By: Ron Docie, Sr., President, Docie Development, LLC,
© 2010 All rights reserved -

You could not create a better scenario for a scam than you have in the invention business. The real scam is the inventor’s attitude, fueled by misleading information. Consider these assumptions.

Assumption Number One
Arguably, 999 of every 1,000 inventions ever make it from idea stage to the marketplace. This figure certainly could be off by a factor of 10 in one direction or the other depending on how far an idea has advanced before you start counting it, and your definition of what makes a successful invention, i.e. just to make it to the market, to make more money that what was invested in it, to turn a profit for the company, etc.

The US Patent and Trademark office at one point published that 1% or 2% of issued patents ever become a product. Anyway you shake it, the odds are extremely high for any inventor to make a commercially successful product.

Assumption Number Two
From my experience, 999 of every 1,000 inventors think that their invention is the 1 in 1000 that will be successful. This is a good example of why you can put the most frightening disclosure on your brochure about how risky the invention business is, and the customers just keep on coming because they know deep inside that they are not part of the majority at risk.

If you believe these two assumptions are actually facts, you can better understand how this makes it ripe for a scam. A scam company doesn’t even have to ‘scam’ their customers; their customers have already scammed themselves before ever considering the purchase of a service.

Therefore, scam companies need only present a smorgasbord of products and services that the inventors already think that they need, based on all the erroneous information already floating around the marketplace, and viola, they can even make enough money to advertise their toll free number on late night television.

So, if I want to make money from inventors, then all I need to do is take as much of the first dollars coming from the inventor BEFORE they ever figure out that they are part of the 999 in 1000, not the 1 in 1000.

It is ironic that many inventors think that the rip-off comes from companies that want to steal their invention. Tell me something, why would I attempt to steal an invention and deal with a 1 in 1000 statistic to be successful, when I can take $5,000 to $20,000 from the inventor all day long and do that 999 times, instead? So you see, the scam is essentially from inventors feeling perfectly justified in investing great amounts of money for products and services to help them with their invention project, when they have absolutely no idea which of the products or services they really need, and when. Now, let’s look at who exactly is waiting in the wings to take advantage of this situation.

Scam Number One
Major scam number one, many members of the patent profession, including patent attorneys and patent agents registered to practice in good faith at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It doesn’t take much convincing to suggest to an inventor that they should get a patent on an invention in order to “protect” themselves.

The problem is, most inventors don’t realize that in many cases, the patent is not offering them the protection that they think they are getting, and in many cases it is entirely unnecessary to file a patent before performing enough market research as is necessary to determine that the invention will likely not be commercially successful, at least, not enough to pay the expense of patenting.

Certainly there are those circumstances whereby it is essential to file a patent application soon, and often, and patents may be a critical part of your commercialization strategy.

Yet, of the 100’s, if not 1000’s of invention projects I have been associated with over the past three decades, rarely is it the case that the inventor should run out and incur $5,000 to $10,000 in expenses for patenting as their first investment. Instead, inventors usually come to me after having incurred that expense and for about one-fifth of that amount, and without ever revealing the invention; I can typically determine that the invention is not worth pursuing from a commercial standpoint. What I am talking about is to do a little bit of primary market research.

However, market research is a very hard thing to sell to inventors because most inventors don’t think they need research; they don’t need someone telling them how great their invention is or whether it will be a successful product because they already know that it will be. They just need someone to go out there and introduce it to the right companies and viola, they will start to receive royalty checks. This brings us to scam number two.

Scam Number Two
Companies in the business of submitting inventions in bulk to companies found in a database. For only $10,000, you can have your invention submitted to 50 or even 100 companies carefully targeted by the company’s super duper database. Does it matter to the company whether they have targeted the right companies, or that you ever get a positive response, or even an offer to purchase your invention? Of course not! The invention marketing company has a 99.9% chance that they are going to make money from submitting your invention to at least someone, and only a .1% chance that they are going to make money from you being successful with your invention. So where do you think they are going to invest their resources? Hopefully you are getting enough of this picture to answer this question on your own at this point.

So, if I am a patent attorney and I get the first $10,000 from the inventor then I don’t care if they ever market their invention because I got my money first, and besides, the marketing part is not my job, I just file applications. If I’m the marketing company, what do I care if your invention ever makes the market when I can get the first $10,000 from you to send out some form letters to companies found in a database?

