Barker's Blog http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk Barker's Blog is a new forum for comments, insights and information. Whether or not it starts to make a difference to the environment for invention depends on you, so please make your opinions known. In principle no holds are barred, but Queensbury rules (or something like them) will be applied by the moderator. Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 GMT Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:33:40 GMT Single EU patent? Don’t hold your breath http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=53 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=53 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT The European Commission has recently published a proposal for an EU-wide patent - one that doesn’t need to be expensively translated into umpteen European languages. Great news for inventors on the face of it. But any celebration may be a little premature.   

The basic idea is to publish patents only in English, French or German, with further translations required only if there is a legal dispute. (But who would pay for them then? No clear answer...) Anyway, two guarded cheers at least, one would think. Bring it on.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a new idea. It’s been kicking around for three decades, unadopted because of one big stumbling block - the need for the agreement of all member states. Which hasn’t happened so far, and is reported to be still a long shot now, even though there is general agreement that translation makes patenting in Europe far too expensive and complicated.

Spain and Italy are particularly obstinate, apparently, and other objecting states may not be far behind them.

The proposal may in fact be little more than a piece of spin to big up Belgium, which has just taken over the EU presidency and wants to prioritise a single EU patent during its six-month tenure. Good on the Belgians if they beat the odds and deliver a single EU patent. I shall buy a hat and eat it. But Europe being Europe, their chances of success must be slim.

So for the forseeable future it continues to cost €20,000 to get patent protection in 13 EU member states (half of the total), while the same patent in the USA typically costs less than €2,000.

My thanks to Richard Brosch and Andras Szucs of Birmingham Inventors Club for feeding me information about the proposal.  

]]> Nesta CEO Jonathan Kestenbaum doing just fine, thank you http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=52 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=52 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT The Cabinet Office has just published a list of the salaries of ‘everyone working in Non Departmental Public Bodies, also known as quangos, who earns more than £150,000’. There are 333 of them, and at No 216 is Jonathan Kestenbaum, CEO of NESTA.

He earns a mere £168k according to the Nesta 2008/9 Annual Report - though he actually benefits to the tune of £218k if his £20k pension and £30k bonus are added on.

Interestingly, Nesta states on its website: ‘Our endowment status means we operate at no cost to the UK taxpayer.’

Then why is Jonathan Kestenbaum on the Cabinet Office rich list?

It’s also notable from the 2008/9 Annual report that Nesta had an income of £30m (including £15m of lottery funding) and spent £23m on ‘direct support of objectives’ - yet only £358k came from ‘proceeds from sale of investments in companies’. In other words, Nesta is still many miles away from earning its keep, after nearly ten years of operation.

In terms of return on investment - the criterion Nesta used to use to dismiss so many invention projects - Nesta’s ‘mission to make the UK more innovative’ isn’t working out too well. But never mind - at least its senior managers continue to keep their heads above water.

]]> A modest proposal http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=51 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=51 Sun, 16 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT What do we want?
The chop for Nesta.
When do we want it?
Now!

As the post-election tide of surprise, dismay, disbelief, guarded optimism, recrimination and rather pleasing lack of triumphalism washes over us:

Dear David and Nick,

Can we please have a rapid winding-up of the useless money-pit that is Nesta? (For those unfamiliar with the saga, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Set up to help inventors, now won’t touch them with a barge pole. See umpteen earlier blogs.)

Instead, can we please have some urgent recognition that individuals can be engines of innovation and enterprise, and that they deserve better support and encouragement than they get at present.

Are we to be a society that supports enterprise? If so, let’s see a lot more help for inventors. Carry on supporting innovative SMEs by all means, but don’t carry on behaving as though innovation can only come from companies and universities.

Don''t ignore the efforts of lone grassroots innovators just because they’re not yet businesses, or not yet investment ready, or too far from market, or too close to market, or too [insert some other excuse]. Good ideas start with individuals, even within companies and universities. Encourage and support individuals with demonstrably good ideas and innovative new businesses will follow.

]]> Searchable copyright, anyone? http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=50 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=50 Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT Q: What’s the only good bit of the patent system?
A: The subject classification system.
So how can the classification system be used to benefit inventors? By using it to classify design copyright.

