I think it matters if it works. The inventor should be confident that it does and answer yes.

I made a prototype so my answer would have been yes, it works.

I would say the question here is whether the inventor wants it to work, or does he just want to say he has an invention. of course to sell it yes it would have to work, that is to do what it is marketed or designed to do, but only if that is what he wants. it could be just for the novelty(assuming he has a lot of money to patent an invention that doesnt work)

Yes, it would have to work.

Ahhhh…..but does it have to work to be an invetion?…and if you’re not sure it works is it really just and idea?

Correct me if I am wrong. The USPTO requires an invention to “work”, or to: Perform the task stated in the claims. This is one of the main things a patent examiner looks for. If the examiner is not sure the device in question does actually work, they ma request a prototype, although this is rare.

In the case of work “well”, that’s another story.

That’s very true JB….it must work as designed to be patented. However…not all inventions are patented, so does it have to work to be an invention? Or….if it does not work is it really just an idea?

Tough question. On the one hand, you have EN bringing a good number of “pen on napkin” ideas to market. On the other you have actual retailers demanding to see the working product before they commit to spending a penny. And don’t think EN is all happy with pen and napkin ideas. While they will accept a truly great pen and napkin idea, even they will not risk money or resources unless they’re certain it will work. So bottom line: if your “pen and napkin” idea doesn’t get picked up by a licensee, it means you’re leaving vital questions unanswered. The best way to resolve it is to build a prototype and prove that it works.

I recently came up with a concept for a heat exchanger that literally sucks energy right out of the atmosphere (not a windmill or photovoltaic solar panel), following all of the well defined Newtonian physics. By my calculations, each $0.50 unit can grab about 1 to 2 watts per day. That’s not spectactular, but for a one time cost of $15 (buying 30 of them) you could power a camera, lightbulb, cell phone, etc. for the life of the heat exchanger, which should be at least 10 years.

But I wouldn’t dare present it to anyone without proving it really works. Sure, I can prove it mathematically. But until I build a working prototype, I wouldn’t even enter it into an EN contest.

So in my opinion, a prototype is truly essential, even if someone leads you to believe it is not. Without one, you’re basically just spitting out concepts. With that approach you’re better off playing the lottery.

An invention is an idea “reduced to practice”. Reducing an idea to practice involves, not only bringing the idea into physical form, but also a form that proves the theory of the said idea. I feel an idea that is not patentable is not worthy of the title “Invention”.

Example: Say I create a teleportation device. All my computations say it should work. I flip the switch and nothin’, nada. Until I correct the problem(s) and get it to work, it is merely an elaborate sculpture or really cool looking movie prop.

It’s gotta work. I’ve got an idea that I know with 99% certainty will work b/c of the very basic scientific principles, but until I can demonstrate the validity of the concept I wouldn’t present it to anyone. I think this points to the different levels of complexity…some ideas are simple enough as to not even need to ask the question “does it work?” whereas some would simply have to be seen and proven to be believed.

I think it’s only an idea unless it actually works.

I had an idea that I thought should have worked.

When I actually made it, the design changed a bit. It wouldn’t have worked the way I originally had it on paper.

Hmmm….so it looks like it’s an “idea” until you as an inventor prove it to be an “invention”?

So how many “ideas” never make it to be “Inventions”?

millions

well, unless I invent it to look like what I had in my head and it doesn’t work. I still invented that non working thing lol.

so if I invent it not to work, it’s a successful invention because it was never intended to work.

Da Vinci is credited with developing the parachute, tank, flying machine, and many others. He didn’t have working models of any of them. So, does he fit the criteria of an Inventor?

http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventors/ig/Inventions-of-Leonardo-DaVinci/

There are some things that you know will work, some things that are not required to work and some that you can only have an educated guess. The latter category probably involves the greatest leap of novelty, so if invention is a measure of novelty…

If it does not work as expected???

Sorta like my in-law saying I wasn’t an inventor until I’ve made money. Profit does not qualify the validity of my invention.

Good philosophical question.

I would say it’s just an idea or a rough prototype until you are able to prove it is more. I think once you have a working prototype, even if made from the $ store, then you have an actual working invention. Not to say that an idea can’t be profitable.

So is it ….

sketch = Idea
Working prototype = Invention
Profit = Product

????

That sounds accurate if splitting hairs or writing an essay, but let’s say we are in line at an EE casting call…each has an invention to pitch at varying degrees of developement.

So the answer to the question is context dependent?

