Log in  •  Sign up  •  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 1:10 pm Pacific Time

The Brutal Truth About the Invention Process


Have an invention idea? Need help and advice about your invention?

Ed Zimmer has written what I think is one of the best articles on the web for inventors, "New Product Licensing" on his helpful website The Entrepreneurs Network.

I thought is was one of the best distillations of the challenges of the invention process and it offers priceless advice for inventors. Here's Part I of his article:

* * * * *

You have a new product idea that you believe would sell very well were it only available on the market -- but you don't have the time or resources to "venture" the product, i.e., to manufacture it (or have it contract-manufactured) and sell it yourself. What now?

Realistically, the best advice you could be given is to forget the idea -- and get on with your life.

Your only alternative is to try to "license" the product idea, i.e., to find an existing product-line manufacturer already selling other products into your target market -- and try to convince them that they should add your product to their product line -- and share their profits on that product with you (typically by paying you a "royalty" on their sales of that product).

But your odds of licensing that idea are tiny -- no better than 1 in 1,000 (and probably much lower). Why?

1. Your idea is probably not new.
Just because you haven't seen it in the market says little. There are many times more products available from specialty catalogs than you'll see in your local stores. (Many of these specialty catalogers now have websites, where you can find their offerings with diligent searching -- but many still do not.) It's possible (even likely) that your idea has already been tried and failed (because of market or technology reasons that still hold true) -- and the only way you can find that out is by talking with old-timers in the industry. And even if it hasn't been tried, it's possible (even likely) that important product features of your idea have been already patented by someone else -- and the only way you can find that out is through a professional patent search (which will cost you upwards to $1,000.)

2. Manufacturers are not looking for new products.
They have a 3-5 year queue of new products and product improvements already in development. They've thoroughly researched the profit potential of each of these -- and are well along in developing them. When you submit your new idea to them, your idea is in competition with what they're already working on. They'll displace or defer one of their projects only if yours shows significantly greater profit potential -- and if you can't quantify and substantiate that profit potential (as thoroughly and accurately as an industry insider), then the profit potential of your idea has to be much greater (and obviously much greater) to tempt them to research that profit potential themselves.

3. It may not be possible to manufacture your product at the cost necessary for it to retail at a price customers will pay. A new consumer product typically must be manufacturable at no more than 1/6 of its retail price to adequately compensate the product's distribution channel (e.g., the manufacturer must sell at 2 times their manufactured cost to cover their operating costs and profit, the wholesaler must sell at 1.5 times their cost and the retailer at 2 times their cost -- 2 x 1.5 x 2 = 6). There are many good product ideas that simply can't be manufactured for the needed cost -- in fact finding a way to manufacture a product at the needed cost is frequently the much more difficult problem than simply designing the functionality.

4. Adequate intellectual property protection may not be available. Understand that a patent does not protect the function you intended -- it protects only your particular design or method -- and only those features of your design or method that have not already been patented (or made known) by someone else. If it is not possible to get a broad patent (i.e., one that protects all economical ways of providing your intended user benefits), it's unlikely anyone will license your idea. Why should they share their profits with you on a product which -- if the product sells as well you hope -- they know that their competitors will soon be selling the same or similar product without having to share their profits.

5. Other. And there are a virtually infinite number of reasons why any single company might not be interested in your product or improvement.

* The product's potential sales aren't large enough to be of interest. If expected sales are less than 1% of their current sales into that market, they'll almost certainly not be interested -- it's just not worth the hassle to them. At 1%, they might have interest -- if the product just naturally flows right into their existing manufacturing and marketing structure -- but it will typically take 10% or more for them to have any strong interest. (A large company, like P&G, frequently simply abandons products whose sales, although too low for P&G, would be top-sellers for a smaller company.)

* The required front-end investment is just too large or too uncertain. A smaller company can't afford the investment that a larger company can. But even a larger company may not have interest if the engineering costs can't be accurately pinned down -- the risks are just too great. And virtually no company will try to develop a new market (new to them) for a new product from the outside -- that's far too risky.

