Bootstrapping a New Technology?

djk1024 writes "I've just filed for a patent on a new approach to motion capture that is simple, cheap, easy, accurate, and portable. It's RF-based, accurate to 1 mm, and simple enough that a sophisticated hobbyist could build one in a couple weekends from plans and standard electronics. So now what? I quit my job and have been working on this full-time for the past couple of years; now I'm out of money so can't continue development on my own. I'm also not an electrical or RF guy so I can't carry out my own independent development on the electronics. I'm quite frustrated at this point. I've been in the software development field for over 30 years and have gone through a large number of startups, but always just as the head techie, and always as part of a team. This doing it alone sucks. I would love some advice on how best to go forward."

Comments

Sell your patent

[John Hasler]

The buyer may offer you a job, which seems to be what you want.

Re:Sell your patent

[Kagetsuki]

That's a little hasty, I'd offer an employer free use and licensing rights on the patent for the duration of your employment, and give them a contract guaranteeing them use with a marginal license fee after. There's also the issue of exclusivity, but you should figure out what you want to do with that and possibly talk it over with your future employer.

Now, I have one question and please don't take this the wrong way: if you system is so simple it would take only a few weekends to build yourself, why is it taking you so long to develop? Many hobby kits have versions, as do essentially all complex electronic components. If you just filed for a patent you should be patent-pending soon, which means even if you sell kits or samples the users of your kits/samples will not be able to mass produce all they want - patent pending alone is enough to bring up and win a court case. Also, you don't really need a patent to copyright or license your idea, so why not do that now?

Re:Sell your patent

[Zordak]

Okay, I'm going to be a little anal here. Nothing personal, just trying to make sure that only the best and most precise information is showing up on Slashdot.

Now, I have one question and please don't take this the wrong way: if you system is so simple it would take only a few weekends to build yourself, why is it taking you so long to develop?

Development usually takes a lot longer than following somebody else's directions.

.... If you just filed for a patent you should be patent-pending soon

If he just filed a patent application, then his thing is "patent pending." As soon as you file, you can call it that.

which means even if you sell kits or samples the users of your kits/samples will not be able to mass produce all they want - patent pending alone is enough to bring up and win a court case.

Um, no, that is absolutely not true. You cannot sue on a patent until it issues. Before it issues, you don't even know what the claims are going to be when they issue. In most cases, they get amended during prosecution. So until your patent issues, you can't sue anybody, much less win. There is one thing to be aware of. Once your application is published, if you put a potential infringer on notice of your pending application and if it then issues with substantially the same claims as the ones that were publishes, then after it issues and you sue them, you will be able to get a reasonable royalty going back to when you put them on notice. But you still can't actually sue until the patent issues.

Also, you don't really need a patent to copyright or license your idea, so why not do that now?

You can't copyright an idea. You can copyright your description of it, but that doesn't prevent somebody from reading that description and implementing the same idea. It just keeps them from copying your description. Copyrights and patents are not interchangeable.

I'm a patent attorney, but this post is not legal advice. It's for entertainment purposes only. In other words, if you use a post on Slashdot as legal advice and things go badly for you, (1) you deserve whatever you get, and (2) don't try to sue me.

Re:Sell your patent

[Zordak]

No problem. Your check's in the mail. I postdated it for "the day after the GNU Hurd port of Duke Nukem Forever ships."

Re:Sell your patent

[Kagetsuki]

I wasn't trying to say the development process was short, and I'm not quite sure what system the author is developing; but it sounds like the author is perhaps way in over his head. There are many companies that exist solely for the purpose of providing technical assistance in developing new technologies for people with ideas. The Xerox machine for example, the inventor only had an idea and he hired a graduate student to develop it. The company I am a part of provides such development services as well, and I'm fairly confident if the author claims his system is as simple as he states it is we could have developed it for him into a product for less than $5,000US and in less than a few months.

Also, perhaps I used Copyright incorrectly. Here we have "è'--ä½oeæ©" which is automatically issued at the time of release of any created work. I could create software, hardware, an image, a document, an audio recording, it doesn't matter as soon as I create it and release it somehow I automatically get my rights to it. If someone were to copy it, regardless of weather or not I held a patent, I could raise legal action against them (unless I had already released it under a particular license which granted them use).

Re:Sell your patent

[Zordak]

I could create software, hardware, an image, a document, an audio recording, it doesn't matter as soon as I create it and release it somehow I automatically get my rights to it. If someone were to copy it, regardless of weather or not I held a patent, I could raise legal action against them (unless I had already released it under a particular license which granted them use).

