Needed: An Affordable Patent Attorney or Agent

You have got yourself into a mess that will probably cost you more than the original quote. It took me four patents before I learned how to properly write and prosecute a patent. One small example, use of the word "the" instead of "a" can actually make a patent easy to design around. Good luck.

A lot of farms in the USA use the digestion of waste plant and anmal material anaerobically to generate methane. This methane can then be used as fuel or in fuel cells for the farm or sold to the grid.

Hi, palinurus!

Ay-yi-yi! I hope you're not too too correct about the eventual cost.

Mark

Couldn't CR4 FILL this void eminently?

United we Stand

MM

I agree with tomkaighin on the point that you prepare a good NDA to contact investor. If you fear, then have a preliminary Patent filed. Perhaps give a unique name to the bio-process and take trade mark and copyright and use that word everywhere.

That you may find an investor is shear luck. You do not have control on others but you can try out hard. That you may or may not get funds, does not degrade the value of ingenuity and research. Just feel good and try out.

Hi, Shyam!

The third paragraph in my request above states that there is already a Provisional Patent dating from 2002. That's the preliminary patent you were mentioning.

When filing a patent, one does not normally have an opportunity to give it a unique name.

I haven't mentioned investors yet, because there may not be a need for any. There are other, creative ways of obtaining funds that don't require giving away the store.

Mark

Dear Mark

Patent does not require any name but to get you copyright or trademark you need a name and perhaps symbol etc. Copyright is valid for one's entire life and on entire earth the moment one declares it as his or her work. You do not include and technical detail in copyright or trademark but can say a purpose which may also be listed in trademark.

Patent process is sure a tough one and it is meant to facilitate others to access the technology on reasonable payment. Copyright and trademark do not give any such rights but they cause serious legal problems to other to use the name for business or any other purpose without permission.

Hence, Patent is different from copyright and trademark in protecting the technology. You can have copyright to description of the process, instrument design document itself and hence can not be reproduced without permission.

I think NDA is a very good idea. You can not stop people from copying and only can take them to law. This is all possible.

Perhaps try Nine Sigma if they can find some taker for your technology. You can declare what you want from others and they will circulate the information. I think getting funds is a better idea. Contacting NASA, NIST, or Naval Research or EPS is also a good idea. Try out all organization including NSF to get more funds to have larger project of your own. www.ninesigma.com/

Hi, Tomkaighin!

"I took a look at the website you linked that was supposed to explain it. What it said, from an observer's point, is that you are going to attempt to use something biological to produce power"

No, you didn't 'look' at the website, Tomkaighin. And by misleading other readers in CR4 by saying you did, you gleaned a GA from others who agreed with you without checking out the website themselves. At the very most, you 'saw' the website without reading it in any meaningful way. Because it is NOT about patents for using something biological to produce power.

My concern is that you may have actually done my request harm in this way. To say that "It would be the equivalent of me saying I'm going to use sun to get power [and patent that power source]" is completely misleading as well.

In fact, it's more like saying in that context, "I'll invent solar cells."

The patents are for machinery and technology designed to harness an existing fuel source in new and important ways. You have belittled more than six years of work by a professional engineer whose main interest is in providing new technology for an old renewable fuel source by inferring that I am a half-wit and don't know what I'm doing because I'm doing something that doesn't make sense. [And what burns me is that you could only have inferred that completely erroneous conclusion by not reading the stuff you claimed to have read. That website piece was especially written clear as a bell for interested parties and potential investors by a professional Executive Summary writer. It's been tested and proven as being easy to read and understand, tried out on non-technical people and non-engineers prior to publishing. I invite any CR4 reader and their 15-year-old to tell me they have read it and couldn't understand exactly what it explained by the time they had finished it.]

Had you read the website as you said, you would have known that the technology being patented includes:

A novel tank-farm method of producing methane, which up until the patent application had not been postulated. This is a new technology, and the website provides an in-depth description of the tanks and their arrangement and how they work.