Maybe….but can the argument be made that for those armed with a sketch in that line, the inventing is done by EE?….and for those with a working prototype EE does just the product development?

Maybe both context and level of remaining risk are the point of delineation

I’m pretty sure EE will not develop a product selected by a Search sponsor. If it costs $5000 to do the product development work, and they’re not 100% sure it will work, they will not do it. So you have to have a sketch of a concept that will 100% totally obviously work, at a marketable price, before EE will even touch it.

Then who would develop it?

As for the 100%….EE has taken on several products that didn’t work, and some that didn’t appear to have the level of market viability they thought.

Bottom line is this is not an exact science – EE works very hard at the development process, however at the end of the day my guess is they enjoy about the same success rate as the rest of the industry.

Interesting and revealing comment,Mark.

In what way Adam?

Yeah,Mark,getting a perspective on businesses who are trying to get mutltiple new products into the market,and finding that they have difficulties, miss and hit the wall,underestimate market viability.

It really illustrates the work and difficulty,and working on products that they feel reasonably sure about to the point of serious investment of time work and resources being damp squibs.
I could see that and relate to it,and felt a certain solidarity with those parties.

It was really interesting,yes,and revealing.
Thanks,Mark

Mark, what EE does for the TV show is not the same as what EN does for the Sponsored LPS’s. For the TV show, part of the entertainment value is watching them develop the product. Sink or swim, EE will get value from the attempt. For an LPS, EN must license the IP to the sponsor, or it certainly will not get any value for their effort. So the need for assurance that the concept will work is much greater. Don’t get me wrong, I think $25 for the opportunity to showcase your invention to a real prospective buyer is a great value. But if you’re submitting a napkin idea, you’d better be prepared to prove it works. Don’t count on EN to do that for you. I still give EN two thumbs up. But let’s not give everyone the wrong impression of what the LPS is all about. It’s still a great opportunity, but it is not the same as the casting calls.

Admittedly I have never done either…so I have to stay away from what EE/EN actually does – but either way Raf – EE or EN…The question is –

Is EN/EE “inventing” when they start with a napkin sketch…and is the inventing done already when you bring them a working prototype to “develop”?

This is really more of a philosophical question…I’m sure the arguments can be made either way actually – so don’t get upset that if all you have is a napkin sketch you are not an inventor…That’s not what’s being said here.

That is a pretty big question. Was Arthur C Clark merely a brilliant science fiction writer? Or did he provide guidance for his contemporary engineers to develop the geosychronous communications satellite? Clearly, if you’ve earned a patent on your idea, you’re an “inventor.” Your invention may be worthless. But you are an inventor.

Now if I put together a napkin invention that truly is unique, novel, useful, etc. And someone, anyone except for me, can come along and build the invention based on my description and drawings, then I truly invented it. But if the qualified engineer, craftsman, tradesman, ect, finds that it does not work the way I described and requires tinkering, modifications, further innovations, etc, then the degree to which that engineer contributed is the degree to which he or she is a co-inventor. But you have to give credit to the original inventor who put the idea down on paper. If it were not for the original inventor’s inspiration, then the qualified engineer would likely never have thought to innovate in that direction at all.

Point taken Raf….since the vast majority of patents (we agree they meet the bar of invention) are for modifications to existing products or designs….maybe an idea is an invention, and an invention is but part of a fully realized idea.

So is what EE/EN doing..Ideation?…Innovation …or Invention?

D … all of the above.

This is a great topic. I just had this conversation with my father a couple of days ago. I immediately thought of my father when I read the post about David Friedman looking for inventors for his book. I consider him an inventor because he has a pantented idea that he actually built and sold. It worked. I had ruled myself out for David’s book because I’m not sure I really consider myself an inventor yet. I think of myself as more of an idea generator. I have a ton of ideas, some of which I have prototyped and tested, but most I have not. (But then again I am not coming up with anything too complicated either). Only once have I actually made a product that could be considered to be market ready that I have used in my own house, but I am in a redesign phase with that one. I guess in my mind, either having a patent or bringing it to market puts me in the official “inventor” category. I may have to rethink that.

Margaret, It sounds like you are interested in David Friedman’s work. You shouldn’t restrict yourself, based on your own criteria for whether or not you believe yourself to be an inventor. You should offer to be in the book if you like that idea. The reason I think you should is that writers, journalists, photojournalists, etc, always try to show the world something new and different with their work. Otherwise why create the book? The story of the inventor who actually got something to the market has already been told. Yes, it could be done in new and unique ways. But it is always told after the fact, after success. Maybe David Friedman wants to tell about the aspiring inventor. Who knows, maybe he’ll be lucky enough to catch an aspiring future Thomas Edison or Ron Popiel in his/her pre-success years. Maybe that could be you.

