Community Calendar
March 2010
S M T W T F S
28 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3
Upcoming Events
Thu Mar 11, 2010 @05:30PM - 09:00PM
IRT Denver Monthly Meeting
Tue Mar 16, 2010 @05:30PM - 09:00PM
IRT Colorado Springs Monthly Meeting
IDT Login
Home More News

Inventing News

By STEVE LOHR

Published: November 10, 2009

BY now, a thick pile of recent books and expert reports warns that the United States is losing its innovative edge, and a poorer future for the nation beckons unless the trend is reversed.

 

With the American economy in a wrenching downturn, the innovation imperative seems more pressing than ever. Is there a role for foundations in advancing an innovation agenda? And, if so, what?

Definitions of innovation vary widely, but in the current context a crucial distinction needs to be made between invention and innovation. Invention is coming up with the breakthrough idea, and foundations focused on science and technology typically support those ambitious quests, from H.I.V. vaccines (the Gates Foundation) to hyper-efficient cars (the X Prize Foundation).

Innovation is the process that translates knowledge into economic growth and social well-being. Invention is science, innovation is economics.

In universities, interest in “innovation economics” is surging. And foundations, experts say, could help advance innovation research.

“Innovation itself is a field in need of innovation,” said John Kao, a former professor at the Harvard Business School and an innovation consultant to governments and corporations. “What we really need is more original thinking about how innovation works in society, and that could come from the philanthropic sector as well as universities.

”Others make grants in the innovation field, but the Kauffman Foundation has made the broadest commitment. Its support and focus in recent years are helping push “innovation” from being a vague admonition in policy speeches to the basis for a growing discipline of serious research.

The Kauffman Foundation was established in 1966 by Ewing Marion Kauffman, a pharmaceutical entrepreneur and owner of the Kansas City Royals. A self-made man, Mr. Kauffman, who died in 1993, wanted his philanthropy to promote entrepreneurial activity and education.

The foundation, based in Kansas City, Mo., has assets of $2 billion and still broadly pursues the founder’s mission, but it has evolved considerably. In 2002, Carl J. Schramm, an economist and lawyer, became its president.

At the time, Mr. Schramm recalled, the foundation focused on trying to persuade business schools to begin entrepreneurship programs. Today, by contrast, the foundation is one of the nation’s largest private supporters of economic research in universities.

The climate for innovation, Mr. Schramm said, is vital in determining whether entrepreneurs succeed or fail. “We try to foster a deeper understanding of the innovation process,” he said “and that is our leverage point to help stimulate economic growth, create new jobs and wealth.

”Soon after he arrived, Mr. Schramm recruited Robert E. Litan, the director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution, to head Kauffman’s research program. Mr. Litan, who joined in 2003, recalled that his assignment was to expand and improve the foundation’s research, and sponsor more work by mainstream economists.

Recent grants went to Edmund S. Phelps, a professor at Columbia University and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 2006, and William Baumol of New York University, a pioneer in applying economic theory to entrepreneurs.

The Kauffman Foundation often supports data-intensive research. For example, the Kauffman Firm Survey is a study of nearly 5,000 companies that were started in 2004. The survey will follow the fledgling firms over the years, seeking factors of success or failure. Each participant initially answered more than 100 questions.

The research, Mr. Litan said, is the economic equivalent of the Framingham Heart Study, the landmark health survey begun in 1948 to examine the causes of heart disease. The Kauffman survey data, he noted, has already been used by more than 100 academic researchers.

Kauffman, along with the National Science Foundation, is building a database that tracks government-sponsored research for science and engineering and links it with company start-ups, patents and other data. One goal of the research is to identify the characteristics of “star innovators,” scientists who are most effective in ushering research advances into the marketplace.

Kauffman’s research into technology transfer from universities suggested that formal programs tended to ignore many inventions and discoveries that could have commercial potential. So the foundation set up a Web site and database, the iBridge Network, where scientists and engineers from 40 universities have posted 3,000 inventions, from software to chemical compounds. “It’s an eBay for ideas,” Mr. Schramm said.

Kauffman has also begun a Law, Innovation and Growth program, which will make $10 million in grants over the next five years. The research, Mr. Litan explained, will look at how copyright, patent and other laws affect innovation. In 1960s and 1970s, scholars like Guido Calabresi and Richard Posner made it standard practice to begin looking at legal issues through the lens of formal economic analysis. The Kauffman program, Mr. Litan said, seeks to “generate and grow a whole new generation of scholars” who explore the interaction of the law and innovation.

