Slashdot Mirror
The Obsessed Inventor of the Paper Computer
One of our favorite Great American Myths is that of the lone inventor toiling in his garage or basement to produce a product that will revolutionize society. More often than not, in both the myth and real life, the inventor dies penniless and unrecognized, his invention either cast on the trash heap of history or adopted in a slightly mutated form by a Big Corporation that doesn't pay him a cent for his years of self-financed labor. But a few inventors - just enough to hold out hope for all the rest - strike it big and provide inspiration for all who follow.
Jim Willard hasn't struck it big. He may yet, but there's no telling. His idea was originally an outgrowth of the defense wind-down after the Soviet Union gave up on the Cold War, when defense contractors like the large systems integration company Jim ran during the glory years of DoD spending started looking for ways to make a living in the civilian world. There was no public Internet back then, but there were plenty of computers that required large amounts of remote data input, and this was the market Jim lit upon.
Imagine a census form made up of several glued-together layers of paper with simple keyboard-patterned membrane switches printed in between the layers, and a tiny, triggerable RF transmitter built into it. People would fill out the multiple-choice forms by pressing printed "keys," hit an "enter button" when they were done, and mail the thing to the Census Bureau, where the forms could be automatically read, via the RF interface, without even opening the envelopes. If - and Jim believes this goal is easily achievable - the cost of the "paper computer" forms can be held below $5 or so, the total cost of printing, mailing, and processing them would be much less than it is for traditional, non-electronic census forms.
Jim also found another lucrative-looking market for his product-in-the-making: polling places. He'd already done a study of a voting machine's life. "It sits in a warehouse for two years," he says, "then some grandmother is going to set it up and run it for one day. It's got to be easy for her to use, and its a true mission-critical application. It turned out cheapest to build a stripped-down PC, send it to the polling location, then throw it away after election day and buy a new one the next time around."
And having only one stripped-down PC per polling place, instead of one at each voting station - with paper computers used as the actual ballots - would lower the cost even further.
During the course of his study, Jim found that absentee ballots were even more expensive to process than those cast in person; in 1991 and 1992, he says, Fairfax County, Virginia, spent about $16 per absentee vote cast, and he figured he could easily get it down to the sub-$5 range using his paper computer technology. But no contract was ever signed and no functional test was ever made. Instead, Jim spent his time and personal resources in a years-long search for venture capital that he continues, still fruitlessly, today.
Fairly or unfairly, Jim blames most of his failure to make something big out of the paper computer concept on the flakiness of the venture capital business. "They won't even look at something unless it's presented by friends," he says, "and even then, if it's not something that immediately jazzes them, uh-uh."
Worse, he claims, venture capitalists live and die by industry fads. "One week they're doing nothing but biochem, the next week they're all doing dot coms," he says. "Paper computing is not a 'sexy' project, just a good market, so they're not interested."
The Thinnest Thin Client Ever
Here's the most recent incarnation of Jim's basic concept: a super-cheap piece of multi-layered paper with a flexible light-emitting polymer screen, a low-end dedicated processor, a stripped-down modem, and membrane switches built into it. You could use this technology to make a Web terminal so cheap that you could send it as a direct mail piece. Plug it into a phone line and it would automatically dial the company that sent it out, call up catalog info, and let you place orders. Computer knowledge (and investment) required by the user would be exactly zero. Jim engagingly paints the mental picture of a poster for Victoria's Secret from which you could directly order the products it displayed, literally making the poster into a point of sale terminal that would both make a sales pitch and "close" the sale, all on the spot, for next to nothing in the way of either cash investment or floor space.
Beef up the concept a little, add a decent general-purpose microprocessor and a bit of RAM, and Voila! - an electronic PDA that costs less than one of the binder-enclosed, paper-based "Executive Organizers" you see in office supply stores.
You'd think Oracle, with all of its talk about networked "thin client" computers, or Sun, where the network is (supposed to be) the computer, would be all over Jim. He says this isn't going to happen; that these companies "...have divisions that have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in current technology. I walk in to see the heads of these companies' thin client divisions and tell them they can close the doors, that everything they're doing is obsolete, they're going to laugh. Why would they want to put themselves out of work?"