* The required operational changes are too great. Many large companies have so much invested in their existing tooling and training that they're virtually chained to the status quo. General Motors, for example, gets about 25,000 new idea submittals a year -- and, on average, licenses only 1 -- and not because there weren't some very good ideas among them -- but because they simply can't afford to change.

* They have no interest in outside ideas. Some companies have decided that looking at ideas from the outside is simply not worth the effort -- and purposefully reject any attempts at submittal. Yes, they may miss something that they may later wish they'd seen -- but they've made the business decision that that possibility isn't worth the time and effort to review all the ones that weren't.

* You approached them incorrectly. Companies live by systems and procedures -- without them there'd be chaos. Companies that may have some interest in outside ideas have set up a system and procedure for reviewing those ideas. If you use that system and procedure, your idea will get the most complete review that the company is willing to give -- and if you don't, you'll likely get an incomplete, or no, review.

* The company's going through hard times... or a management change... or just have too many new products on their plate right now. If you had approached them last year -- or maybe next year -- they might have been interested -- but not now.

* Other. And besides the many objective reasons like those above, there are as many or more subjective reasons: Your presentation wasn't clear enough -- or someone in the decision loop decided you'd be too difficult to deal with -- or there's something about you that they just don't like or trust -- or they were just having a bad day...

You want to try anyway?

(To be continued...)

* * * * *

Well, come back then to read Part II - The Brutal Truth About the Invention Process tomorrow.

I am curious to know if other experienced inventor agree with his advice. What do you think of what he has to say? Is it true?

Michelle
Featured Blogger
InventorSpot.com

RSS Feed Subscribe to our feed

Here's some good reads:

READ: How To Have The Best Thanksgiving Ever!!
READ: 2008's Most Weird and Wacky Vending Machines
READ: 5 Cool, But Fishy, Aquariums
READ: Big Rig Jig Art

For the holidays:

READ: Great Gadget Gift  Ideas for Grandparents
READ
: The 11 Best Toys of 2008 : Toy Industry Awards
READ: 10 Best Gifts for Your Dumbest Friends
READ
: 10 Must Have Gadget Gifts for Techies Over 40
READ: Great Gadget Gift Ideas for Moms
READ: Top 10 Best Geeky Gifts for 2008

If you like our stuff, will you please add us to your blogroll?

Filed under
Comments

Wow, I almost couldn't

bottleslingguy's picture

Wow, I almost couldn't answer that security math question!

It seems to be my experience, so far! I'm actually living 90% of his article. 

Bottle Sling - Invention Gallery .


An Inventor wrote to me

Michelle's picture

An Inventor wrote to me strongly disagreeing with my statement that this is a great article and that the article is factually incorrect.

I just want to remind folks that as a website for inventors, we want to offer valuable information and from differing perspectives.  

I personally thooght it was one of the best I read because it was "brutal" in laying out the challenges that some inventors may face. 

Sometimes, people need to be armed with the facts or the reality (even if its couched negatively) to better arm themselves and prepare themselves for the challenges they will face.

Our website is not dedicated to getting people to become inventors. Our site is dedicated to helping inventors, to be armed with the right type of information and support to be successful in what they do or help them choose not to do it.

I thought this article would elicit some strong reactions and I hope it triggers much dialogue and thought.

Michelle

AmericanInventorSpot.com Team


In case anyone is

Michelle's picture

In case anyone is interested, there is a discussion of this also going on in the forums.

http://www.americaninventorspot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=895#895


I already know what part II

I already know what part II is, and that is the key to this whole miserable game! First let me vent a little! I will post later the excruciating details of the process, but this will be a synopsis of what happend today! I've come to the conclusion, the wheels are falling off the American manufacturing machine - Americans are lazy, fat, and overpaid! I'm American, so I can say what I've said! I met with 3 manufactureing companies today, trying to get a company to embrace a simple product that I have a Patent filed on. The companies all have the capabilities to produce the product, but since it's a little outside the box of what they normally do - It's like babysitting! Trying to get the lazy ***K's to do a little thinking, and embrace a new product, and figure a way to manufacture it! OK, Thanks - I'm done!