“It’s a big-think initiative,” he said. “That’s what foundations can do.”

Last Updated (Tuesday, 23 February 2010 16:27)

 

(Reprinted from ArticlesSnatch.com)

By:      Loreno Lepe

 

Do you have an invention that has been burrowing away in your mind for years? Do you think it could make you real money, but you lack the financial ability to do anything about it at the moment? If you do, you might want to consider applying for a patent.

Whilst it can seem quite expensive to buy a patent for something that is currently only an idea, it can be well worth it in the long run. For every invention, from vacuum cleaners to mobile ringtones, there has always been somebody left kicking themselves because they had thought of it first but were usurped by a company that is now making millions.

Patents are awarded by the government and give an inventor the right to stop others using, selling or manufacturing their idea without permission. This lasts for a limited amount of time, depending on how much is paid. Patents are often described as granting intellectual property meaning that they can be bought, sold or rented to others.

A patent gives you the right to stop others from making your invention, but it does not give you rights above anyone else to have your invention made. Once you have one, you will need to start thinking about ways to manufacture your idea.

The two main types available in the United States are Design and Utility. Utility patents are awarded for the invention or discovery of any new, useful and developable process, article of manufacture, machine or composition of matter.

If you have a new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in the United States you may be granted a Design patent.

Additionally, Plant patents are available to anyone who discovers and can asexually reproduce a totally new variety of plant.

The rules for awarding these property rights include the fact that your invention must be useful. This means both that it should have a purpose, and that it should be manufactured by normal industrial processes. An invention that cannot be fesibly manufactured could be rejected.

Abstract ideas, including laws of nature and observed or created physical phenomenon, cannot be granted patents. Neither can you be granted property rights over an idea or suggestion it is the actual invention or machine described by you that it patented, not your idea.

Sometimes you have an idea, but do not know it already exists somewhere. If other people in this country have known about or used your idea before you apply, you will not be eligable to have it patented. There are websites where you can check which ideas have already been granted a patent.

Furthermore, if your invention has appeared in a printed publication in any country in the world, for more than a year before your application, you cannot have property rights over it.

For more information, you may wish to look up the Patent and Trademark office of your government, which will highlight the full rules and procedure. Often, when people are sure they are eligable, they choose to hire a patent attorney or agent to help them with applications. Good luck!

Last Updated (Tuesday, 23 February 2010 14:52)

 

  

The first issue of the “Inventors Eye,” a USPTO bimonthly publication for the independent inventor community, is now available.  The articles in this first issue include:

Look for inclusion of a reference to our affiliate, The Inventors' RoundtableTM, in subsequent issues.

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

LegalZoom sued for Unauthorized Practice of Law

Other related posts:

Patent blogger sued by invention promoter

Last Updated (Tuesday, 23 February 2010 13:17)

 

There are a series of articles appearing in eHow collectively referred to as "How to Invent New Products" (Parts 1, 2 and 3).  The first part deals with generating ideas, the second with the initial patent search and the last with market research.

Each of the parts is excellent reading on their own.   Collectively, they constitute valuable inventing wisdom, especially for the wanna be inventor in all of us.  Set forth below are the links to each of the three parts.

Enjoy!

How to Invent New Products. Part I Generating Ideas
How to Invent New Products. Part II: Initial Patent Search
How to Invent New Products. Part III: Market Research

Last Updated (Monday, 08 February 2010 12:41)

 
R&D Innovator Volume 2, Number 7         by Walter Raczynski

Mr. Raczynski is a product designer in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

Back in 1988, I was on my hands and knees, reattaching a snarl of cables to the back of my personal computer.  With a foul-tasting flashlight stuck in my mouth (it was perfect for blocking the escape of the profanities this task was earning), I worked at inserting the connectors, guided by their trapezoidal shape.

Then came my favorite part—tightening those dreaded tiny thumbscrews, located only the short radius of a helium atom from their neighbors. 