Yes, absolutely. But that still doesn't get you where you need to be. For example, let's say that I invent a brilliant new circuit, and do up a nice schematic of it. I have a copyright in that schematic. Maybe I'll even register my copyright. And if you copy the schematic, you infringe my copyright. But if you get a copy of my schematic and build the actual circuit, you have not infringed my copyright. The only way I can keep you from building the circuit is by patenting the circuit.

The company I am a part of provides such development services as well, and I'm fairly confident if the author claims his system is as simple as he states it is we could have developed it for him into a product for less than $5,000US and in less than a few months.

You ought to send me your contact info. I sometimes have inventors who need that kind of service. It's nice for them to have options. Contact info.

Re:Sell your patent

[djk1024]

The job I quit was as a software architect for Microsoft, so, no, a job isn't what I'm looking for. I had a pretty good one. I'm afraid that I'm addicted to tech startups. I think I've got a pretty important new thing here and I'm concerned about immediate survival mode until I can get this thing to ignition. And I haven't been looking for a buyer as much as development partners and seed funding.

Re:Sell your patent

[ibsteve2u]

...to hypothetically sell the patent, and the hypothetical buyer.

If he'll take hypothetical money, I may be interested...hypothetically.

Re:Sell your patent

[Skull_Leader]

I would agree 100%. As a patent examiner my advice is get an application in, and an application done well the first time through. Once you file, you have a date on record, and that can be a valuable thing. That, and beware who you share your idea with before you get that date. The USPTO has plenty of resources for inventors. Google the web page and read it thoroughly... and hire a reputable IP attorney from an IP focused firm when you are ready... going the pro se route is a recipe for a mess if you've never been through this process before. My disclaimer: DO NOT contact me for patent advice of any kind other than what is presented here in this response. I can not comment further. I will ignore all comments and requests.

Know the SCORE

[BadAnalogyGuy]

http://www.score.org/index.html

Seriously, get some help. Asking "techies" is, as you probably are quickly finding out, the absolute wrong way to get good business advice.

Re:Know the SCORE

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you don't understand. He's looking for a list of things not to do by asking techies, but now you've created a paradox. You fool!

OK, you've asked Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Put Linux on it, fire up emacs and send a letter to Microsoft telling them to screw themselves.

Yep, that ought to do it.

Patent

[DoofusOfDeath]

... and simple enough that a sophisticated hobbyist could build one in a couple weekends from plans and standard electronics.

If you hadn't patented it, that is. Instead, if a hobbyist tried to do that, you could sue him.

Thanks.

Re:Patent

[DustyShadow]

I know you're just joking, but...

Patents don't preclude hobbyists from building their own, so long as they don't go selling it.

That is false. The statute makes it illegal for anyone other than the patent holder to "make" the invention. Selling it is also illegal. See 35 USC 271(a)

Re:Patent

[wvmarle]

That is then another US extension of the original idea behind IP. Patents are supposed to contain a full disclosure of the invention, so that anyone using just the patent can build one, legally. Then this person can have a look at the invention, and use it as inspiration to improve on it, and potentially patent the improvements. That is the idea at least - that is how a patent stimulates invention and technological progress.

Whether such an improvement infringes on the original patent (and thus needs a license) will vary: if it uses the patented technology directly with minor modifications (e.g. an addition) it probably does, if it uses the idea but implements it in a different way, then it probably doesn't. When the patent expires of course the invention ends up in the public domain and can be used by anyone. Which is again one of the purposes of the patent system.

Selling a product based on a patent that you do not own or have a license on, is indeed illegal. Though reselling such a product is not. I.e. I invent something, patent it, make a product, and sell it to you, then you are free to sell this product to someone else. I can not limit that anymore.

ok

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Get a job (solve cash flow situation first)
2. Preferably somewhere with people you can recruit into your endeavor
3. Recruit people to help you from your job or from anywhere you can find them (meetup?)
4. Find investors if money is needed, or do it organically with money from your own job
5. Finish the prototype/proof of concept
6. Shop around to interested buyers
7. Profit?

Most importantly you need more eyes on what you're doing for the sanity check. People in the business which you will be selling or licensing this to.

Re:ok

[Zordak]

You forgot Step 0: Read the employment agreement of your prospective employer. It's entirely possible that if you don't do this, and you follow steps 1 -- 6, step 7 will be "Watch your employer profit and get a hearty pat on the back and a 'Job well done!'"

Re:ok

[mindbrane]

I managed a +100mil real estate portfolio and my parents made me (paid for) take a lot of courses in economics, business law and accounting, (they had a very straight forward, cogent argument: "if you ever want to see any of our money you'd better know how we got it and how you can hang onto it".) Also I'm in a situation similar to the guy who posted the story.