If I can prolong the inevitable understanding that your invention is not worth pursuing, then maybe I can sell you some more services along the way, like a virtual demonstration of your invention, or a year’s subscription to a dedicated website, and a database drawing attention to your invention, and any number of other services that inventors like to pay for when they have no real justification in doing so.

What’s NOT a Scam
Here’s how to tell if a company offering services to inventors is not a scam. If the company spends no more of its time, or your money, in the process of diligently attempting to determine that your invention is part of the 999 of 1000. If they suggest a majority of the time that your invention is probably not worth pursuing further, then I’d say you have the real deal. Sadly, only a handful of companies in the United States are able to pull this off and stay in business.

Do you realize how hard a sell it is to say to an inventor client, “I’m going to work hard to determine that your invention probably isn’t worth pursuing”? Can you imagine all the inventors beating down the doors to hear that sales pitch? And yet, that’s exactly what the inventor needs to here if they want to be dealing with a truly legitimate company.

Or, do you think the inventor would rather hear, “I think you have something really great, and we are going to supply you with what you already think you need, sign here, what’s your credit card number?” Herein lies the ripest scenario for a scam that could ever be created.

And what adds insult to injury is that the US Patent and Trademark Office, patent law associations, and other supposedly creditable organizations have fallen right into the trap. They publish material to suggest questions that inventors should ask of invention marketing companies, not even realizing where the scam actually lies. And as such, the scam artist can answer these questions with flying colors, and a legitimate invention broker trying to get started in the business get slammed and appear uncredible compared to the scam artist.

Is it any wonder why there are so few new legitimate invention brokers offering services to inventors in the United States and yet so many scams? Certainly if any authority was effective at understanding the problem, we would have some relief, however there aren’t and we don’t.

As such, these so called markers by which to judge the legitimacy of invention marketing companies may, in many respects, be inverse to what you should actually be looking for. Again, try selling this to an inventor, “Pick only invention marketing companies who end up with mostly failures”. Say, “what?!?” What I am really saying is, pick those companies who ‘successfully’ RECOGNIZE failure in the vast majority of instances, and do so sooner rather than later.

It’s not always a pleasant milestone by which to rate a company, but then sometimes reality can be sobering and necessary, ultimately saving you money, time and grief.

This information is meant to be discouraging, only to the extent that it should ‘encourage’ you to thoroughly investigate the types of services that you really need. If you are NOT approaching this from the standpoint of spending no more time or money than is necessary to find out that your invention may not be worth pursuing further, then you are a ripe candidate for any number of scams, waiting, willing and able to take your hard earned money at each and every step.

Cash for Ideas & Patents

You don’t always need a patent to get your invention idea reviewed by a top company, and get it sold for cash.  

For inventions that are not yet patented, or that contain trade secrets or features that are additional to the patent, I recommend considering the following procedure for submission to companies. (I am not giving legal advice, and you should always contact your attorney when you are dealing with legally binding contracts.) 

I typically meet many company executives, especially at trade shows, and many are very willing to offer to sign a confidentiality agreement. They typically ask that one be sent to them at their office after the trade show. This is all fine and good, however it is my experience that 1 in 10 of these executives ever follow through with their promise. This, by itself, is not necessarily an indicator that the company is not a worthwhile candidate, for reason that I will explain later. 

After returning from the trade show, I would send the company executive a confidential disclosure agreement and give them an opportunity to return it.  If, after 30 days and one verbal reminder, they have not returned the confidential disclosure agreement, and if it is still part of the strategy to submit the invention to this company, then I would do so with a cover letter of confidentiality.  The reason I would do this is because since the company already indicated that they are willing to receive the invention on a confidential basis, receiving a cover letter of confidentiality is not out of the realm of what they should expect.  

In my cover letter to the company I usually state the invention is being submitted under the understanding that all submitted information shall remain property of the inventor, and the company shall not commercialize or use the invention without a written agreement between the parties. As long as I get this term, it usually doesn’t matter so much to me if the company also agrees to confidentiality, as I have never had a company abuse this in my 33 years in the invention business. 

