has anyone ever submitted an idea/invention to Rockler?

[Kevin Gregoire]

im curious if anyone has ever had an idea/invention or improvement to a product and they submitted it to Rockler?

if so,


did you have any problems?
how long did it take to come to market?
how long before you started seeing an income?
has any other company copied your idea?
is there anything you would do different?

[Neil Brooks]

Man.

I don't know *anything* about this stuff, but something in the back of MY head says ... don't submit an idea for which you don't have a patent, if obtaining a patent is possible.

There are LOTS of stories out there, where ideas get submitted, nicely-worded letters -- of no interest -- are generated, in response, and then ... a year later ... that idea is being sold, commercially.

I'd talk with a patent attorney before I told *anybody* -- including us ;) -- what your idea was about.

Best of luck !

[pat warner]

Yes, this. (http://patwarner.com/images/offset_subbase1.jpg)
1. Yes
2. fast, man, days.
3. Right away
4. Yes
5. A lot

[Mike Schuch]

I haven't traveled down this road but I have had many ideas I would like to see marketed whether I see a penny from them or not.

For example I would love to see inverse router bits for common base board profiles and a sliding fixture to mount to the bottom of a router to hold the base board at 90 degrees. Then the inverse router bit would cut the perfect inverse profile on the end of the base board to butt up against another baseboard in an inside corner. 45's always leave a messy looking gap.

[Jerome Hanby]

Isn't that why one would cope those joints? Of course, coping is hard (for me anyway), i could tun a router bit all day long...



For example I would love to see inverse router bits for common base board profiles and a sliding fixture to mount to the bottom of a router to hold the base board at 90 degrees. Then the inverse router bit would cut the perfect inverse profile on the end of the base board to butt up against another baseboard in an inside corner. 45's always leave a messy looking gap.

[Mike Schuch]

Isn't that why one would cope those joints? Of course, coping is hard (for me anyway), i could tun a router bit all day long...

Exactly!!!! It takes for ever for me to cope these joints then touch them up with a file.

Clamp the end of the base board in the router, Power the router up, slide the router, release.... perfect joint every time in a second or two!!!!!

[Will Blick]

When I cut inside 90's on baseboard, I cut two 45's, who would cope this? why?

[Joe Fabbri]

Coping is, at least as far as I know, the traditional method of joining inside corners (crown and base). People still probably do it if only for ease of installation, as it allows you to cope only one end, and leave the other end straight to the wall, thereby allowing you to slide out the trim out in order to make the cope end tight fitting. This way you don't have to be exact on either end, as you would on a 45 degree miter.

That said, coping also serves to prevent a gap space from developing over time (with shrinkage, etc), because there is always part of the molding (the uncoped part) filling the joist. In other words, it won't appear open over time.


Joe

[Kevin Gregoire]

cmon guys, lets stay on track please!

if you want to talk about coping please start your own thread.

[Chris Parks]

I have been down the patent path and lost the idea to bigger pockets with no morals, but then that is business so I am told. First thing to do is forget the whole idea unless you can realistically defend your patent in a court of law because in the end if someone copies what you have done in part or whole you have to either walk away and forget it or defend the patent in court. Patents are for the big companies with plenty of money to defend them against other big companies who want to rip them off, Nokia and Apple of recent times are a prime example. If you are determined to go ahead then do not tell even one person about the idea as that contravenes the patent rules. Keep in mind if you do patent something and someone takes an objection to it because they think they got there first you have either walk away or fight the claim. I had a patent ripped off by a person who was supposed to help me in the marketing and the idea is now sold world wide as he had deeper pockets.

[Larry Edgerton]

I had a simular arrangement with a company call Eastwood on an air tool rack we manufactured. As soon as China got ahold of it it was all over the place.

Until intellectual property is protected I would not bother again. I didn't recover all my manufacturing costs before the clones hit. One of the reasons I refuse to buy Chinese.

[ian maybury]

I'd echo some of the views on how hard it generally is to get any traction, and to avoid getting ripped off on inventions - even if yours is commercially worthwhile. This is especially the case while inventions are at an early stage of development.

Once you put it in the public domain you can't patent afterwards.

Show it confidentially to a potential investor before it's patented and if it's of interest you're likely to get copied at which stage you are relying on going to law to enforce the terms of whatever disclosure agreement you had with them - if it covered the situation, and you can afford to. It can as happen as simply as the guy you showed the item to turning around and claiming the invention as his own inside the organisation.

In reality though unless it's very obviously useful and the company has a pressing need for it you probably won't get past the 'not invented here' syndrome.