My education and business experience lends a few additional points to the parent. * Never take on your lawyer or your accountant as business partners. More generally, and this should even apply to your financial backers, but it's not always feasible, never give an interest in your company to another company, or, someone whose job it is to act in your interests, such as a lawyer or accountant. More generally, try not to place your trust in others when the trust you've placed in them creates a conflict of interest. Personally, I believe in "partners" and agents who have conflicting interests and watch one another as potential antagonists. * Try to keep your initial outlays low. It's very realistic to think you'll realize no more than 10% of your outlay if you're forced to sell off a failed business. * Don't trust a handshake, get it in writing, and, make sure it's an enforceable contract.

My own personally gleaned bit of advice is to always pay for professional services, hiring reputable firms whose errors & omissions insurance premiums are paid up, then, if they screw up, sue the bastards for all they're worth. Really, I'm deadly serious on this one. Business is a dog eat dog world. Good luck.

Contradictory?

[Anonymous Coward]

"RF-based, accurate to 1mm" .... "I'm not an electrical or RF guy"

So if you don't know the radio technology, how can you know that it is accurate to 1mm and be able to adequately describe the patent for the application?

Re:Contradictory?

[djk1024]

Because I had an expert in RF build my prototype and those were his measurements.

Rondam's top ten Geek Business Myths

[lawpoop]

I always thought this was insightful, but never could test that belief: Top Ten Geek Business Myths:

Myth #1: A brilliant idea will make you rich.
Myth #2: If you build it they will come.
Myth #3: Someone will steal your idea if you don't protect it.
Myth #4: What you think matters.
Myth #5: Financial models are bogus.
Myth #6: What you know matters more than who you know.
Myth #7: A Ph.D. means something.
Myth #8: I need $5 million to start my business
Myth #9: The idea is the most important part of my business plan.
Myth #10: Having no competition is a good thing.
The actual blog has much more in-depth explanations of the myths. And, it has a special Bonus Myth!

Re:Open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, instead of trying to at a minimum recover his costs, he's just going to open source something that took countless hours of work.

No, this is *precisely* the kind of thing patents are supposed to protect. I'm sure if you paid him a fair amount of money, he'll grant you the license to open source it yourself if you like.

One question

[Dachannien]

How did you manage to invent this if you're not an electrical or RF guy?

Re:One question

[timmarhy]

i'm guessing he is struggling with the part where he has to actually produce something. comming up with the idea and lodging a patent is the easy part, it's when you try to make your idea work is where all flaws in your idea come out, which is why i believe patents without working or mathamaticly proven prototypes should be rejected.

Re:One question

[pipedwho]

Mod parent up.

Our company is a contract electronics design house. We see all sorts of people come to us to implement their patents - most of which are usually about things that they barely understand. In most cases those patents aren't worth the paper that they're printed on.

It never ceases to amaze me when a client comes through the door with a 'valid' patent that contains a description of something that is standard practice within the industry. Then they get all upset when we show them another product from 10 years earlier that does what their 'invention' does, but better, cheaper and more reliably.

This is the scariest thing about the kind of software patents that are getting granted these days. The 'novelty' that they contain is hardly novel within the practicing industry. Fair enough that the truly clever inventions are granted, but the vast majority are just not novel, and in many cases are so close to prior art that they should never have been granted. And that's not even going down the 'obviousness' path.

Re:One question

[djk1024]

I love this question! I'm a big fan of virtual and augmented reality. One day I was noodling around with the concept of virtual gloves, when it struck me that all that was needed for a good representation of hand movement was to track the tip of the fingers and then interpolate the joints. This isn't a wholly new idea, but it got me thinking about how you'd track the tip of the finger. Conventional RF measures like flight time are not really feasible for such a short distance. But it occurred to me that if I had a transmitter on the wrist and a receiver on the finger tip, then after achieving a base phase, I could accurately track movement by movement within the phase of the wave form. And simple interferometry delivers accuracy to almost any level. And all of those conjectures just came out my my thinking about electronics in naive wave forms. I then went to experts in the field that confirmed my speculation. I then did a couple months of due diligence: Was it really a fiable solution, what's the catch. Why hasn't anyone else done this. When I finally satisfied myself that it was viable, unique. I then was able to round up a professional acquaintance who does RF design for a living work me up a simple proof-of-theory prototype. I've then spent the rest of my time doing competitive analysis and refining the patent.

Re:One question

[djk1024]

I have a proof-of-theory prototype i.e. move the antennas relative to one another and get predictable readings and have already developed the math libraries in support of combining readings into Cartesian coordinates. . This is a far cry from a product however, and a substanstial amount of development needs to take place to make a working product. RF design houses that I've talked with figure about $100K for me to get to a working development kit. I'm aiming for a dev kit that would support about 20 targets and have a form factor in the neightborhood of a cigar box. I would want to price it at less than $1K.

Great idea

[FrankSchwab]

Great idea.