Attorneys have advised me that if I submit my invention to a company under these terms, and if the company accepts the submission without taking exception to the terms, then the procedure becomes and offer and acceptance, thereby potentially making the terms legally biding. (Again, no legal advice here, always consult your attorney) 

If critical patent time bars are an issue, then I would lean on the confidential aspect. The book, The Inventor’s Bible, has more detailed information about submitting inventions to companies. 

This vastly differs from the submission policy of large multi-national companies whose policy is either to not except non-patented inventions, or to receive inventions only after a non-confidential disclosure agreement is signed.  One reason for a large corporation to not agree with confidentiality is because they may be compromised if the company were working on a similar idea simultaneous to the inventor’s submission. A confidential agreement may bring undeserving legal liability to the company. This may welcome a lawsuit from the inventor against the company; something companies want to avoid.  I have heard several horror stories from corporate executives who have experienced this from unreasonable inventors.

However, for those smaller manufacturers who are interested in seeing inventions, submitting your invention under the premise of confidentiality without them actually having to sign an agreement helps to bridge the gap and lets some progress happen, especially for those executives who are liability or written contract adverse. This tends to be the case early in a relationship, especially when they don’t know you yet, and when they are not even sure whether they want to proceed with the invention at all.  

Granted there is inherent risk associated with this method of submitting to a company, however it is my belief that the advantages of potential progress far out weigh the small chance of plagiarism.  Further, I generally revert to this procedure especially when the invention is in a small enough niche market that there is likely not justification for any type of lawsuit concerning it. Thirdly, I tend to do this with companies that I have already pre-qualified, had some experience with, and/or have talked to the executive and so forth. This is not to suggest that it is 100 percent safe to submit to a company just because I have spoken with someone in the company.  Lastly, I do not use this procedure if the premature public disclosure of the invention is an issue for either US or foreign patent filing. The inventor/client must always make the final decision as to how lenient they want to be with their submission policy. 

If the potential market in the next 10 years for the invention were over $50 million in retail sales, then the inventor may want to be a little more conservative regarding their procedure for submission to a potential manufacturer.  I use this as a arbitrary figure for the sake of example.  If the total market were worth $50 million retail, then the manufacturing company that you license may gross $25 million.  If the inventor were to receive a 5 percent royalty then this would amount to $1,250,000 over a ten-year period, or $125,000 per year, minus whatever commissions you paid for negotiation of the license. 

Therefore the net income to the inventor may be in the range of $100,000 per year.  When you consider that it costs on average over $1.2 million per side for just the expenses of a patent infringment lawsuit, it would be highly inefficient and not a prudent financial move to consider a lawsuit because the potential reward would not sufficiently offset the cost for bringing the lawsuit.  

As such, there has to be quite a bit at stake, such as $100’s of millions before even considering going into the litigation realm.  If litigation is not a reasonable alternative, then the next best thing is to make sure you are working with a company that is trustworthy, based on their track record and previous treatment of inventors.  

Nothing is written in stone so at some point the inventor has to take a leap of faith and hopefully companies have been pre-qualified enough that this leap is being made into the hands of a good company.  This also emphasizes the need for the pre-qualification and interviewing at places like trade shows, during in-field market research, and with interviews with executives in the company and people in the industry.

The National Hardware Show, and Lawn & Garden Expo will be held May 4-6, 2010 at the Las Vegas Convention Center. This is an international trade show, and the major US show for consumer, do-it-yourself (DIY) products sold in Lowe’s, Home Depot, Menard’s, Ace, True Value, and hardware stores throughout the USA and even internationally.

If you are an inventor of new products relating to: Hardware & Tools; Lawn, Garden & Outdoor Living; Paint & Accessories; Homewares; Plumbing & Electrical; Storage & Organization; or need help with International Sourcing, this National Hardware Show is place to be.

Most inventors think that they need a patent and a prototype before attending such a trade show. NOT TRUE. The fact is, I’ve attended these shows, while representing inventions, for over three decades – so I’ll let you in on the secrets.

First, you attend the show, you do not pay the big bucks to have an exhibit booth. This allows you time to walk the entire show, which will take a day or two, and see every exhibitor, talking to those with promise.