Part II will be - after all Ed Zimmer said?! And, what? You still have passion, and you know you can "Stare into the Abyss" , laugh, and dive in with a half gainer, & quadruple sommer sault, and get that new idea to market?!!! Ah, yes you whom beleive this are the true spirit of the definintion - AMERICAN INVENTOR'S!


Hmm...I don't know, Michelle.

Scrupulous's picture

I think many of the comments in this article are accurate. But, they are taken from such a narrow scope, that I wonder what the writer was trying to accomplish. If taken from a more realistic approach, the same comments don't hold up very well.

Naturally, I take a perspective that encompasses the use of patents. That's mainly because it's a sound perspective. It's true that the low percentage of patents that get licensed can be daunting. Yet, it's always good to keep in mind that the marketplace is primarily defined by the body of intellectual property, in a given region (such as the United States). Not every patent will get licensed. That doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to the commercial landscape. Some patents get licensed simply because others don't.

I'd like to address some of the careless points suggested by this article from a broader perspective, so that it can be better appreciated within its poorly outlined frame of reference.

1. Having a professional patent search performed is by no means the only way to find out if an idea is not new. In fact, the average person, with only mediocre computer skills, can actually perform a decent preliminary patent search on the internet. If that person finds what is being searched, then the search will have provided results that could not be surpassed by even the most thorough, expensive, and expert search available anywhere.

2. Having a background in manufacturing, myself, I can say that very few companies would have any backlog of products, much less a backlog of 3-5 years. Yes, there is a small percentage of large corporations that spend a lot of time and money in research and development. But, licensing to an enormous company is not the only way to succeed with an invention.

However, if inventors fail to acquire a license, it may often be because they have failed to consider the most fundamental aspects of production. Common sense goes a long way in that regard.

3. One-sixth the retail price? That is simply not true anymore. Look at all of the online retailers who rely very little on product packaging. Now, more than ever, your fancy retail products come to you in a plain cardboard box.

Although the unit production cost is a key factor, it can be minimized by clever design and modern materials, without sacrificing any quality. And, with newer production strategies, today's options in manufacturing and distribution have dramatically improved the bottom line.

4. A well-written patent does protect the intended function--period. (The rest of the point is painfully accurate, though.)

5. These are all good reasons why a company may not be interested in a product. But, that writer is missing a very important consideration:

All other things equal, a licensor is in a much better position when s/he is the approachee, and not the approacher. Too often, inventors think now, now, now. In terms of patent protection, it isn't a sprint...it's a marathon (up to 21 years!) If the timing isn't right one day (week, month, year...), that doesn't mean it never will be. One would be amazed at how appealing a rejected product can become to a manufacturing facility, when it hits a slow period. And, that company is not going to know when the next lull is expected to come around, either.

Furthermore, it may not ever be necessary to solicit licensing, at all. Once a patent is issued, you can just sit around and wait until someone infringes on it. Companies know what the risks are, and they're often calculated into the overall cost of doing business.

One should avoid being discouraged by prevalent rumors that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to sue for infringement against a major corporation. Actually, as of this writing, it's still only $350 USD to file an action in a Federal District Court against any company, as a pro se litigant. And, a jury would simply l-o-v-e that. Now, consider the fact that a large percentage of infringement cases get settled before they ever make it into the courtroom, and what you have is a darn good shot at getting heard. You just have to know what you're talking about.

Back to you, Michelle.

 

Quality Patents for Reasonable Fees at AffordablePatentService.blogspot.com


Thanks so much for the

Michelle's picture

Thanks so much for the comments, Scrupulous.  I am glad to raise these for inventors to think about and decide on for themselves.

Michelle 


Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <img> <sup> <br> <sub> <u> <strike> <b> <i>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

5 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.