A novel housing for the generating station, which includes the generators, engines, tank farm, and an operating crew. Again, a novel situation where previous methane production facilities were toxic confined spaces. The construction arrangement is discussed in some detail, right from the planning stage through to the operating stage.

A novel method of construction for the entire installation that renders it environmentally beneficial and ecologically harmless, earthquake proof, efficient enough to replace most currently toxic energy sources and better their efficiency, and invisible at the earth's surface.

Completely non-toxic effluent production and delivery methods for the product (electricity) to the final user.

Efficient, using at least three electricity production methods from a single fuel source, inexpensive to produce as a power station when compared to current generating methods, and thus useful in assisting third world countries to develop by employing its installation.

Had you even properly read my request for assistance above, Tomkaighin, you would have noted that the patent examiner's problem is that there are --from her point of view-- too many patentable items if one were to take them all separately, and not as part of the generating station as a whole.

The difficulty is that all the variables are needed to produce an environmentally friendly, ecologically harmless generating station; and I want to include them all as 'parts' of the finished product. Her mandate states that when you have separately identifiable things in an invention's parts, they require separate patents.

Now, in spite of your misleading blog, I still hope that my colleagues in here will be able to recommend somebody to me who can help me in one of the following three ways, so I can afford to fix up the patent application before my deadline of June 8th:

• pro bono (free), based upon the improvements the generating station can provide, and for future considerations, or
• inexpensively, so I can afford to pay for the assistance, or
• paying with a lot of small payments over time, so I can afford the assistance.

Because I still need the help.

Mark

HI Mark,

Just read last two sentences of Tom's reply then can know him better.

Are you ready to hire some attorney from India or China? As basic costs in India and China are much cleaper than western countries, you may get somebody as you expect.

If you are ready, I can suggest couple of attornies. Please let me know through CR4 or through e mail.

Hi, gsuhas!

Yes, I'm ready to use any competent patent attorney or agent from any country in the world.

Please feel free to recommend them.

Mark

I am also going to file few Patents in India and abroad. I have contacted one of the Patent agent now and will like to examine his earlier work first and will also like to see his rates if they are competitive. I will also file for patents in USA, Canada, UK, EU. In my country India I need to file first.

I also intend to file for Copyright/s and Trademark/s. Intellectual property need to be given an identity irrespective of financial gain. One must become impressed in History for doing something special. Money is only secondary. I have created more than 1000 designs by now and still keep creating every week and some time every day. It is worth to give them my name now.

Hi, Shyam!

Kindly let me know who you will use for your patent attorney. Perhaps the cost in Inda is less expensive than in Canada. Certainly the results will be the same. Thanks.

Mark

Let me have a success story then only I will like you to get involved. I am in contact with person. He has also given me fee breakup. He is not near to my place so let me have some more interactions.

Hello Mark

Thanks.

Here is name and address of the firm:

Katariya Associates

2, Sharada Apts., Opp. Gate 5, Abhimanshree Society, Aundh, Pune 411007

Tel:091-20-25885162 Mobile: +919325126101

Email: vishal@katariyaassociates.com

Mr. Vishal Katariya, head of the firm, is LL B from UK and LL M from US.

Though I do not know his fees, I hope those should be less expensive than western country attorneys.

You may refer my name to him as Suhas Gurjar from Forbes Marshall.

Hi, gsuhas!

Thanks for your willing help and direct response to my question. GA.

Mark

Little late in relpying to this...but you entire scathing and heartfelt argument against me was based on something not being biological?

I only have one question:

What mechanical prosess produces methane?

As far as I know, it's a biologica process. Can you name or design the machine that produces methane...from whatever materials are available (and I'm sure it's possible) that can out produce a pig, a cow, your mother...hell my mother? I don't think so. Hence it's a biological and you are confused and ignorant.

Not saying your stupid, cause I've read a lot of your posts and have come to respect your mind...but on this one, I think you attacked without provocation or thought. Would like your input, not your ridicule. You are more than welcome to heap ridicule but given the premis, you may wish to read first, consider second and ridicule only at the very end.

Now, shithead, do you think they have a mechanical protocol for producing methane? and can you shit gas?