Second, the attendance price is normally free, or under $100, airfare and hotels are cheap, so for a budget of $300 to $1,000 you can attend an entire three day show, all expenses paid. Why pay $5,000 for a patent, or for expensive prototyping, when you may find a manufacturer who can potentially help you fund your invention project, and save you the risk and investment?

Third, at the show, you are there to listen, not pitch your invention. Therefore, you never have to show anyone any trade secrets or patentable subject matter relating to your invention. All you need to do is be able to talk briefly about the potential benefits and advantages of your invention, just to get in the ballpark of conversation.

Forth, follow the teachings on Docie.com, Trade Shows webpage, and you will learn how to find the markets for your invention, the distribution channels, who the potential manufacturers are, the right contact people, the companies idea submission procedure, their track record of working with other inventors, pricing for your product, potential sales revenue, competitive information, risks and obstacles you may face, and much more important information that you would otherwise never be able to obtain at one location, and in such a short period of time.

If you are working with a marketing company, and they are not attending this trade show, get someone else, because they are not seriously in the game.

Fifth, the United Inventors Association is hosting a one-day seminar for inventors on May 3, the price of which includes admission to the show.

If you can not attend this show, contact some of these reputable companies who plan to be in attendance: America Invents, Docie Marketing, and Lambert and Lambert, all of whom have experience in hardware, with working this show, and are seasoned marketers. Some charge a fee, and others charge commission only.

Good Luck!

Many people think that invention submission type companies are the biggest sources for ripping off inventors. But these companies can’t even come close to taking money from inventors at a rate remotely near what inventors waste on patent attorneys to file erroneous, inappropriate, and ineffective patent applications.

Here’s how you get scammed. First you establish a profession of highly paid and powerful lawyers. Then you add a lobbying body like the APLA (American Patent Law Association) to do your gunning for you, both in Washington, and with PR. With this facade of seeming credibility, you publish material and build a case for telling the lowly independent inventors (I’m in this category, too) that the first thing you’d better do is patent your invention before doing anything else. Some go so far as to inappropriately tell the inventor that they are “protected” by the mere filing of a patent application.

Of course the justification for such advice is many fold. Filing a patent application, and thereby establishing your date of priority certainly may be critical; however, with most inventions being in rather small niche markets, this advantage is mostly outweighed by the inherent risk of losing any and all money you spend on patenting and developing your invention. Every inventor’s situation is different; one size doesn’t fit all. As such, should you patent BEFORE spending a little time and money doing some market research? The answer is, normally, and on average, NO.

The next concern of the cautious patent attorney is if you reveal your invention while doing ANY market research, you’ll probably lose any chance of receiving foreign patents. Although this may be true, consider these two facts:

1. There is a tremendous amount of market research that an inventor can do on their own, without ever revealing any of the trade secrets of their invention. Isn’t it interesting that patent attorneys, as sharp as they are, have never in the 200+ year history of US patents, figured out how an inventor might do some quick preliminary market research before applying for a patent? Since these patent attorneys as a whole, and as a profession, are inept when it comes to invention marketing and especially invention market research, I would humbly suggest that they leave this sort of thing up to marketers, and maybe even glean some advice from the marketing profession and work in concert to help inventors on a more holistic basis.

2. What if you never get a foreign patent? My experience is that foreign patents are not appropriate for over 95% of the hundreds of invention projects that I have personally worked on or been familiar with. This is because it normally requires an investment of well over $100,000 to go down the foreign patenting route. Plus, there are exorbitant costs to maintain those patents on an annual basis. Most inventions by individual inventors are never successful, or only a tiny portion ever get international distribution, and fewer will ever receive enough royalties or other income to justify the investment of foreign patenting.

So, how does an inventor pre-determine whether their invention project is even appropriate for foreign patenting? Well, this is where the market research comes in handy. And who’s going to do this? Not the patent attorney. You don’t hire a brain surgeon to repair your car. And you’ll find few patent attorneys referring their would-be clients to a marketing company, especially prior to any patent application.

Are you starting to see the vicious circle here? Patent attorneys have used every apparent credible resource and reason to capture the first dollar spent by inventors. Nearly every day an inventor tells me that they can’t spend any money on marketing because they blew their wad on patenting expenses, yes, even mortgaging the farm in some cases. The number of inventors who tell me this dwarfs the number that complain that the submission companies have just allegedly ripped them off.