Ideas are not really capable of protection, you need to invest enough to get something to the stage where the design is well enough defined to be patentable which ups the ante. Engineering designs are notoriously hard to protect anyway, there's usually ways of using the same concept in a different realisation.

It's the usual catch 22 problem. If you've got loads of money then you probably can protect something, but since you can afford to develop it yourself you strictly speaking don't need to until you are ready to invest in developing and selling it. Which improves the chances of a relatively strong patent, because by now the development is well defined and its ins and outs well known. Some things once developed far enough are capable of decent protection because the patented design isn't easily circumvented (chemical processes for example - there's usually only one way to get them to work), but many are not - so it becomes a case by case decision sort of issue.

As above even if you do get a patent you've then got to have the time and money to go to law to enforce any claim you think you might have.

Even patents are dodgy these days. Sloppy investigation and process in patent offices is increasingly leading to a situation where patents get granted that aren't really justified because the invention is not in reality truly novel - a situation that can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how the cards fall.

Like in most man made systems and affairs it seems like contracts, law, patents and the like are pie in the sky/fond hopes that despite the promise most of the time let you down while making those maintaining and selling the mirage that there's a credible system (e.g. the legal profession) rich - that there really isn't any substitute for trustworthiness, or any reliable way to get around its absence in those you get involved with.

Unless (to a point) that is you are wealthy enough to be able to afford to carry a big enough stick to force compliance, or by various means make it tough for a competitor to follow you, whether via the law or otherwise....

[Steve Ryan]

Market the product yourself and get it out everywhere you can. Not easy to do, but getting a huge market presence gives the product momentum. Patent is only as good as your first lawsuit. China will copy any darn thing they want because they can. They also somewhat need to because even though they have endless supplies of cheap workers, most of the highly educated people lack the ability to create or inovate.

[Alan Schaffter]

I developed a product I thought marketable. I filed a Provisional Patent Application (online, $100, but is only good for a year) and started contacting the usual suspects. A full Utility Patent can cost tens of thousands of dollars and 2 to 3 years to obtain. If the idea is not patentable, you don't get any of that money back either!!! Before I would provide details, I also exchanged non-disclosure agreements. One of the interested parties (there were a few) who I highly respect and is respected here, did not want to sign the agreement and in fact, wanted ME to sign a statement acknowledging that fact. I didn't choose them but and talking with them again about two other products. Some companies get literally tens of thousands of proposals a year and may not want to even open or look at most of them. They want to avoid any change of and infringement claim, etc. since they may be developing something similar at the same time. Anyway, I was lucky and found a company that was a perfect fit, and negotiated a license agreement with them. It has taken and an incredible amount of time and effort to turn my design into something manufacturable. Coincidentally, I will be making an announcement about it here on Thursday.

Something to remember- depends on the source, but some of the books I read say anywhere from 95% to 99% of new inventions never make it to market for one reason or another. The main reason is that it can not be economically produced and sold at a reasonable price. Also, with woodworking stuff, which has a limited market, you may not make much. Typically, license fees for woodworking products are 1% - 5% of the wholesale cost (not retail price). So, if you license an item that a retailer sells for $50 and your agreement is for 3% of the wholesale price you will only see 3% of $25 or 75 cents for each item. Not bad if it is an IPhone where millions are sold, but if only a thousand are sold a year you only see $750.

Also, you need to look at whether your potential target company has the means to manufacture your item, or do they typically buy items from other sources or contract it out to some company in China.

[Kevin Gregoire]

i dont know, Rockler has a good FAQ page about this http://www.rockler.com/faq/new_ideas.cfm
and if they were screwing anyone over im sure we would be hearing about it on one of these
woodworking forums?
i can see if i had a super widget and thought it was the next best thing since apple pie then i would
probably do it on my own by getting a lawyer, a patent, etc... but that way costs a LOT of money.
and since i just have a little do-hickey that others might find is handy then Rockler is more the way to
go and let them handle the expense?

[Jerome Hanby]

When I cut inside 90's on baseboard, I cut two 45's, who would cope this? why?

Because your walls didn't make perfect 45/45 90 degree angles.

[Mike Schuch]

My opinion is: The idea is the easy part... bringing it to market is the hard part.

Take the saw stop guy for example. No one was interested in his idea so he started his own company. Now he is greasing all the political palms to shove it down our throats. Success is 1% inspiration 99% perspiration. A million dollar idea is only worth a million dollars to the guy that can produce and market the idea.

P.S. "When I cut inside 90's on baseboard, I cut two 45's, who would cope this? why?"... why use a blind tenon joint for a dinning chair when you could just use a screw?.... Craftsmanship!