Patents are too expensive for most inventors and small companies, and offer too little actual protection to be considered value for money. Unregistered design right (aka design copyright), on the other hand, is free and can be quite powerful. But a big problem with it is that there is no single, official database of design copyright. However, that could be remedied very easily. Simply use the same subject classification system that is used for patents.

Seen purely as an information tool, the way patents are classified is superb. It’s what makes patents searchable. And there is no logical reason why it can’t be used to classify and search other forms of IPR too.

If national patent offices want to satisfy demand for affordable protection, and at the same time make money for themselves, they could charge a fee to assign a classification to a design, which would then appear on a searchable database. The fee could be significant enough to stop too many frivolous or nuisance applications (though God knows there are already plenty of them in patent literature). But once it’s paid, that is it. No renewal fees, and no translations unless the applicant wants to supply some. The process would be cheap, cheerful and practical.

A beefed-up design copyright system could be a useful staging post for ideas that need protection, perhaps for several years, while the inventor develops the idea and considers whether the expense of a patent or other forms of IPR is justified.

I concede that such a system will need refinement, but it should be workable if the will is there to make it work. And that, of course, is the problem. Let’s not bet on anyone at executive level within the current IPR system wanting to do anything to make it happen.

]]> Inventors need more than one shot in their locker http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=48 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=48 Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 GMT What do successful inventors have that unsuccessful inventors don’t? It may be as simple as this: more than one idea.

This thought was sparked by a conversation the other day at a meeting of the excellent Manchester Inventors’ Group. I was talking to an ex-patent attorney with wide experience of dealing with inventors. We were chewing over why it is that some inventors spend years working doggedly away at ideas that by any objective measure have no commercial prospects. And he came up with an insight that had never occurred to me before. ‘They’re reluctant to abandon their idea,’ he said, ‘because they''re scared that they may not have another good one’.  

Thinking over the many encounters I’ve had with inventors, his conclusion rang horribly true. In fact, I suspect that nobody with experience of dealing  professionally with inventors would argue any differently.

From my own experience, the inventors who make the most headway are flexible enough and bloody-minded enough to accept that their idea may have to change significantly from the original concept, or even be abandoned altogether. This doesn’t bother them particularly because they usually have at least one other idea - often several ideas - on the stockpile.

They can afford to write one idea off without any loss of confidence or self-esteeem, because they have others.

They may even be impatient to draw a line under a struggling project if the next one in the pipeline has more attractions. Which is logical, as invention is a learning process and one might reasonably expect the quality of ideas to get better with time.

So there we (maybe) go. Be honest with yourself. If you only have one idea and are fixated on it, alarm bells should perhaps ring. If you put your inventive mind to work and occupy it with more ideas, there could be a real chance that your chances of eventual success will increase.


]]> Let's hear it from James Dyson http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=47 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=47 Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT Every now and then I read other books about invention. I’m reluctant, being big-headed enough to think that as guides to invention go, our own ‘A Better Mousetrap’ is the one to beat. But I’d happily accept second place to James Dyson’s 1997 autobiography ‘Against The Odds’, which I’m now reading for the third time.

The copyright is held by Giles Coren, so maybe it’s not strictly an autobiography, but no matter. Though it isn''t a ''how to'' manual, ‘Against The Odds’ should be read not just by every inventor but by every politician, manager, banker, business adviser, investor - indeed, by anyone who has ever said ‘no’ to an inventor, or might feel the urge to say it in the future.

In fact, ‘Against The Odds’ should be required reading in schools for every national curriculum subject including religion. Learning it to exam level might be the only measure left that can reverse our national retreat into a smugly delusional comfort zone labeled ‘manufacturing doesn’t matter any more’.    

