Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

"outsource production to China based on spec my designer has created"  etc...

Business if often complex because many people think in business anything is fair as long as it`s legal and you don`t get caught.

SNco, we don`t even know what your ideas or products are, yet you expect advises on a public forum.  What I can tell you is patent pro will always advise you to get a patent, others may advise short cuts to wealth, but at the end of the day it`s your money to lose.

A problem with small businesses is their owners think small, and probably know small.   Public forum advices are free and they`re worth every penny of it - i.e. not much

The pros won`t give free advice, especially legal ones, lest losing potential businesses. There is no universal advice.  Every situation mandates a tailored plan and execution.

If you`re only interested in making a few quick bucks on a particular design, fine, have it made and try to sell the goods.  It`s not going to be easy, so be warned about outsourcing to China, which takes a lot of money, because they`d make goods by the container.  But then, if you think you can sell your goods by the container, it may be worth patenting.  Few entrepreneurs have deep pockets for ordering containers of goods and pay the tens of thousand dollars for patent pros.

My free advice to you is to apply for a provisional patent.  I`d pre-empt the pros who`d say it pays to have a pro prepare it for you, else it may be worthless.  My answer is ALL my issued patents got started as pro-se provisional applications and ended as pro-se grantees.  But then I may be a pro in amateur clothing, not desiring to pass the patent bar exam.  My friends do, ending up working as patent examiners and ruining the USPTO for innovative inventors because they set the bar so low, granting "simple" patents and let the businesses slug it out in the court system.







 



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

Go Green and put more money onto your bottom line with award-winning LED-based light bulbs PearlLED. If you manage a good sized store/business and want to boost the bottom line, call us!

Dear SNco,

I’m not a lawyer. If you believe someone has infringed on your patent you should use one.

When I said manufacturer I meant the company that made the decision to make the product. Manufacturer may have been a poor choice of words. Let’s use the word infringer.

The infringer may be willing to cut you a license deal rather than go to court. Definitely have your lawyer contact the infringer. It is unlikely the infringer would take your phone calls and letters seriously.

Your intention is to outsource production to China. Good. I believe when an inventors ideas are mass produced in China that is the ultimate form of success. If your idea is licensed you may not be in control of the manufacturing process. Hopefully your idea will be making you money when you sleep.

 

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

Massive success to you.

Terry Cantwell

http://www.protect-new-idea.com

Innovater7-

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and adding your input.  I appreciate it.  Also, thanks for pointing out some of the areas where I may have not been clear enough when presenting my argument.  First, let me say that I plan on developing products for travelers -travel accesssories, etc. Second, I should clarify that I`m not expecting "free advice on a public forum" as a way to avoid going to a lawyer and paying a consulting fee. I am, however, presenting an argument against patents for someone at the small business level.

Why did I start this post?  Maybe I haven`t gone back far enough on SuN`s archives, but I haven`t yet found a discussion on the forum that has covered this topic in detail from both sides. The consensus seems to be that when you have an idea then you patent it before bringing it to the market. If you don`t do that someone may steal your idea, resulting in your business failing.  I argue this is false and steers the early entrepreneur in the wrong direction. In the real world, how many businesses are successful because they have patents?  Can you look at these companies and argue that they would fail if they didn`t have patents? Wouldn`t it be more accurate to say that they are successful because they have good products?

Those who defend the aquisition of patents do not expound on the headaches of defending the patents themselves.  James (P&T) said: "Patents provide a remedy mechanism when you find somebody copying your invention.  Copying can be making the EXACT same thing or making something that is "CLOSE ENOUGH."

In the real world, how often does this happen?  And when it has happened, did the business which owned the patent stay successful only because they were able to defend their patent? If indeed the business failed because they never got a patent and couldn`t take legal action(although I`m convinced this would not sink a business), then couldn`t you say they had a bad business plan to begin with? They depended solely on the success of one product?  It would take atleast a few years before their idea was stolen.  In those few years they haven`t aquired any feedback from customers on what to create next? Doesn`t that go against the spirit of innovation?

Innovater7 said: "A problem with small businesses is their owners think small, and probably know small."

>>Are you saying this is a bad thing?  I do not see this as a `problem`. On the contrary, I would think it best for any entrepreneur to start small - grow your revenue on frequency of sales, not volume. This idea is especially important for people on this forum.  Why promote the idea of "going big" to a group of aspiring entrepreneurs who are on SuN looking for tips? How can we go big when we haven`t even gone small? How can a violinist play "Flight of the Bumblebee" before learning to play "Three Blind Mice"? Furthermore, I think the idea of starting "big" ends mostly with either (1)the entrepreneur being dissuaded by such a daunting task or, (2)the start-up business failing because it has gone beyond its means and abilities, and incurred too much debt while doing so.