Hi, tomkaighin!

First, I'd like to apologize to myself and to you for succumbing to the temptation to be scathing and a shit head. It was uncalled-for.

Not that I don't think you maybe deserved the scathe, since it was apparent to me that you had not read (or perhaps hadn't understood) the request or the web referral; and further that in misunderstanding it, your response would have been enough to turn aside people who were otherwise inclined to be well-wishers and helpful. Your response engendered my following one in large red caps pleading for those who were turned aside from it to still see my need. Reading blogs that followed where yours led revealed that this unhelpful result was indeed the case.

Of course, methane is a gas produced by both methanogenic bacteria and fossil fuel deposits. It's an organic waste product. No argument. (And it can be manufactured!)

However, the invention I believe you were intent on trashing is very much a mechanical one, and fosters those biologicals in a very mechanical environment that includes harvesting processes for the methane and a biogas generation system with emission controls. It is fairly well known to many of the readers in here, as I have published the website for its executive summary many times.

That aside, my urgent request was for patent attorney assistance, either by having one who is a reader doing some responding, or by having one referred to me. Your response was to tell me that what I had was not patentable, despite my mentioning in the blog that it is currently under serious examination at the USPTO.

So in response to your telling me and other readers --in so many words-- that I was wasting their time and giving me the help I needed was a waste of time, I blew a gasket. I'm sorry. However, I still think you slid off on the deep end in a response that resulted in irreparable harm to my cause. And I admit that I do 'scathing' rather well... when provoked. I'm not proud of the ability, and I usually feel like a jerk later.

It is all water under the bridge now, though. I think the examiners at the USPTO are extremely helpful and are providing me with a great deal of assistance. Thus far, they have not specifically requested me to obtain that attorney, and have things well in hand.

Still your colleague in the trenches..., and appreciate your thinking on lots of matters posted in here.

Mark

175.00 an hour was the last quote I got for such work by an attorney. It costs what it costs and takes what it takes. I thought the quote was reasonable. Didn't have the pocket change myself. There is a new Patent Category called Business Methods I have heard of. Does seem that these days with intellectual property rights very well protected if you are honest, you are screwed by the Chinese who are good at back engineering. Good luck.

Suggest you write a business plan heavy on personality. I myself was shocked to discover the ideas and products are not as important as the people involved as far as successful business plans are concerned.

Hi, Transcendian!

Thanks. Got a business plan. First things first though. Gotta get that patent.

Mark

Hi Mark,

I read your post and Tomkaighin is largely correct; the 'news' is not good. I am a lawyer and although not a Patent attorney have more than a passing interest in Intellectual Property (IP) law. Briefly it is not possible to patent a 'system' and in your situation a 'business method' patent is inappropriate. The closest protection regime you will find is copyright on the 'design'!

Re NDA's sure they are an agreement but the problem will come if you try to claim on a breach! Given your stated financial resources a partner who so desires will take advantage and you will have no practical recourse!

Unfortunately there is no 'cheap' path to IP protection! For a practical path forward I suggest abandoning the Patent Application unless there is one particular element within the over all system which is truly novel upon which you can focus your resources! (I did not see this but suggest there could be some element of the biologic control system that qualifies!). Then I would suggest considering Design Copyright will be the logical basis for investigating whatever protection you may have available!

Not to be to discouraging but this is not a short term low cost venture - it has already taken you years and will take years more and millions and the nowadays the market is hot. This means your concept will be competing for the 'minds' of the market subjected now on a daily basis to new 'best earth saving energy generation' methods! You should look to add talent to your team from a commercialisation requirement! Good luck!

Hi, rogerzz!

Read my response to Tomkaighin above, please, for more information. The website is chock-full of descriptions of this completely patentable technology. At this point I'm not thinking about partners or funding, thanks. I just want to get the current patent application cleaned up and accepted. Try reading the website. I think you might find the concept to be quite exciting.

Mark.

a simple search gives this.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22methane+collection%22+%2Bfarm&btnG=Google+Search

on the first page is this.