For a flavour of the book, consider the following extract. I’ve chosen it because it includes James Dyson’s impassioned take on one of my own major gripes: that while we’re constantly told that innovation is vital to our future, it’s now pretty much written in stone (certainly by NESTA, the quango originally and ironically set up to help inventors) that individual inventors have nothing of value to contribute to innovation. This is suicidal nonsense, but let’s hear it from James Dyson, at the point where as a young art student he has decided that product design is the way to go:

''So my dream was to be a Brunel. But this was never an age of invention. It has been an age when the great monopolies (companies) have been able to dictate that progress has ended. And they did this when they were satisfied not with their product, but with their control of its market. The public has been easily convinced by advertising, and receptiveness to revolution has dwindled. Furthermore, such ‘invention’ as is now allowed is the prerogative of multinationals, not people. Where are our Wright brothers? Where have the Edisons gone? And the Henry Fords? They are not there. We have broken new frontiers but where are the names? Who invented the space shuttle? The nuclear submarine? The wind farm? When you go for backing for your crazy scheme it is not enough to be a man, you have to be a group of men. And where is the fun in that?

Cash is king. You can put years of your life into an idea, its development and realisation, and every paltry penny you had along the way... but your prospective backer, the banks or corporations, will ask you only how much you are putting up. They will back your money, but not your invention. And in a world of spreadsheets and accountants, advertising and shiny-suited businessmen, we are growing timid, afraid of our own potential for creation.

So I had to master not only engineering, but product design, finance, marketing, management, and be sure that when the time came, I would be able to take my vision - whatever it may be - to completion entirely on my own. I would have to be a new kind of Isambard Kingdon Brunel. Rougher, tougher, sharper than before.''


]]> Broken China http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=46 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=46 Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT Pay attention only to the media and you’d easily get the impression that China is the world’s supreme manufacturing nation. This article in the Daily Telegraph illustrates graphically why it isn’t.

Feedback from entrepreneurial inventors - those who make and market their own products - increasingly suggests that when you need relatively low first batches of a product, and just as crucially need to trust the manufacturer, small UK or European manufacturers are best. Price differentials are no longer as high as they used to be, technology is up there with the best, and it’s easier to sleep at nights.  


]]> Patent madness http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=45 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=45 Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT Welcome to the first posting of 2010, which at least promises to bring to an end the tedious ‘two thousand and...’ naming of years. We already know 2010 will be ruined by a general election, so let’s try to make the best of whatever remains on either side of it.

Given that the way we name things can make a difference to the way they’re perceived, my own new year resolution is to encourage the use of ‘grass-roots innovation’ as a replacement for ‘invention’. This is in the hope that individuals who generate new ideas on their own will spend less time locked out of the support system for innovation, and that innovation will be seen as something that can and should be the business of absolutely anyone and not just companies and universities. Let’s face it once and for all - the words invention and inventor do not, by and large, win friends or open doors. Rather the opposite.

If you’re not already aware of The Register (says-it-all slogan: ‘Biting the hand that feeds IT’), add it to your search engine favourites without delay. For example, check out this piece and consider whether it isn’t time to change the patent system so that the technology has to be there, physically present and working, before it can be patented. Laughable though some of these ideas are, the less funny point is that vastly rich companies can afford to apply for patents for whatever ideas take their fancy, no matter whether they have or ever will have any meaningful existence. This gradually erodes the space in which other innovators can operate, and so is in effect anti-innovative behaviour. Discuss...  
]]> Inventors’ club news page http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=43 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=43 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:00:00 GMT Are you a member of an inventors’ club, or any organisation that offers help to inventors? If so, would you like to send us regular news - which we’ll post for you free as long as you’re a voluntary, public sector or non-profit organisation - about events, meetings, services for inventors etc?

The aim is to gather useful information for inventors anywhere in the UK who ask us: ‘What help is available for inventors in my area?’ At the moment, it can be difficult for us to answer that question for large parts of the UK. (It’s not necessarily that there’s nothing going on, it’s just that we don’t know what it is.)

Please let us know via mail@abettermousetrap.co.uk. If there’s a healthy enough demand - critical mass will probably be about ten listings - we’ll start a dedicated page for inventors’ clubs and similar organisations, and build it up from there.  

Let me know too if you think there is anything else of use to UK inventors that needs listing.

And finally - this is nit-picky but I’m never sure whether it should be inventors’ club (plural) or inventor’s club (singular). The former is grammatically more correct but the latter somehow looks better. Please advise if you have a strong preference one way or the other. 
]]> NESTA versus inventors - Part 1 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=42 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=42 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:00 GMT As promised, we''ve started our dig into the confidential NESTA documents we''ve received related to the axed Invention & Innovation Programme. A good starting point is probably the meatiest document: a 65-page report titled ''Invention & Innovation Programme Evaluation - March 2005''.