You may ask, why would these unscrupulous attorneys, many of whom seem nice, want to rip off the poor independent inventor? The answer is simple. When cash flow is tight, do you send the inventor to a marketing research firm to tell the inventor that his “baby is ugly,” or do you take the first dollar, give him a vanity patent, and make tons more money in the process? Enter — the dark side.

Next thing you know, you’ve spent $5,000 to $10,000 for a patent that you will never need and you’ve wasted three or more years waiting for a response from the patent office.

In all fairness, I must say that irrespective of all the statements about attorneys I’ve made herewith, I use attorneys all the time, I recommend that my clients use attorneys, and I think everyone should use, at least to some extent, a patent attorney or agent to file their patent application; attorneys have saved my ass, helped my clients, and many are my personal friends. Not every attorney is unscrupulous, and many do recommend that inventors seek marketing and market research results before pursing a patent. You just need to do your research beforehand and know when it’s the right time to use an attorney’s services, and which of their services to use.

In the next few blogs, I will talk about what inventors can do to learn more about the pros and cons of patenting, and how to establish a patent strategy.

RON DOCIE’s career in the world of inventions spans more than three decades. His own inventions are found in Wal-Mart, Kmart, and thousands of other outlets. As an agent for inventors, Docie has negotiated over fifty licenses with such companies as General Motors. He is an expert consultant on idea submission to Johnson & Johnson and other prominent companies. Docie is the president of Docie Development, LLC, an international company that provides services for inventors and corporations, and he is author of The Inventor’s Bible: How to Market and License Your Brilliant Ideas, Third Edition, 2010, Ten Speed Press, a Crown Publishing imprint of Random House.

In the early 1980’s, after I successfully commercialized my first invention, a blind spot mirror for vehicles, I decided I would change the direction of my business, and market ideas, patents and technology solely in the “green” categories of saving energy, helping the environment, reducing pollution, etc.

Being a successful inventor, many other inventors would approach me — some of whom had inventions that would save millions of barrels of oil, reduce C02 and other pollutions ten-fold, save energy and in general help the environment, our quality of lives and the planet.

The notion of working for inventors with such idealistic standards was exciting and encouraging.  However, being a neophyte in marketing and only in my 20s, I would have never believed what I was about to learn about marketing energy-saving inventions.

At the time, the US Department of Energy was the only branch of the U.S. Government that had programs and financing specifically for inventors. Further, the U.S. Government funded the SBIR (Small Business Innovation and Research) program, and billions of dollars were allocated for inventors and small companies to develop innovative technologies geared toward saving energy and the environment. However, after their research was successfully concluded, it was up to the grant recipients to figure out how to commercialize, market or license these fabulous technologies.

Here comes Docie Invention and Patent Marketing Services to the rescue. I went to the conferences sponsored by the US Government for these energy programs and I sought out the top inventions and inventors who seemed most reasonable and willing to work towards commercializing their technology. I even provided most of my services on a commission basis.

The net result: I essentially financially lost my ass and had to completely remodel my business.

Here we were, in the early 80s when the first oil embargo took place, interest rates were in the double digits and the gasoline prices increased at least threefold in a very short period of time. You would have thought the timing was perfect to commercialize any energy-saving invention, whether or not it had an environmental twist to it. Guess again.

The oil embargo blew over, fuel prices stabilized, the presidential administration and congress changed guard, and all of a sudden we went from a condition of everyone being so concerned about affordable gasoline to business as usual; who cares. Does this scenario sound familiar? It should, because the exact same thing took place just recently when we were on the path to having strict fuel standards for vehicles but instead saw an explosion of gas guzzling SUVs. History repeated itself, almost to a T.

The vivid lesson learned by these examples apply to all inventors seeking to commercialize their patents, new products and technologies. The lesson is, it matters not what the facts are, it matters only what the facts are perceived to be.

There is largely a disconnect between what is true value as recognized by an inventor who developed a truly wonderful and valuable invention, and what is perceived as value by the consuming public.  For example: we might know that health food is better for us, but are there more health food establishments, or convenience stores selling sugar, caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes?  We might know that we should conserve fuel, but how many people go out of their way to do so in a serious way, let alone make a sacrifice?