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/central_20methane_20collection_20grid

another search give this

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=methane+collection+system&btnG=Google+Search

and there is this.

http://www.albertapork.com/news.aspx?NavigationID=1556

if you drill down you will find ample examples of this tech.

As for completely burying the digestion tanks = costs extra, and all that buried piping.

Lined lagoons with plastic/metal insulating covers seems to be the winning strategy as the digestion makes enough heat to prevent freezing if the insulation is sufficient on the cover.

A methane fuel cell to make electricity is fine, but also mature tech. Burning it in a stirling or internal combustion engine also works for power generation, but is less efficient.

Hi, aurizon!

Thanks for the tips. Will follow them up and report back to you re their usefulness in my pursuits.

Mark

Hi, aurizon!

I viewed the links you provided above. Thanks, but they weren't really useful to me, as they presented old technologies.

Your first link refers to farm-usage of harvest-produced methane generation. I sent information referring a similar installation of this nature in a posting http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/19748#comment208077 just a few weeks ago. Nothing to do with my patent application, really; except that both systems are involved with methane harvest for the provision of energy.

Your second link leads to a blog-set suggesting that farms (etc.) hook up their septic systems' methane production via an interconnection pipeline to collect enough methane for energy production. This is a kind of "natural" version of the tank farm system I am patenting, suggested in your linked item. The link refers to blogs posted in 2004 to the farming science magazine found at the end of your link, a full two years after my provisional patent along with drawings and technical descriptions had already been accepted by the USPTO. Full marks for the innovative thinking by that blogger, though. Having grown up sharing haying and other responsibilities with neighbouring farmers, I have always had a great respect for the community effort capabilities that farmers can generate.

While the generator I propose would cover a fair amount of underground real estate, it would still produce unmeasurably more fuel for its generators in-situ than many entire countries of farms could produce by co-opping; especially in countries where it will eventually find use.

The third link shows very old technology for producing methane from garbage landfills. Because of the harmful nature of this technology and the fact that in spite of its drawbacks it is still being practiced, the tank farm system will be a useful and revolutionary change for the positive. The original landfill problem will remain, however, until municipalities adopt appropriately scrubbed SWERF systems of waste disposal; from which not only a small amount of power and heat can be generated, but also cinder block for construction use, and without producing harmful effluent. The separation facility of a SWERF unit also promotes recycling of plastic, glass, and metal waste. The link to the old technology that you provided shows a system that has been proven to be harmful because it leaks leachate fed into the decomposition bundles into groundwater, and its production may only be harvested with any efficiency if it is contained by being roofed over. Even then, the methanogenic bacteria in leachate-enriched landfills have only at most a five-year production lifespan, and so existing landfills must be continually extended to keep producing. To be regenerated, the one shown in the link would have to be emptied and refilled (it's a toxic contained space), or abandoned. Most landfill sites are not roofed over and provide a boost to global warming by generating methane that remains unburned. Methane is a greenhouse gas. The tank farm system eliminates both the leachate groundwater contamination and through-ground methane expression problems posed by the type of digester shown in this link.

The final link you provided refers to a 2003 article about an above-ground methane digester provided by a tank using hog manure to feed its methane-producing bacteria. Of course, methane digester systems are not new. That's the beauty of the technology...it's old and proven. The variety of digester shown in the link is limited in scope, and has limited ability to produce because it merely replaces the septic tank variety by moving it above ground into a steel or ceramic tank. It's not revolutionary, and in fact has existed for some time. I think if the providers of the purported system to the western Canadian farmers tried to produce it in the manner they described, somebody would be in their noses citing patent infringement. My patent-pending tank farm system, like the one producing from hog manure in a single tank, is a methane producer as well; except that it doesn't use hog manure, doesn't use a single tank, nurtures the methanogenic bacteria as producers rather than just capturing the production, and will not die if the tank becomes contaminated...a problem with many varieties of digesters. The tank farm is the improvement on this and the former older technology; and is something like comparing a bicycle to an automobile in terms of benefits and sophistication. Benefits are to the greater community via a generating station with a strong output and sophistication resides in the continuum of tank farm production technology and monitoring through to the wall outlets in the homes and businesses of end-users.