It was produced for NESTA by The Library House, ''a research and data services company that was founded to help investors discover, monitor, measure and meet innovation-based companies across Europe''. (And which went into administration in December 2008.)

The report is generally thorough, though there is a degree of repetition that smacks of padding. How influential was it in ending NESTA''s support for private inventions? Inventors can judge from these extracts, with our comments in blue:   

''The I&I Programme''s mission is to support individuals or small teams who have ground-breaking ideas which they wish to commercialise.''
OK as it stands, but the weasel word is ''ground-breaking''. ''Potentially profitable'' would have been better.

''Until 2004, the Programme has typically made ca. 45 investments per annum, of which ca. 35 were made into new investee companies. The average investment size was ca. £55,000. Since 2004, the Programme has increased the average amount of money invested into companies to ca. £100,000 and the total number of investments in new companies per annum has decreased to ca. 25.''
Here we go - more money pumped into fewer projects. Thus an increase in risk. The original aim was to invest no more than £50k per project. And the pre-2004 average investment of £55k appears to be contradicted elsewhere by the statement:
''By 2004 the Programme had approved £13.9m in 224 separate transactions, of which 46 were for further funding to existing investees. The average investment size was £73,060.''
What accounts for the discrepancy between £55k and £73k per investment? Is it the result of piling more money into existing projects, thus adding yet further to the risk? We simply don''t know.

''The applicants rejected by the I&I Programme have a significantly lower expected economic impact than those invested into, demonstrating that the I&I Programme selects stronger companies over weaker ones and indicating the extent to which the I&I Programme can add value to its investees. It also shows that the pool of investments that the I&I Programme can choose from is generally of low quality.''
Unless we''re missing something, the first sentence makes no sense. The justification for the second sentence is therefore obscure. It sets the tone though for the dismissiveness of inventor-led projects that is to come.

''Overall, the estimated economic impact that the Programme is estimated to achieve over the next five years is substantial. We currently [2005] estimate the Programme''s investee companies to achieve an additional economic impact of £94m ± £36m by early 2011. This compares with approximately £20.3m that the Programme has expended so far.''
Given the sharply reduced value of the investment portfolio reported in the latest NESTA accounts, this now sounds like extreme optimism. The term ''economic impact'' needs explaining. Does it mean ''book'' value - guesswork, in other words - or actual trading figures? If the latter, it would be useful to know how many of the ''investee companies'' are actually trading, and with what success.

''It largely attracts applicants to the Programme which the Programme chooses not to invest in. The Programme has addressed this problem by reaching out much more actively, identifying investible businesses and attracting co-investment, as well as following investment to the investee companies of the Programme. As a result, the quality of the companies that have been invested in has increased and the investment community is much more knowledgeable about the Programme.''
Pivotal. Translated, this means: ''NESTA felt it was getting too many rubbish applicants, so it decided to go out and look for better ones that would make investors happier''. The first sentence is almost bizarre, given that an open programme aimed at private inventors was always bound to attract many no-hope applications. Calling this a ''problem'' and effectively walking away from it is pretty silly.

''Our analysis shows that the overall quality of applicants that the Programme currently attracts is low. This, combined with a filtering mechanism that does not remove low quality applications efficiently, does not allow the I&I Team to concentrate its efforts effectively. We recommend that for the time being, NESTA concentrates its efforts on the number of high quality companies that it sees, until it develops a mechanism for attracting a larger number of high quality applicants and screening and reviewing proposals more quickly and with better results.''
More bad news for inventors, now all tarred with the ''low quality'' brush. And we take issue with the bit about ''a filtering mechanism that does not remove low quality applications efficiently''. For the duration the I&I Programme, abettermousetrap.co.uk personnel were the main external filtering team. We turned round most applications (in fact all of them where there was no request for additional information) within the contracted 15 days. Many were same-day turnrounds, most within a week. The filtering system set up by NESTA was fundamentally very efficient, so where was the problem? We might have been able to enlighten The Library House had they asked us for information - but they never did. An odd omission from an otherwise thorough piece of research, and a wasted opportunity. There was much we could have told them about what was right and wrong with the I&I Programme - but then, we believed in it, so our opinions might have been unwelcome.