You are 100% correct Raf

Margaret – you are an Inventor – In anyone’s book!

Thanks guys! I’m touched.

So what’s the answer????

Does it need to work to be an invention?

I guess not.

Thanks Rafael,
you just gave me an idea for a new invention. Now I just have to find the time to develop it. Actually, I think it may be too simple to develop. I should just submit it. Crap, this is too complicated. I’m going to bed. Thanks Rafael. :)

Well put Rafael. We should be asking not whether or not it works, but does it have the “potential” to work when viewed by someone skilled in the art of the invention’s origin. As a mechanical engineer, I’ve had several of my friends approach me to ask whether or not their ideas would work and I can usually give them a good idea whether or not it will work from their dictated description. Thus, I believe the “potential” to work is the issue. Whether or not it is a good idea is a different animal all together. I have a great number of inventions that work, but I fall victim to a mistake that many inventors make, which is to fall in love with your own ideas.

I have a commercial arts company, when a client calls the first thing we do is head to the white board to work it through. A group of well-educated, talented folks who can build anything.

What I’ve noticed over the years is it’s a very long walk from the white board to the final product. Without fail – it changes. Things we think will work just fine crash and burn, and others work just as designed.

Like you, I can normally look at things and tell you when there is something way out of line, and that helps avoid major problems, but my experience is at the end of the day it’s the little things that get you.

There simply is no way to tell for sure if it will work without taking the time to experiment and hobble together something that simulates function in the design. Without that…it’s all just theory.

Mark, you are exactly correct. If you look at my design for the Power Pitch Horseshoes and the final product they look nothing alike. It is what I call “what started out a dog ends up a cat” invention. As you go through the functionality/user friendly aspects you see issues that were not apparent on the drawing board which cause you to make changes. You may find out another material works better, what you thought would take 4 parts to accomplish can be done with two due to redesigning, etc. That is why I tell Inventors not to be married to their design and believing it can only be done this one way or not at all. You have to be flexible and remember that the end result needs to be a marketable item, not one that just suits you. Unless you plan on being the only one to buy it.

http://www.rogerbrown.net

That’s exactly right Roger…..it’s a good day when the thing ends up even close to how it started.

You have to keep an open mind, and be willing to flow with the process.

Mark,
Interesting development: At about the time you posted this question, I was tasked with showing that my napkin sketch actually could work. A potential licensee’s acceptance of a deal hinged on the outcome. So I built a prototype, which I originally was not inclined to do. To my surprise, I learned a great deal about the technology I was developing. What seemed straightforward was more complex than I had envisioned. I shouldn’t have been surprised because its the same story with every invention. In the end, my prototype, which now incorporated new features I never would have envisioned, worked better than I would have imagined. All that work and discovery is a big part of inventing. So while napkin inventors are still inventors in my book, prototype builders definitely get more credit.

Awesome, Raf. Does that make you a G7.8?

no g8 yet. That G7.5 was my wishful thinking. We’ll find out what the team thinks of it today … I hope.

Wow Raf…that’s pretty cool.

I interrupt this thread to say…
Nice picture Mark :-)

okay, I’m done.

Thanks Tania..

Very Nice Picture Mark ;))

A-Z = alphabet A-X = A-X

This an intesting topic. Take a look at the drawings of Leonardo Davinci. Most of those were never built and tested to see if they would work. Mostly due to the fact that they did not have the technology to build what he conceived. So, since he did not have proof of concept are they true inventions or just interesting ideas?
Another interesting question would be would he have been able to patent those ideas?

http://www.rogerbrown.net

Just ideas in my book. Before Kitty Hawk lots of people had the idea of making a powered machine that would allow a man to fly. That doesn’t make them the inventors, or the idea an invention. It’s easy to say something like: “I want to make a machine that you can point at a wall which will allow you to then walk through the wall without damaging it or yourself.”. There, I just invented it! Now, if some true genius makes it work, I get the credit?
No way! Maybe as a visionary, not as an inventor. Davinci was an inventor because of the things he made, and a visionary for the things he drew.
It’s not an invention unless it obviously works. Sometimes a write-up or drawing is enough. Sometimes a prototype is necessary.