's where we could lobby from?
by mojo62 » Sun May 13, 2007 9:33 am
-
mojo62 - Black Belt
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 4:54 pm
- Location: Texas
Bottleslingy,
If I was lucky enough to get a deal with my product and wanted to ensure the manufacturer produced and sold to level that I was satisfied with, I would simply add a cluase to this contract which would leave open my option to license my patent to other manufacturers. You don't have to have an exclusive "one manufacturer contract". That way,
if the product has good marketability and sales, the licensee should do a satisfactory job for me out of fear I could bring in a second or third licensee in for my product. You could also give them territorial rights and see how that goes. If you own a good patent/product you should be able to call the shots. Do not let any company own you or your product. It is
yours and if it is good, you make the rules.
If I was lucky enough to get a deal with my product and wanted to ensure the manufacturer produced and sold to level that I was satisfied with, I would simply add a cluase to this contract which would leave open my option to license my patent to other manufacturers. You don't have to have an exclusive "one manufacturer contract". That way,
if the product has good marketability and sales, the licensee should do a satisfactory job for me out of fear I could bring in a second or third licensee in for my product. You could also give them territorial rights and see how that goes. If you own a good patent/product you should be able to call the shots. Do not let any company own you or your product. It is
yours and if it is good, you make the rules.
Re: think Tank
by gbell » Sun May 13, 2007 9:54 am
- gbell
- White Belt
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 pm
- Location: Los Angeles,CA
Yesterday I had an opportunity to express the idea of a number of innovation centers to a CA State Senator and a CA State Assemblyman and a Los Angeles City Councilman, the response was excellent. The Idea that the state could provide a place with accoutrements’ necessary to foster and promulgate new Ideas and concepts with a possibility of the state partnering with the groups, "Is an extraordinary Idea." Let’s see where it goes.
What do you think?
Glenn
What do you think?
Glenn