So, you as the inventor may have a wonderful invention that may save lives, help the environment, reduce energy consumption and so forth.  Will it sell?  That is another story. Why? Because consumers don’t always make purchases, or even make life decisions, that are in their best interest.

Even in my own case, knowing that the market hasn’t fully changed my do-good intentions.  I am currently working on developing a hybrid, solar cooking oven that uses the sun in combination with other fuels to cook without having to turn on your oven.

Does it work?  Yes. It actually works great.

How did the test market go?  It bombed of course, no one cares about us.

Will I give up?  No.

Yes, I am a true inventor.

You can learn more about this disconnect in inventing and marketing by reading more articles on DIMWIT.com Self-Help Guide for Inventors, or checking out my book, The Inventor’s Bible, How to Market and License Your Brilliant Ideas, 2001, 2004, and 2010, 3^rd edition by Ten Speed Press, in print by Random House.

RON DOCIE’s career in the world of inventions spans more than three decades. His own inventions are found in Wal-Mart, Kmart, and thousands of other outlets. As an agent for inventors, Docie has negotiated over fifty licenses with such companies as General Motors. He is an expert consultant on idea submission to Johnson & Johnson and other prominent companies. Docie is the president of Docie Development, LLC, an international company that provides services for inventors and corporations, and he is author of The Inventor’s Bible: How to Market and License Your Brilliant Ideas, Third Edition, 2010, Ten Speed Press, a Crown Publishing imprint of Random House.

This past summer I was invited to attend the Hawaiian Inventors Conference in Honolulu September 19. I was hosted by the conference organizer and speaker, Daynin Dashefsky. Daynin is a real go-getter and loves to share her experiences of how she was successful commercializing her own invention. She holds conferences like this and has a series of CD’s sharing the process she went through, and the process any budding entrepreneur may need to go through to commercialize their invention, especially if they want to do so on their own, i.e., be an entrepreneur and have their own company for manufacturing, distribution and marketing.

What was somewhat unique about Daynin’s conference, despite the location, which was much more wonderful then most of the inventor conferences that I attend, was the format for the conference. Daynin was the principal conference speaker on Saturday.  Then, on the second day of the conference, all attendees were invited to spend 30-60 minutes interviewing any member of the half-dozen industry experts on various topics pertaining to the commercialization of inventions.

In attendance were: Brian Kunzler, a patent attorney from Utah who helped inventors understand U.S. patents and trademarks, the process of patenting, how to get a patent, how to apply for a patent, and so forth. Michelle Price consulted on social media and marketing. Michael Drew, an expert on market positioning, book publicist, and SEO specialist; Ron Wilder, electrical engineer and prototyper, Connie Chow, asian manufacturer sourcing specialist, and yours truly, Ron Docie, invention marketing and licensing specialist.

Other Inventors’ Events

The Minnesota Inventors Congress (MIC) held in June each year, in Redwood Falls, Minnesota, offers a similar format. However, their conference has many more speakers, a broader range of advisers, and a tradeshow for inventors to display their inventions.  Sometimes new product scouts from major manufacturing companies go to the Minnesota show to seek inventions.  Unfortunately, the Minnesota Congress, which is the oldest conference of its kind in the United States, and possibly the world, is the only substantive conference held without interruption over the years. Check out this blog in a couple months to get updates about these upcoming trade shows, or the news reports covering them.

The Yankee Invention Exposition in Waterbury, Connecticut, offers the format very similar to that of the MIC however; it is unclear if they will receive the funding necessary to hold a conference in 2010? Because of funding they had to cancel the conference in 2009.

In my next blog, I’ll talk about the Wisconsin innovation workshop for inventors and share information about that conference format and features as I learn more.

RON DOCIE’s career in the world of inventions spans more than three decades. His own inventions are found in Wal-Mart, Kmart, and thousands of other outlets. As an agent for inventors, Docie has negotiated over fifty licenses with such companies as General Motors. He is an expert consultant on idea submission to Johnson & Johnson and other prominent companies. Docie is the president of Docie Development, LLC, an international company that provides services for inventors and corporations, and he is author of The Inventor’s Bible: How to Market and License Your Brilliant Ideas, Third Edition, 2010, Ten Speed Press, a Crown Publishing imprint of Random House.