[Chris Parks]

i can see if i had a super widget and thought it was the next best thing since apple pie then i would
probably do it on my own by getting a lawyer, a patent, etc... but that way costs a LOT of money.


In the end lawyers, patents etc are of little help unless you are prepared to legally defend the patent at your expense. The lawyer and patent are absolutely no protection at all, been there and done that to the tune of many thousand dollars. If I ever win the lottery and it is possible to do so I will run the person through court who took my idea and keep him there until he is bankrupt but of course that won't happen but dreams are nice to have.

[Josiah Bartlett]

I have a few inventions that are in the patent system, but I work for a company and they own the IP, but I can speak from some experience here... intellectual property is really difficult to protect in the world today, even if you do have a patent. All a patent gives you is a license to sue others who infringe on it in the country it is filed in. Patenting something immediately makes the idea public, so if you patent something you had better be able to immediately act on the idea or you won't make any money, and the far east will copy it if they think its a good idea.

Most inventions that make money these days are entirely about the marketing and brand image. Kreg and Sawstop have been able to do pretty well taking a basic idea and executing it very well, and while there are clones of Kreg products they still have good market share because they make a good product. Look at all the other brands of similar items which are gone now.

Never share your idea for an invention with somebody without a signed non-disclosure agreement that is reviewed by an attorney, unless you are ok with someone else taking your idea and giving you nothing.

[John Coloccia]

I would probably try FastCap first.

[Steve H Graham]

I used to practice patent law. Patents cost a lot, but if you don't want to get ripped off, the patent route is usually best. If you can't afford a patent, though, you probably can't afford to defend it either, so it can be a big waste of time and money.

Another point: you can get patents that are worthless. The PTO doesn't care that much if your patent is no good. They may give you a patent that can be infringed at will. It's your responsibility to pay for a patent search, to make sure the idea isn't already out there, and you have to make sure it deserves a patent in the first place. Your lawyer then has to draft the claims correctly and ram them through the PTO. The PTO may split up your claims in order to generate extra fees, weakening your protection. If there's a screwup along the way, you can end up with a patent that doesn't protect you.

Final point: federal judges are too stupid to understand patent law. When I was in law school, the reversal rate on appeal was 54%. Not encouraging, unless you're trying to get away with something.

[Alan Schaffter]

I used to practice patent law. Patents cost a lot, but if you don't want to get ripped off, the patent route is usually best. If you can't afford a patent, though, you probably can't afford to defend it either, so it can be a big waste of time and money.

Another point: you can get patents that are worthless. The PTO doesn't care that much if your patent is no good. They may give you a patent that can be infringed at will. It's your responsibility to pay for a patent search, to make sure the idea isn't already out there, and you have to make sure it deserves a patent in the first place. Your lawyer then has to draft the claims correctly and ram them through the PTO. The PTO may split up your claims in order to generate extra fees, weakening your protection. If there's a screwup along the way, you can end up with a patent that doesn't protect you.

Final point: federal judges are too stupid to understand patent law. When I was in law school, the reversal rate on appeal was 54%. Not encouraging, unless you're trying to get away with something.

All the research I have done confirms everything Steve said.

The sad thing is it costs only a few thousand dollars to file a patent but can cost tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in lawyer fees to prepare and shepherd it through USPTO- it is nearly impossible for a layman to successfully file his own application due to the unique, archaic language required. If you don't get a patent all that money is gone.

This is a topic already mentioned but here is more detail- A patent can take between two and three years to issue, but the application with detailed info on your design is typically published after only 18 months. That can give competitors plenty of time to develop an exact copy or non-infringing knock-off, and maybe even beat you to market!!

If you have good lawyers it is much easier to get a patent. You may remember the issue between Oneida and ClearVue over the mini-cyclone. Both built a mini cyclone for use with a shopvac. Oneida filed and was issue a patent. ClearVue, knowing a mini-cyclone had already been in the public domain for many years and therefore not patentable didn't bother. Details of a mini cyclone were first posted by Jim Halbert then copied and posted by others on various forums long ago, before Oneida and ClearVue began work on their versions. Despite already being in the public domain and just a scaled down version of bigger cyclones, Oneida was still issued a patent. ClearVue didn't have the resources to challenge and have it overturned. The USPTO doesn't have the resources to investigate many on their own.

[Noah Katz]

Most of this talk is irrelevant to the topic, which is doing it with Rockler.

I read through their stuff and it sounds very reasonable, removing more risk than reward IMO.