In this story published on November 11, 1999, CNET News.com reporter Brooke Crothers quoted Jim extensively, but also mentioned research done by IBM that may lead to ultra-thin computing devices similar to his. Does this mean Jim is dead in the water? That he should give up hope the way so many small software developers have given up on projects once they found Microsoft had something similar in the works?
Jim has invested years in a concept that, if handled right, could change the way computing is done and Internet connections are made, and could change the way remote data gathering is done by governments, retailers, and many others. But Jim is running low on stamina - and is out of money. The comment about his old Nissan pickup needing new brake rotors he can't afford isn't a joke; it's a sad fact. This slow descent into poverty, followed by a life of bitterness and regret, is the fate of most independent inventors. Will it be Jim's? Or will he be one of the few who manages to turn a profit (and receive at least a little acclaim) from his work?
Here, for your review, is Jim's Paper Computer Corporation Web site. Take a look at it. Then let Jim know what you think, either by e-mail or, better yet, by posting a comment here on Slashdot. Jim will be reading what you have to say and taking it to heart. If he has time, he may even jump in and respond directly to your comments.
I am presently involved in working on a project that involves voting machines. The devices themselves are basically huge Palm Pilots - greyscale touch screens encased in an over-grown Etch-a-sketch case (sans knobs). I can tell you that 1, the federal guidelines are quite rigid; his "paper computer" would have to survive all sorts of damage, and is required to have triple-redundant memory, "just in case". There are standards of usability, as well, that are complex. Luckily, we're just writing the interface and ballot creation stuff, not doing the actual hardware, but I have learned a lot about the process. I wish him luck, but he's in for a LONG, HARD fight if he even wants to get it certified, and then getting the localities to adopt it, well, thats another story. They fear change - elections are the ultimate hard deadline, and if you don't pull it off, you can't re-do it, and your name goes down in history.
Side note: our software runs on Windows via IIS but some large, knowledgeable clients have requested a version for Linux. The reasons: stability of NT, which they don't trust for the above reasons. We're a mostly Linux shop so getting away from the IIS crap is our goal.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Paper computers that can be thrown away? I really hope this is some kind of joke. Americans produce massive amounts of waste as it is, this is just more fuel in the fire of our "disposable" culture.
This is really depressing.
Not because it's someone going broke - because it's true.
I personally have experienced similar. I have a *killer* business plan. A company that could turn first operating quarter profit without difficulty - minimum overhead, maximum ROI (return on investment). Brought it to three or four different VC's, and they all said 'we're not interested.'
This idea is really a *great* idea! It would be so simple to make it nearly forgery proof, it would make processing easier, everything about it is beneficial in some way! It's the perfect solution to hundreds of problems. But it would put people out of jobs possibly, and it's not a, as it was put, sexy project.
To put it bluntly, that's bullshit. So what if it's not sexy? It's profitable and good ROI and financial (EPS, etc) is FAR more important than marketing and such.
Maybe we should take up a fund to help Jim start this business. Jim, if you're reading this, please email me - I'd like to help any way I can.
We need to help the *real* innovators in the computer world, like Jim, instead of listening to these marketing people telling us what innovation is. Like I said, I've been down this road before, and I wish anyone going down it the best of luck. Take care, and have a merry (insert celebrated holiday here).
-RISCy Business
your company here.
shelby != ford
We usually lambaste patents here. But isn't this the situation a patent was designed for? We want to /encourage/ and /enable/ Jim to make cool stuff...which obviously hasn't happened. I don't think it would be fair now, after the fact, for a Big Corporation to take the idea and make megabucks from it. Whether it is a patent's place to stop /this/ I don't know. But Jim should at least have some incentive to think up this stuff. If he is not allowed to patent it, and Big Corporations are allowed to steal it X years after the fact, what incentive does he have to continue inventing?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I bet Jim really cringes every time he hears the phrase "paperless office".
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
This device covered by Patents number 5764221 and 5821508 .