These systems as well as the majority of other electrical generating systems are cited and addressed and compared to the tank farm in both the patent application and the executive summary given in the link in my blog above. In a patent application, the inventor is required to show the novelty and/or improvement over or compared to existing 'art' in the same field.

Mark

Mark,

I read the website and I think it's fairly clear what you're doing. I think your tank farm is a 'digester array'. ???? If the examiner has determined that it's patentable I can't see that the critics can be correct in their assumptions, as blogged. I do see that convincing her that the whole process is a cohesive unit made up of interdependent fractions may be difficult, but not if each fraction has some degree of uniqueness other than those of like processes already in the public domain.

For what it's worth.

I know you've been all over ALL of this but sometimes inspiration comes from the weirdest places.

Wish we could help. I have guys here who could but we're in OZ. No good to you.

Cheers.

Stu. ( marine engineer + )

Hi, Stueywright!

Apparently, the examiner is required by her rules to point out that if any part of a patent application can stand alone as a novel technology, it must get its own patent.

I am going to have to narrow down the scope of the patent, quite probably, to just the tank farm as the key item in the process. That will be allowed. The rest will have to be made up of four or five newly written applications. The saving grace MIGHT be that since the examiner is looking at the patent right now, she might be willing to get the other parts of the patent looked at immediately as well, and I can claim the original application as the parent document, thus protecting those other 'invention' parts of it back to the same date of origin and its parent 'provisional patent' application of 2002.

This, since all the parts were previously claimed in both applications.

Mark

You may be time and money ahead if you just keep this as a, Trade Secret or Proprietary information. Because every published patent invites a work around. And remember this: a patent only gives you the right to sue others for trespassing on your intellectual property. It does not give you the right to market your property. Others, your competitors, may contest that market place. Then comes the infringement lawsuits which are very expensive.

A comment on fees: $175 an hour is inexpensive. $400 per hour is more likely. And fees will vary within a firm according to the task, the time of day and the phase of the moon. Don't buy cheap, buy good. If your property isn't clearly defined it's worthless. Find an attorney(s) with experience in your area of interest. Your patent attorney is your co-inventor. He/she will discover things you never imagined. Google the "Top Ten" and start calling around.

Bobguz

From losing thousands of pounds on patents, and
wasting years writing "winning ideas" I am sorry to
say you are, most likely, on a hiding for nothing.

Unless you have some process that cannot be copied
or re-engineered, it will be. i.e. You are dead in the water.
(or at best, in for a long war of attrition.)

A very disappointing, but true fact, of commercial life.
One that needs to be embraced before proceeding.

However, there is sunlight; and the answer is simple;
make the money! Do it! No matter how; investors, etc.
Forget the dreams of patents, fame, etc. Go for the money.

If you have to find out the hard way, like I did (and others)
you will just fall by the wayside like the thousands of others;
those who have lost out to corporations, and those who
did it regardless - without the patents, etc.

Simply, commercial success is the best patent of all.
(that's what its all about anyway!)

Not pleasent, but sound, advice. (been there done that!)

jt.

Why re-invent the wheel? I did... and look where it got me.

There's a Free notice board for you on http://www.mfnb.at

JT and I agree. Thanks to the attorney who pointed out I was mistaken about the patentable Business Method. -Seems I heard of it, maybe it was just debated.

Somebody on the Sustainable Energy blog is likely to know what might be unique about your plans. Rick Watson of that Group has very good lists of alternative energy players.

In my business of film-making and writing, there is what is called Contingency as opposed to Pro Bono. Possibly this is the sort of deal you are really looking for.

Still I agree with JT, that you might be just as well off, or better by simply contracting to build your system. How many times a day have you seen Patent Pending on things you use? Their must be a good reason for that.

If my agent sells my Screen Play I think they get 10, or 15 percent of the gross, net? sale price. It is a pretty good deal from my point of view. No art gallery can stay in business without taking 50 percent of the sale price. I found that out the hard way, as I have found out most of what I know.