As I continued connecting my digital servant, I got to repeat this joyful task, except that the next connector didn’t even have thumbscrews.  The manufacturer had been too value-conscious (read “cheap”) to bother with them, so I dragged out the jeweler’s screwdriver I kept by my computer and got to work. A Problem, and an Opportunity I’m a product designer—so instead of merely committing blasphemy, the normal human response to the aggravation caused by bad design—I tend to ask questions.  For example, “Why does it take two hands, one flashlight, a direct line of sight and a screwdriver just to connect a printer to a computer?”  Having asked the question, I made a few on-the-knees observations about the design problem.  This beloved connector had a body holding its electrical components, with a screw on each side to engage two nuts on the computer.  Both screws, as luck would have it, were products of the industrial revolution—meaning they turned clockwise to engage, counterclockwise to disengage.

Computers and peripherals are constantly being improved (at least their guts, if not their accursed connectors).   Obviously, each change would necessitate further fumbling with cables.  Could I save fellow office workers the embarrassment of having to expose their buttocks to the breeze while fumbling with a screwdriver and flashlight during these inevitable equipment changes?   In other words, could I couple the motion of these screws easily and cheaply?        

I thought of several solutions and gauged them according to ergonomics:  The best one would interface naturally with the human hand.  That meant I couldn’t use a gear to connect the thumbscrews—it would have to be too thin (I knew the computer industry wasn’t going to reposition the connectors for my benefit, and they’re spaced too close for a big gear to fit between them).

Tractor Belt

I was still on my knees when I thought up the inverse of a gear.  A gearbelt would have teeth on the inside like the tracks on a bulldozer and teeth on the outside to easily engage the driving machinery (the office-dweller’s paw).  This would allow me to call my invention a “tractor-grip” connector. 

As I carefully extricated myself from the tangle of cables beneath my desk, I began the engineering and  design process.  My first problem was strength—if I reinforced the belt, it would be impossible to install on the connector during manufacture.  And how strong did it need to be?  If the belt stretched, it would help prevent office Tarzans from overtightening the connector screws—this does happen—and stripping the nuts on the computer’s end of the connector or, worse yet, snapping the screws.   That would allow me to add safety to my list of features, which obviously began with convenience. 

I found a belt supplier who actually seemed to care about the use to which their belts would be put, and they sent me some samples that were nearly the right size.  I pondered the physical constraints on a computer connector (and ended up spending more time than I wanted staring at the backs of these machines), then put together some drawings and had a shop construct a “proof-of-principle” model. Now, to Commercialize

Since I had belts that were one-sided only, I had to glue them together with a vile industrial cement, something which had the fortunate side-effect of stretching the belts to the correct length.  I took my sample connector to a computer manufacturer and had the pleasure of watching 50 engineers pass it around as if it were contraband.  That was when I realized that they’d spent even more hours on their knees wrestling with those stone-age connectors than I had! 

I had a ready audience, and if only this engineering department hadn’t been disassembled immediately after my visit, I’d have made a sale on my first call.  I contacted a second firm, however, where I was rejected several times by the marketers.  Finally, I had the presence of mind to call on the president directly.  I was able to convince him that he really wanted to see me and that he would sign a non-disclosure agreement.  As time is always short in situations like this, I just pulled the prototype from my pocket, watched the flash of “religion” in his eyes, and licensed the invention to his company the same day.

As a designer, I have always been engaged with function as well as the visual “correctness” of a product.  I think that if it’s not visually correct, there's usually a functional flaw as well. Following this principle, it was relatively easy to design the adapter as an attractive unit instead of a bulky bulldozer-behind-the-computer. 

My last challenge was to find a belt that was both stretchy (so it would slip against the screws when Tarzan tried to over-tighten it) and slippery (so it would slide over the connector during tightening).  I knew I couldn’t lubricate the product as I had the prototype—with forehead grease—so I settled on a belt that was molded in two stages, with hard, slippery teeth on the inside and a grabbier, yet stretchier urethane on the outside. I was granted a patent on my gizmo, and first licensed it to Xircom, Inc., who began using it on pocket network adapters.  In June, 1992, LAN Times called it “the most clever mechanical idea to turn up at NetWorld,” a Boston computer-equipment show.  The Wall Street Journal recently covered my adapter as well.  It turns out the computer industry, despite signs to the contrary, is not immune to good ergonomics.

So now I can buy flashlights that aren’t mint flavored, and go to work on my desktop rather than under it.

Last Updated (Monday, 08 February 2010 12:11)

 
More Articles...