According to his website he already holds 2 patents on the device and concept. And it looks reasonably sound. Just a touch circuit board more or less, a small processor to translate the signal into something meaningful, and a bank of thin RAM to store the info in. I would suggest using laminated paper or some sort of cheap plastic sheet to avoid the affects of weather. But that would still only raise the cost by a dollar or two at most, might even lower it... The concept is sound, the implementation looks simply enough, and I think it would kick ass.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Jim should be talking to folks in the greeting card industry. These folks were on the same track ten years ago when musical greeting cards came out, but the technology wasn't there to do much else. With free e-cards on the web muscling in on the card industry, I bet they'd be interested in something new and interesting.
You don't need a lot of smarts in a computer that really is just 3 sheets of paper with some circuitry in the middle that has a button for 'pay my phone bill' and an rf transmitter to bleep off the answer.
Battery life doesn't matter because its a one-shot item, hence its throwaway nature and materials.
I wouldn't expect one to have much of a life expectancy OTOH, and there are just too many issues with most potential applications of the system. If the RF broadcast missed or the post office creases the 'computer', the fact that its hard to get output to report a malfunction and you'd need a receiver in order to check to make sure your broadcast got through to be really safe for most applications and the fact that quickie contact keys like the ones described are prone to stick.
The question is, given that you aren't going to be able to put much processing power at all in the 'computer', is there enough that you CAN put in to make it worth the manufacturing cost for any real world application?
It is refreshing to see a legitimate patent application (or two) for a change though.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
Well, the idea of a super-thin paper client is very cool... But I'm not sure that it's really suited for the purposes that this guy has in mind.
With the advent of the web, and now in recent times, the Free PC (really just a monthly installment - $400 PC with a $400 MSN rebate in trade for $20/mo worth of service), which placing the home computer in reach of everyone everywhere, I don't see any advantage in the voting or advertising arenas, which the article focuses heavily on.
A voting system could easily be implemented on a $400 PC. I'll assume that more than 100 people would vote per station, which is a pretty reasonable assumption... Even if the paper computer was able to hit the sub-$5 range that they want to target, the PC would still be more economical.
As for advertising, a mass-production of CD-ROMs is much less expensive than $5 per for the papercomputer. Their example company (Victoria's Secret) could easily put a nice catalog, even include multimedia if they wanted, and make an easy-to-use interface to order their product on the Internet. Once again, much more economical.
So, anyway, my conclusion is that this is a very neat invention... But I think he's targetting the wrong market.
I'm an electronic guy, professionally and personally. I have always been extremely interested in small electronic devices that do useful things. I have a PICStart Plus on my desk, and the Linux software to drive it.
I think Jim has *part* of a great idea.
Here's the "but."
I am also an environmentalist. I think that small devices should not be disposable.
Imagine how much it would cost to recycle one of these for raw materials or a different application.
Imagine getting a mailing with a reply card using this technology. It is set up specifically for that mailing. To recycle it, for a different mailing would be a real pain, especially if the second mailing requires more buttons, etc.
How about consumer packaging? To recycle that milk carton is all of a sudden not so simple anymore. It's more expensive. If it's too expensive, it'll be thrown out because it'll affect a company's bottom line. It'll just add to the ridiculous amount of garbage that the US has been trying to export to other countries. New York tried to set up a deal to ship garbage here in Newfoundland a few years back. They wanted us to be their landfill... again (the US navy used to have a base here, they left tons of contaminated waste and then refused to clean it up when the base closed).
Unless he can guarantee that this technology is truly reusable/recyclable, and guarantee that users of the technology will reuse/recycle it (ie. easy to do), most companies won't want to touch it.
I don't know where you could get them; we got them from our client.
// this is a counter
The code has to be reviewed, as well. The guidelines state that each source file must contain a certain level of information about the file. The end result is, you end up with comments that look like
int counter;
which is making everyone where freak out.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
A few folks (though not many) have briefly pointed out that paper computers would be environmentally unsound. Let me emphasize this... The amount of deforestation that would occur if every household in America received a paper 'census computer' would be devastating. With imbedded electronics it would make recycling, at best, very difficult and costly, and, at worst, impossible.