I myself do not always go to website links. Sometimes I simply don't get there even when I try. I particularly hate PDFs and Adobe since every time I get there seems like I'm required to download some update.

I think we all encourage you to succeed at energy production and sales.

When trying to do something it is good to know essentially what you are trying to do, and not necessarily be married to any tactic.

My own agenda as far as energy is concerned is to challenge big oil and nuclear power for ascendancy. I have long suggested CR4 to include a Political Science Blog since some threads demand issues be addressed on the basis of their legal and political ramifications.

Hi, it!

I'll post this blog as though I was a successful inventor. I can imagine this because I have a few smaller inventions that I think will be sale-able in the future. So, as a successful inventor, here's what I (would) do.

With smaller patent ideas, I try to think of large businesses that might be interested in purchasing a licence to manufacture because my invention is so neat and would enhance their businesses no end!

Then, I have a corporate attorney approach them with the item via non-bypass, confidentiality agreements. The non-bypass part of the agreement is missing on most confidentiality agreements I've seen, and is key to preventing the manufacturer I'm approaching from asking his cousin or some old pal to make the thing for him.

If they can see how the invention will benefit them and become enthused about using the new technology, I make a sale. I try to keep the licencing fees as very small royalties. Sometimes, if the thing is super-cool and valuable to them, I can also ask for a lump sum in addition to the royalties.

I can't afford to manufacture myself; and think that self-marketing's the way to go with the small stuff.

How does this compare with your experience?

Mark

Hi, again jt!

(Sorry about the 'it' earlier. Fingering error.)

One other thing. A licencing agreement is rarely if ever exclusive. If a manufacturer wants exclusive, I balk. Or it becomes expensive. On the other hand, while I might licence the product to rivals in two or more different parts of the country, I won't licence side-by side neighbours doing the same manufacture. That wouldn't be fair to either of them...and they wouldn't go for it anyway.

Mark

Hi Mark,

Call me un-trusting but I have never successfully licenced my ideas.

One modification, I supplied to interest a large national concern,
they said no thanks, and then implemented it 3 years later.
(saving themselves a fortune.)

This has happen a few times now, and I am still awaiting other ideas
to "appear" with very little hope of reward. Par for the course I feel.

I truly believe there is only one answer, do it yourself, make it pay,
and then argue afterwards, with cash in the bank. Everything else is
like a broken pencil, pointless.

I have one now, a new door bolt. It's simpler to make, simpler to fit,
stronger than the usual one, and ideal for banks, post/gov. offices etc
and can be rolled out cheaply to residential. After spending a fortune on
patents, no one is "interested" - until the patents expire, or I give up.

Again, I should have known better; and done it myself. I'm looking into a
small machine to make them myself now; and then I have to sell them!
They will appear soon, made in China probably, and sold in UK by them.

I despair, because the lock firms I have approached, - about 100 - have
all the facilities and distribution available already, and me to start all over!
(Would you like commission?)

Best regards

jt.

One day I went up a hill... and it turned into a mountain.

Hi, jt!

Your error in approach, if you can really call it an error, was in doing the offering by yourself. Your new technology might be superb; but you are just not attractive enough to make the sale. (OK OK, you're a handsome hunk...what I mean is that you have nothing to offer these potential buyers other than a different technology.)

Put yourself in place of someone at a big lock corporation in charge of purchasing new technology. How do you think that they might be thinking about sources for new technology they can adopt? Wouldn't they be more likely to go looking through shiny magazines of new lock technology publishing than to look at a letter coming in 'off the street'? Which of the two approaches has more credibility? How does the lock manufacturer know that the new product has sufficient quantity -or production quality- to back up supply needs for it? Are you able to provide a guarantee/warranty and accept returned items? Are you aware of their markets? i.e., If it has to re-tool to make the product for itself, what is the projected R.O.I. after setup, labour, warehousing and distribution? Does the improvement warrant the additional expense? Is this new product something that is truly needed in the lock market, or is it just a desiridata item - a new gimmick that will unnecessarily crowd the marketplace? If the buyer buys it, will it efficiently enhance the image of their lock company to own it enough to justify the expense?

