Any Inventors?

[Seahawk]

Milt raised some very interesting points.

First. For the "toy" I did not seek a patent based on a few, trusted recommendations. I was put in touch with a manufacturer in Long Beach who loved the concept and, with my friend the lawyer helping, I signed a contract that gave me money upfront and a piece of the gross sales, not profit only. The hard part was the Terms and Conditions under which "sales" and "profit" are calculated.

It did well for over a year...I even went with the guy to the New York toy show...fascinating event. I did not get rich but I made enough to satisfy myself that I took the idea as far as I could.

The "toy" market is similar to the car accessory market: It was imperative that I found a trustworthy white knight to protect my interests. I may have been able to make more money, but I doubt it.

So, that is my, please forgive me, toy story.

The current patents are much different and are complex adaptation(s) of existing technology (unmanned air vehicles) that met the requirements of the patent office. We also trade marked the concept. The concept of employment is the key.

Similar to the toy episode, we found an investment partner who was very interested in the idea. We approached the partnership differently and kept the provisional patent, trademark and Intellectual Property.

The T&C are different because the scope of the effort is much different than the toy...it is all a risk/reward equation with investors.

So, two different runs at something I "invented" with different approaches to trying to gain from the idea.

Again, all the advice so far has been excellent and matches well with my experiences. I can tell you that you absolutely must have help (legal, etc.) after a certain point to make sure you are protected: The process is like a Cormack novel: No Country for Inventors.

[sammyg2]

Who can forget this?


1 ounce of prevention

[Zeke]

That "invention" predates my joining here and I never saw the thread in spite of 2 posts occurring after my join date. Seems no one ever produced these even though a couple of people offered to buy the item.

But, this illustrates my thesis perfectly. Here is a product that most anyone can make with a pair of pliers. How would you go about convincing folks to buy your product instead? Well, that's the marketing side of things. All the elements of a good marketing program are mentioned in Sam's thread by Clark Griswald (now known as Chuck Moreland of Elephant racing). Create a need and provide a solution.

Maybe not all elements, there could be more.

Consider the comments about flaking metal. Your better mouse trap is made from non flaking stainless steel. Marketing advantage no. 1. Not everyone has access to SS wire.

In the packaging, provide the tether Early_S_Man (RIP Warren) mentions to keep track of both the oil fill cap and dipstick. Marketing advantage no. 2.

Make the items with perfect curves for a clean professional look. Marketing advantage no. 3.

Assert that other foriegn objects will be prevented from falling into the oil tank (Chuck's sink strainer is better for this). Marketing advantage no. 4.

Remember, all of your advertising text is able to be copyrighted. Others can make the same claims, but they have to word it differently.

Get a clever name and logo and trademark those. You can use a pending symbol. Copyright is automatic, but you should file formally. I think "Cool Collar" is a perfect example of a great name (regardless of what you think of the product). There have been a lot of CC type products sold and a lot of money made. You remember "Split Fire" spark plugs?

Products such as Chuck's can be piggybacked to others as a premium for purchasing a minimum amount of more expensive product such as oil and filters. Think incentive whenever marketing. IOW, think about how you can hook up with a bigger item or trend to promote your widget.

[Jagshund]

Mmmmmmm! A device for making poached eggs! I'm in for two!

[Danny_Ocean]

I had an idea once...

[71T Targa]

[unclebilly]

Originally Posted by milt

billy, you may have some patents, but what are you selling today? I'm not being critical, I'm interested in any success story and so is the OP. If you are getting royalties, you made my point in spades.

Milt - you are a nice guy, heck so was zeke... I'm not going to get into a peeing match over this. This is what I get paid to do when I go to work every morning.

I am an engineer who has worked in R+D at various companies since 1997. Some of the stuff I design (invent) gets patented, most does not. Most things don't make sense to patent.

One of my more recent success stories is a horizontal multi stage completion system I concieved. In just over a year, this system has brought over $50M in work to the company I work for. It has been featured in several trade magazines, in the local news papers, and I was interviewed on camera for some kind of TV feature. Sadly, I don't get a royalty for this, merely a job with good compensation and excellent benefits. Getting this system off the ground took a major personal sacrifice in terms of extra time.

Getting back to the point I was trying to make earlier; Copyrights are for literature, artwork, and software code. Trademarks are for logos and trade names. Patents are for designs, methods, and a combination thereof. You can't copyright an invention nor can you register an invention as a trademark.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by unclebilly

Milt - you are a nice guy, heck so was zeke... I'm not going to get into a peeing match over this. This is what I get paid to do when I go to work every morning.

I am an engineer who has worked in R+D at various companies since 1997. Some of the stuff I design (invent) gets patented, most does not. Most things don't make sense to patent.

One of my more recent success stories is a horizontal multi stage completion system I concieved. In just over a year, this system has brought over $50M in work to the company I work for. It has been featured in several trade magazines, in the local news papers, and I was interviewed on camera for some kind of TV feature. Sadly, I don't get a royalty for this, merely a job with good compensation and excellent benefits. Getting this system off the ground took a major personal sacrifice in terms of extra time.

Getting back to the point I was trying to make earlier; Copyrights are for literature, artwork, and software code. Trademarks are for logos and trade names. Patents are for designs, methods, and a combination thereof. You can't copyright an invention nor can you register an invention as a trademark.

No need to pee. You just see things from your engineering standpoint. I see things from my educational standpoint. I was a marketing major at USC when Viet Nam came along. Let's just say that after that VN period passed, I was not a college kind of guy.

It came back to me 20 years later, what I learned in college (maybe the haze wore off ). Patents have their place, as I mentioned. They are not in any way helpful for success in launching a new novelty product, which this thread is all about.

"Copyrights are for literature, artwork, and software code. Trademarks are for logos and trade names." That's what I'm talking about. When the new product is named and the packaging is designed with the name and point-of-purchase advertising in place, you have about as much identity (read: product) protection as you need, patent or no patent.

Now, if you don't believe me on this, read the book I linked and let a multi-millionaire tell you. BTW, I know this man personally, he was a junior partner at my father's advertising firm until he branched out with his own product, gained and lost a fortune and went on to represent 100's of inventors becoming quite wealthy.

Copyrights and trademarks have bee his main allies from the first time he had to defend his product...... wait for this ........... from a Canadian copycat. He won. copyright infringement because of similar packaging and design even though they had a different product name for pretty much the same product.

You know what, the Canadians would have won had they kept the similar product, but sold it differently, i.e., in a different looking package scheme. This was not the Pet Rock, but might have well been. Same time in history and sold on the same shelf. As I said, no patents for rocks.