In the case of voting, the environmentally friendly solution would be to have LAN's running ballots with encrypted data packets.
Paper computers are a step backwards, in the wrong direction. It's fortunate that nobody has been naive or short-sighted enough to financially support this scheme.
True environmentalists aren't worried about saving the trees, or the whales, or the planet... They're worried about preserving the future of the human race.
Imagine all the venture capitalists discussing what they're going to fund next. One of them looks at Jim's concept. "Hey, this one sounds like a good idea -- on paper..."
It's a neat idea, but perhaps not a good idea. Instead of bemoaning the sad fate of all genius inventors, think of why an idea like this hasn't been produced. I can think of several reasons:
-ruggedness. How much of anything can a paper computer withstand?
-Use. If your target market has capable PCs sitting on their desks, why would you send them a cheap single-function computer that would look chintzy compared to what they already use (color monitor, full size keyboard, etc, etc). for other applications, what kind of interface is possible with a paper computer? If you have to retrain everyone and take lots of support calls everytime a new one is released, there go your savings.
-Quality. Do paper computers work consistantly? Are many defective and, if so, to what extent? Even more important, with the way that we view computing devices do they look and feel reliable to the target audience?
-Advantage. What purposes can these paper computers fulfill that other computers can't or that can be done much more efficiently than existing computers. Voting ballots might be nice, but, when everything is considered, I'd imagine paper computer ballots would cost about the same as traditional voting methods, if not more. Also, don't forget transition costs!
To be compelling, a new product has to be significantly better than what is already installed. Nobody would by a fax machine that was 2% faster; probably not even 20% faster. Only at 100% or 150%, I'd imagine, would a new generation of machines be likely to sell.
My point is that plenty of capital exists in the market for funding companies and bringing ideas to fruition. However, that money is guarded (usually), by people who consider these things, who think about their return on investment. It may seem like something is a great idea, a leap forward in technology. Well, technology doesn't matter for it's own sake, only for what can be done with it, which translates roughly into sales. I think a paper computer is a neat idea, but there aren't too many things, well any, that I could with one that I couldn't do nearly as efficiently, if not more efficiently, with existing, already purchased and installed technology.
Venture capitalists are in the business of making money. If an idea, no matter how great, won't do that, they will be uninterested. Looking at it from the economic perspective, though, products lose money when either there isn't enough demand for them or the technology for producing them is prohibitively expensive. In other words, even as they look at their own bank-accounts, the VCs are also acting as a proxy for consumer valuations. Knowing several people who have set up a few VC funds, I can tell you that if they only looked towards their friends for ideas, they would have been out of business very quickly. First an foremost, VCs are economic actors and will leap at ideas which they believe have promise. For proof of this, take a look at the past couple hundred IPOs on NASDAQ. 'nuff said.
--Andrew Grossman
Let's face it. The definition of insanity is to go about the same problem the same way, expecting different results.
It's very well known that companies in rich countries tend to have a Not Invented Here attitude. Approaching said companies for something like this is, well, stupid and (frankly) insane.
A British guy, who invented a clockwork radio, realised this, very quickly. As the idea was aimed at African countries, he took it straight to the prospective customer. Africa. His idea sold, almost immediately, and he's now a millionaire.
Instead of selling the paper computer to companies, who have no need of them or interest in them, this guy should be talking to the people who WOULD want something like this. Joe and Jane Shmuck.
Why would they care about a paper computer? Picture this. Ever tried to keep track of a shopping list, a to-do list, the cash you've got free, the best prices for goods, etc? It takes a lot of paper, after a while. On the other hand, all this is just numbers. Just punch them into a paper computer. How to get output? The display off an old-style pocket calculator would be more than adequate and very cheap to make, and if you make it detatchable, it wouldn't need to be disposed of or even on the computer at all times.
Alternative use: Let's say you're looking for some specific DIY parts. Tap them into the computer, and go shopping. Type in the bar code, and have an LED on the front which lights up if it's what you want.