See what I mean? You gotta think like your customer. And you gotta know a lot about them. Or, they have to know or think they know enough about you to invest the confidence of signing your contract for the first 10,000.

The answer is to go with a firm that has proven success in marketing new lock products...including that shiny magazine or a good corporate lawyer with an attractive sales record of new technologies. Also, it's going to be a more successful sales point if you can guarantee supply (this goes for wholesale and retail buyers alike).

Instead of knocking China, investigate a reliable manufacturer there and compare their prices with a manufacturer at home. You can always start up your own manufacturing concern at home later, if you want the hassle of ownership or feel intensely loyal to your home-grown labour supply. Who cares if a Chinese competitor reverse engineers the thing and sells it elsewhere; so long as the company you hire to do yours doesn't cheat on you, and you get the jump in the market as the original standard. Like Shyam says, if you own the original name, people will know it. When they vacuum the floor, people in the UK call it "Hoovering". When they buy a facial tissue in North America, regardless of brand, they call it "Kleenex".

Raising funds to guarantee supply is a catch-22, which is why your corporate lawyer needs to be good in the sales department of lawyering. You don't want to commence manufacture if you can't guarantee a purchaser for the product. So your charges for the product are based on initial setup and manufacture with your first couple of licensees.

Position the new product below comparable items in the current market. Profit begins with the third and onward.

Consult with a commercially successful local inventor, if you can find one; and if you're fortunate you'll probably be taken under his/her wing to learn the successful marketing techniques of successful inventors.

These are some corrective steps you can take to keep the new products in the viable stages of marketing.

Mark

Hi, Jt!

Ignore that last blog. I don't know how it got in ahead of time, since I hadn't already pushed the submit button. I hadn't finished revising it yet. Here's the final version of what I wanted to say above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, jt!

Your error in approach, if you can really call it an error, was in doing the offering by yourself. Your new technology might be superb; but you are just not attractive enough to make the sale. (OK OK, you're a handsome hunk...what I mean is that you have nothing to offer these potential buyers other than a different technology.)

Put yourself in place of someone at a big lock corporation in charge of purchasing new technology. How do you think that they might be thinking about sources for new technology they can adopt? Wouldn't they be more likely to go looking through shiny magazines of new lock technology publishing (kinda thing) than to look at an offer coming in 'off the street'? Which of the two approaches has more credibility?

• How does the lock manufacturer know that the new product --as provided by you-- has sufficient quantity -or production quality- to back up supply needs for it?
• Are you able to provide a guarantee/warranty and accept returned items?

Or, if you want your customer to take on the manufacturing of your new item:

• Are you aware of their markets? i.e., If it has to re-tool to make the product for itself, what is the projected R.O.I. after setup, labour, warehousing and distribution?
• Does the improvement warrant the additional expense?
• Is this new product something that is truly needed in the lock market, or is it just a desiridata item - a new gimmick that will unnecessarily crowd the marketplace?
• If the buyer buys it, will it efficiently enhance the image of their lock company to own it enough to justify the expense?

See what I mean? Ya gotta think like your customer. And ya gotta know a lot about them. Or, they have to know or think they know enough about you to invest the confidence of signing your contract for the first 10,000.

The answer is to go with a firm that has proven success in marketing new lock products...including that shiny magazine or a good corporate lawyer with an attractive sales record of new technologies. Also, it's going to be a more successful sales point if you can guarantee supply (this goes for wholesale and retail buyers alike).

Instead of knocking China, investigate a reliable manufacturer there and compare their prices with a manufacturer at home. You can always start up your own manufacturing concern at home later, if you want the hassle of ownership or feel intensely loyal to your home-grown labour supply. Who cares if a Chinese competitor reverse engineers the thing and sells it elsewhere; so long as the company you hire to do yours doesn't cheat on you, and you get the jump in the market as the original standard. Like Shyam says, if you own the original name, people will know it. When they vacuum the floor, people in the UK call it "Hoovering". When they buy a facial tissue in North America, regardless of brand, they call it "Kleenex".