"If you`re only interested in making a few quick bucks on a particular design, fine, have it made and try to sell the goods".

>>That is exactly my interest.  One shouldn`t expect to make a fortune off the first product. One should, however, expect the first product to allow one to get one`s foot in the door in their industry of choice.  After that, the plan is to develop newer products based on customer feed back. This is a continued process and keeps the business going. Don`t you find it counter-productive to expect  to make riches off the first version of your first product?  How often does that happen?  Another reason not to patent.  Why patent something you most likely will change anyway?

"It`s not going to be easy, so be warned about outsourcing to China, which takes a lot of money, because they`d make goods by the container."

>>I`ve found that many suppliers in China have a minimum order that do not require an entire container. Besides the cost of a minimum order is relatively small. As far as it not being easy, creating a successfull business is always going to be hard work. You can`t get something for nothing...

"..if you think you can sell your goods by the container, it may be worth patenting."

>>For reasons mentioned above, the patent makes no difference just because I can sell a container`s worth of goods.

"Few entrepreneurs have deep pockets for ordering containers of goods and pay the tens of thousand dollars for patent pros."

>>My point exactly! Why divert resources to patents which are too costly to protect when it`s better spent elsewhere?

SNco, your approach works for many businesses, especially small ones.  I didn`t say a patent is a must.  In many cases marketing is more important.  The real issue is competitive advantages.  A patent may provide part of it, especially for high tech products.  For consumer/travelers` goods, marketing and channels are more important.

I was at Lowe`s yesterday, looking for details on the mundane fluorescent lamps.  Learned a few things from the attending electrician.  They have overpriced LED retrofits for flashlight that I won`t buy, but the manufacturer makes a killing by having sold it to Lowe.  That`s but an example of successful product that may not need a patent but I believe the mfg would get one, due to their high volume.  Just a simple design or utility patent, but that may deter copycats that they don`t really have to worry about because they got the channels.

My products have provisional patents on them because they are innovative and don`t have the channel or brand name established yet.  It`s billion-dollar markets so a patent is worthwhile, else no VC would invest and then some.  For them it`s too low tech to risk their money, although theyre more often wrong than right.  But that`s how VCs work, looking for pattern of businesses they know to have worked.  90% of many excellent businesses are not VC-fundable because they don`t fit their "pattern" or model.  

So back to the subject of patent: there`s no fast rule.  To make money is more important than to spend money on patents is what patent attorneys will never advise, saying reasonably that they can`t predict the future.  But entrepreneurs have to CREATE their future.  It`s not easy, but doable.



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

Go Green and put more money onto your bottom line with award-winning LED-based light bulbs PearlLED. If you manage a good sized store/business and want to boost the bottom line, call us!

Personally, I`m thrilled when someone whips out a legal document. If they`re the sort of person who needs that, they have other problems I`m not in a position to know yet. Refusing to sign these instruments is a very fast way to end the conversation and move onto more productive work. From Contracts are not an insurance policy:



SNco: I`ve been reading some of your other posts. You have good instincts. I`m not telling you something you don`t already know but you need more than what you can find in a generic start up business forum. I suggest you hang with people who are at the level where you want to be. You need refined parameters to what you already intuit or have learned via due diligence and the integrity of effort. For example (commonly misused), "manufacturer" is a legal designation. It does not refer to the party who assembles the product. The latter is technically a contractor. The party who causes the product to exist (you) is the manufacturer. It is with the manufacturere that all liabilities (product safety etc) lie.


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

~Nurture people, not products~
http://www.fashion-incubator.com

It is NOT with the manufacturer that all liabilities (product safety etc) lie.  You can have liability by simply selling a defective product or a product that infringes a patent - which is why Home Depot and other sellers find themselves in court more often than desired.

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

James Lindon, Ph.D. Patent Attorney
Lindon & Lindon, LLC
Cleveland, Ohio
Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Pharmacy Law, Litigation
[this is not legal advice - provided for discussion only]
Intellectual Property for the Individual and Small Business: Identify, Protect, Enforce, Defend.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
http://www.LindonLaw.com

Rather than bending a topic to that which serves you, the matter under consideration here was the product developer, not the retailer of the product but since you brought it up, yeah, sure, a retailer can be liable under these circumstances IF they produced the item under private label -iow, they ARE the manufacturer of record albeit under private label and two, because people like to sue deep pockets. The point here wasn`t retail but manufacturing.


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

~Nurture people, not products~
http://www.fashion-incubator.com