Once you've started getting into the domestic market, like this, the "big players" become almost an irrelevency. It might sound a bit like "Field of Dreams", but if you make it, the customers will come. A brand logo means a lot, in the field it's for, but outside of that, it's just some ink in some squiggles. Your name means as much as IBM's, in Home Economics, Modern Art or Paper Computers. But if -YOU- are selling them, rather than IBM, it's -YOU- who'll make the name and have the money.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If he'd been near Holland, Michigan, Rob or Jeff might have done the interview.
It was simply an interesing little article that turned out to have more human quality than I expected, so that's the side that came through most clearly.
The car came into the story because it was a tangible symbol of how Jim Willard's obsession with his invention has ruined his life. This is what writers call a "metaphor."
But IANALET (I Am Not A Licensed English teacher), so for specific information about metaphors, similes, allusions, punctuation, capitalization, and other writing basics, I suggest seeking help from a qualified local professional.
Meanwhile, "don't panic," as my fellow metaphor-user Douglas Adams has said more than a few times. Whenever a Slashdot author writes about a personal friend, we'll let you know. ;-)
- Robin
What is his whole technical basis? The idea of using conducting inks and covering the "computer sheet" with an "interface sheet" that lets you wire the thing and touch some of the wires to use them as buttons; an absolutely trivial development.
He hasn't developed suitable batteries, a cheap and power-efficient display, an appropriately durable and cheap microprocessor, or even the conductive ink (some these things may or may not exist, but he didn't make any of them). There is no prototype which resembles the end product, and no meat to his technical plans. He has absolutely no way to support his claim that he can make it for that cheap.
This guy is just trying to cash in on an obvious idea which will probably become feasible in the next few years, when he doesn't have anything to contribute to the development, except some oddball ideas about what it should be used for.
I'm supposed to think it's tragic that big companies are turning this crackpot away?
I already posted a comment about environmental issues here.
I neglected to mention the positives.
I've done some thinking, and I believe that these paper computers have a lot of great reusable/permanent applications.
A while back I was thinking about remote controls. I got a few emails about it, which I haven't gotten around to responding to yet (I have a lot of ideas, I'll probably get around to it tonight).
One of the things I was thinking about was the ability to print a template and place it under a clear plastic cover.
This looks ideal.
Have a plastic base, and be able to slide one of these into it. A lot of devices have remote controls. If a company can make their remotes like this, their cost drops significantly. For the companies that sell multi-remotes, they can have a base model, plus "templates" that customers can get cheaply. That way, instead of making a couple of remotes that have differring features, they can make one or two, plus tons of different templates that consumers can choose from.
That's an idea that just might flourish in both the short and long terms.
I do have a problem with the complaints one hears in conspiracy discussions like this. The basic premise is: the people with money are dumber than the people without money. They must be, they can't see how good these ideas are! Come on! Not only are many people who have money plenty smart (some having founded technology companies), they can even afford to hire the smartest people to make investment decisions for them. You could take their message to heart: they think there is something wrong with the package. If not the idea, then the risk of the team, the risk of weak intellectual property protection, the risk of competition, the risk of substitute products... any explanation that starts out "I know better than everybody else" just falls flat. (I want points for that segue back to "flat":)
Anyway, the suggestions I read all have to do with government paper pushers. Look for applications that are driven by high demand in markets where tracking is really worth some dough, where there are a small number of players who are large and potentially willing to take the risk because they are in a position to reap the benefit. How about FedEx shipping labels, or NYSE buy and sell orders, or medical records. Could he whip up a version and stand on the floor of trade shows taking surveys with it? Many times, exposing technologies like this to many potential customers directly results in them thinking of the applications.
Why would his invention be good? It's disposeable. What does that mean? More metric tons in the landfil. North Americans already consume, and thus produce much, much more garbage than other societies (including the European ones). What is this fascination with "use once, dispose many" products?