Raising funds to guarantee supply is a catch-22, which is why your corporate lawyer needs to be good in the sales department of lawyering. You don't want to commence manufacture if you can't guarantee a purchaser for the product. So your charges for the product are based on initial setup and manufacture with your first couple of licensees. Then, you take your contracts in hand and go to your friendly bank manager or loan shark (or your corporation's investor base).

Position the new product below comparable items in the current market. Profit begins with the third customer and onward after that, so don't even bother to build in a profit on the first two. Just be sure that all your own expenses, including labour, management, materials, setup, warehousing, and delivery, are set up in advance.

Consult with a commercially successful local inventor, if you can find one; and if you're fortunate you'll probably be taken under his/her wing to learn the successful marketing techniques of successful inventors. Lots of others have been there. I personally would avoid companies that say they do this kind of thing for inventors.

You also might look through some of those shiny lock-product magazines yourself, and maybe find a manufacturer who's looking to extend their product line...ignoring lock manufacturers until you become your own brand standard. In that case, you'll want a manufacturer with a good customer base and wide enough product line that your item will fit comfortably into as one of several options.

These are some corrective steps you might take to keep your new products in the viable stages of marketing.

Mark

Thank you for the confidence boost Mark.

Patently, I'm doing something "wrong" in that
there is no success for me to date. QED.

I have done all what you suggest; including contacting
Chinese firms - some who have not even replied!

My problem, I think, after what you have said (thank you)
is that I just do not sell it enough. I offer changes, not the
rewards. (for them.) I offer tooling challenges / risky sales
and not the "sizzle" of the bacon coming home and cooking.

Hence I make it difficult for them to accept new concepts;
especially if it involves low price items; and, to supply a market
already served by several existing products.
Simply, why should they rock the(ir) boat.

I will tailor my approaches now, following your lead, (always willing
to learn) and, if I turn up in a Rolls-Royce you'll know it worked!

Many thanks.

jt.

I always find there's no future in looking back. (jt 2008)

Hi, jt!

Hell, if you turn up in a Rolls, you can buy me one!

Mark

Dear Mark

I am coming in between, but noticed lot good points so will like to add here few things.

Small TV screen fills easily with things that glitter and so does a magazine page. Also use places such as exhibition and show areas to display your product and its ingenuity. If people know that something better exist then they will ask for it.

Sometime it is good to invest in small way and sample the product first to grab people's mind directed towards your product. It sure works but may be expensive so select to whom you offer a sample.

If one of my neighbour has good looking door then sure others will like to replace their own also.

You can also hook to some Carpenter company to provide then an offer for free 100 door lock for trial. You may just have a deal.

Try San Francisco where you have a greater chance. Manufacturing you can try in India at very low cost. Architecture magazine usually display good house hold fittings.

Get one nice advertizement. designed and even if it is only A4 sheet, it is worth. In India your product advertisement may go for free as new product. Try www.ipfonline.com

I would suggest you contact the following:

1. Patent Agent David Kiewit has been very helpful in matters such as you are facing. Be sure sure inform him you were referred by www.inventored.org (I would also suggest you subscribe (nothing to sell or pay for at www.inventored.org) to their discussion group as there are other lawyers and agents who may be willing to provide input as well as many seasoned Pro Se inventors.

Dr. David Kiewit

5901 Third St. South
St. Petersburg, FL 33705-5305

(727) 866-0669

dak@patent-faq.com

http://patent-faq.com/

2. Patent Attorney and author of "Patent it Yourself" Mr. David Pressman may also be willing to help if he has time. It wouldn't be the first time and I've known several inventors whom he charged nothing to for helping them out of tight spots such as you have described. Naturally I can't guarantee but he is very willing to speak to inventors or respond to posts in the above discussion group.

He is a Board Member of www.inventored.org I suggest you contact him at www.patentityourself.com where you'll find an email address.

Regards,

Penny Ballou

A++, Penny!

Howcome you're not a member yet? Thanks for the help! A very large GA. for you from me.

Mark