With RF, you also eliminate issues with hiding the normal lights/reflectors with clothing/costumes, etc. As I understand at the moment, motion capture is done with an actor in a leotard to avoid these problems. With RF, you open up new possibilities of filming a real actor in real costume, and being able to motion detect them in real time. I'm not quite sure what you'd do with it, but that's why I'm an engineer and not a "creative" type.

Frankly, you need help. You're not going to successfully develop a product from this on your own. Give up on the "lone wolf" approach - you're not gonna make it.

Find a VC who understands the motion picture industry, and has contacts there. Sell out, keeping whatever percentage you can. Let the VC help you find the managers and developers necessary to take this to the next level - either as a standalone product or a technology for sale.

Alternatively, take what you have to ILM or Pixar or Disney or whoever. You'll have to find someone who knows someone who knows someone to do this; once again, a VC could help you with that.

JMHO.

/frank

Re:Great idea

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I may have been too quick on the draw to reply. I'm sitting here thinking he wants to take over Hollywood when maybe all he's after is an inexpensive personal one-on-one mocap system that small companies could use to capture one or two people. In that case, he can throw what I said above out the window.

I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction.

Customers as your funding

[dixon1e]

Techies starting companies tend to only focus on the technology as a game changer, without capturing the essence of being an entrepreneur. It sounds trite, but you really have to remember all you are trying to do is sell something to someone that really needs it. So have said that: 1) You've got to know who you are selling to and what you are selling 2) There must be an innovation at the core (you seem to have this) 3) You have to be able to mind everything else, which is why you need at least one trusted partner, and no, that doesn't mean a friend or work colleague - often a huge mistake of choices. Read a lot of what Union Square Ventures have to say: http://unionsquareventures.com/ Now, with the tiny slice of information you've offered, you may have customers in a wide variety of industries, not just entertainment. What about Health Care? How about Sports (teaching golf swings for example). By working up a sales plan (not a technology plan) several times over (there are many processes for doing this, you'll find out) you will get a much better idea of who will really pay as customers to help fund your venture. Customer money is very good money for a start up.

Help will be required

[BigSlowTarget]

You need help for the business side or else someone is going to rip off your idea, make minor changes patent that and commercialize it right out from under you. Since you don't have any staff your the best option might be licensing to someone, but you'll need help to find the right someone. If you don't license you'll need way more people and a VC or other funding source to get it off the ground at any volume. The more revolutionary the product the more you need money to defend it.

SCORE would be a reasonable place to go. Stay well away from 'invention companies' or at least any that demand up front fees. By filing the patent you've started the clock so you are going to have to move fast. Expect to have two jobs for a while until funding comes through - one job makes money to pay the rent and the other is searching for the right way to harvest this technology.

The other option might be a partner - IF you know anyone you can trust from your other startups who can deliver the right expertise.

A quick technical question, could this provide position monitoring for indoor robots or rovers? There's not much in the market, what is there tends to be hacked together and/or expensive.

Re:Help will be required

[djk1024]

Most common applications I foresee are for biologic tracking, legs, arms, hoofs, hands and fingers, fins, etc. Because it's wireless RF based most industrial applications would probably introduce too much reflective multipath. And the application has just been submitted and is not yet public, but the title is "Methods, Apparatus and Systems for Wireless Determination of Relative Spatial Relationship between Two Locations."

Re:Open source?

[Brian Gordon]

Well in this case he may be able to start making money immediately.

Camp out as a street performer. Tape RF emitters to your fingertips. Connect your camera or whatever to your laptop. Turn up laptop speakers to 100%. Rest your hands on a table and start playing the piano with your fingertips and no actual piano.

I'd imagine that it would be very easy to go from knowing which fingers look depressed to producing tones.

Extend it to rapidly decelerating drumsticks making thunk noises and you could have a thing going. Drumming on air.

Re:Filed way too late.

[djk1024]

I've just filed my utility patent. As soon as I got the idea, over a year ago, I filed my provisional. I got my stake in the ground some time ago.

Out of left field

[The Ancients]

I gave up on reading all the comments. A lot of cynics, and a lot of people knocking the guy. Yet it is people like this who have historically driven so much innovation. So he's focused on product, and not on all the structure around it, which may or may not be his downfall. Is this such a bad thing? It is not a product driven by marketing, but by engineering, and these types of product are becoming harder and harder to come by. To the AC who said "You are at the blunt end of failure and you want help from slashdot." - having a functioning example is far from the blunt end, which is populated by those who can't quite make their products work. Sure, the guy has limited business nous, but at least he knows enough to know he needs help to go further. If one was to take the majority of comments here on slashdot seriously, almost everyone has startling intellect and experience in all fields pertaining to the world.

This is why we don't start our posts

[Anonymous Coward]

in the title