Look at the twinky wrapper. A piece of cardboard, a shell of plastic, and none of it is recycled. You want to vote? Don't use a piece of throw-away paper with no security (reading without opening envelope? Does no one else see the problem?), use a proper system that uses the voter's fingerprint. Walk up to a public terminal, verify your identity with the fingerprint and/or retinal scan (both technologies are existant today), and then enter your vote. Strong encrypted, your vote is sent to an automated computer which will tabulate the votes quickly and cheaply. And no more garbage.
Want more info? Go to adbusters.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The reason this story is depressing isn't because the silly VC's can't see the genius of this guy's idea, it's because a guy can spend years working on something like this and still no so little about how to justify it to someone.
:-)
The fact is that there are THREE criteria that have to be met *strongly* for an idea to get funded, not one.
1) Is it a good idea?
The ways to tell this of course are what most of us are used to thinking about in the startup world. Where is the money? What is the revenue model? What kind of capital requirements are there to create the necessary factories, etc. to produce the product (this one is why dot-coms are so attractive.)? How long will it take to make money? Are there lots of customers? How will the market change over time? etc.
My sense from the article was that he has a *couple* ideas for uses and customers, all of which are basically centered around the government. Ideas get moderated down if they involve changing heavily bureaucratic organizations. It's just not going to happen, imho. But ok, let's grant point #1 and say it's a great idea.
2) Who is the competition and how will you handle them?
This idea is one which clearly has numerous competitors, some of which are heavily entrenched (like the existing balloting systems), and some of which are still under development (like the other poster doing the PalmPilot balloting). There are also all sorts of apples-to-oranges competitors like punched cards, CD-ROMs, etc.
Point #2 basically says that it's not enough to show the Promised Land to the VC... you have to show him that you understand the minefield between you and the Promised Land, and each and every mine between here and there, and how you're going to get through it.
This article did not give me a comfort feeling that this guy understands his competitors and understands a) how he is different from/better than each one, b) what is the barrier to entry for those competitors to do something similar, or c) what he will do to raise the bar on them when they do figure out how to react to him. But for now, let's grant him point #2 as well, just to get to #3...
3) Why You?
The last question is usually the hardest for entrepreneurs to answer. They hem and haw and say "well because it's my idea." Well guess what? Good ideas are a commodity. Everyone (including the poster I'm replying to here) has their own great idea. Lots of people have duplicate ideas. So why should the investor sink millions of dollars into YOU personally?
Most of the time the answer is helped by proprietary technology, patents, etc. But the real reason is because of the *team*. The saying among VC's is "Bet on the jockey, not on the horse." In the original posting, the inventor was quoted as saying "well you have to KNOW someone to get meetings with VCs." Well guess what? Yes you do. After this many years, it should tell him something that he doesn't have A-1 talent signing up to help him out. Where is his board of directors and advisory board full of A-list players who have taken companies like this public before? Where is his team of technologists and his team of financial guys? Where is his team of VC experts who KNOW the people you need to know to get the right meetings?
I've been going through it recently (and gotten this education), and trust me, it's not that hard to find these sorts of people if your answers to Points #1 and #2 are good.
Anyway, I've been writing long enough... but *sigh* if even ONE entrepreneur out there reads this and saves themselves 10 years of needless frustration, it will have been worth it.
...Crash
"The difference between theory and practice is small in theory and large in practice..."
Helooo I think we may be missing the point here. Using paper is a great Idea! Look at your box. hey it's plastic, but don't worry its is biodegradable (Spellin') NOT!! ever heared of tree farms, farms that grow trees quickly so that they can turned into biodegradable (Spellin') products. Oooh oooh and there is recycling. my computer is out of date its only an Intel Itaneum / AMD Sledgehammer @ 1100Mhz I need a faster one. just for the hell of it. I'll just take this one and put it in the RECYCLING BIN because it was so cheap and buy/leese annother one cheaply cos those old plastic things were expencive. I read my news on my computer. I would prefer to read my news on high- res paper than a lcd screen! THINK ABOUT IT!! are you realy being green? or are you just jumping the gun. -Shame about the spellin' but U can read it, cant you-
mountvol \\?\brain{dbe069b1-65ae-11d5-bab4-806d6172696f}\h