''NESTA should focus on what valuations it needs to generate a 5% annual return across its entire portfolio, including cost. We therefore recommend not investing in companies where NESTA thinks it cannot generate its target return, regardless of the principle merit of the idea.''
An example of NESTA being urged to think of itself as a company behaving strictly self-interestedly (as most companies must) rather than as an organisation intended to promote the interests of inventor-entrepreneurs. All the emphasis seems to be on ''valuations'' rather than on the practicalities of getting inventions to market.

''”Inventor” is defined as a person with no prior experience of starting a business, who has a very strong interest in the technological aspects of an innovation, but limited interests in building a business in order to commercialise this innovation. [...] In our discussion with the I&I Management, it has become clear that NESTA [...] has started to concentrate on investing in investees which are more of the entrepreneurial type. We think this is a step in the right direction, as it is likely to increase the efficiency of the Programme.''
A casual denigration of inventors, most of whom have a very keen interest in the business of commercialising their inventions. How else do they make money? In fact, we''re aware of at least one NESTA-funded inventor who feels strongly that NESTA actually thwarted his efforts to be entrepreneurial.

Here endeth today''s portion. More later.

As a general comment, it seems clear that even if NESTA and/or The Library House were justified in their very low expectations of private inventors, someone should have made the argument that it was part of NESTA''s duty to improve that situation, not make it worse. As far as we can see, such an argument is made nowhere in the report. Instead, it seems to have been taken for granted that in any conflict between the interests of private inventors and the financial interests of NESTA, the private inventors should lose out.  


]]> Help for inventors? Never at NESTA http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=40 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=40 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:00:00 GMT More detail pending, but a preliminary read-through of the internal NESTA material that we have ''acquired'' makes it clear why help for inventors from NESTA was always going to be short-lived.

It boils down to NESTA’s very early decision that what it craved most was credibility within the investment industry - and that meant ending support for inventors because the men in red braces considered inventors beneath contempt. As a category, invention projects were dismissed with extreme prejudice as of low quality, led by inexperienced managers and offering too little reward.

NESTA could have countered by saying, ‘OK, if that’s how you feel we’ll do without you and find new ways of funding invention.’ There is after all nothing new about the vicious circle of a lack of faith in inventors leading to a lack of help for invention. It’s been happening for centuries and grass-roots innovation sorely needs a can-do approach rather than ‘let them eat cake’ indifference.

But instead of being genuinely bold and innovative, NESTA took the course of action that best served its own interests. So hello big salaries for NESTA managers, goodbye any chance of a radical improvement in support for invention.
]]> NESTA - the untold story http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=39 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=39 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:00:00 GMT Fresh back from a great week in the hills near Oban, to find that someone has supplied us with a bunch of confidential documents that shed an enormous amount of light on why NESTA''s Invention & Innovation Programme turned its back on private inventors.

They''ll take some ploughing through, we don''t yet know how much we can get away with disclosing, and we''re not short of other demands on our time, so we''ll probably tackle it as a single major blog item rolled out in instalments. It''s clear that a lot of it is significant information that ought to be in the public domain for the benefit of all inventors and many start-up companies - so watch this space over the next few days and weeks.

(A small postscript - it’s interesting that in a poll of 50,000 people conducted by London’s Science Museum, an X-ray machine developed by a father and son team of amateur inventors has just been voted the most important invention in the history of science. This was way back in the 1890s, but it’s relevant to NESTA’s documented attitude to private inventors - which, as will become evident, is that they can be ignored because they don’t contribute anything to science or the economy.)

]]> NESTA for the chop? http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=36 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=36 Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT
According to its 2008/9 Annual Report, NESTA’s portfolio of investments made ‘a total return loss’ of £1.7m. Its ‘income’ - basically, lottery funding and other funds provided by the taxpayer, which means no meaningful income at all - was £30m, against which it managed to spend £25.5m. This included £4.4m on ‘communications, events and publications’, £3.58m on ‘policy and research’, and just shy of £7m on ‘payments for staff and trustees’ costs’.

CEO Jonathan Kestenbaum benefited to a total of £218,000, including a £30k bonus (for what, one might ask), while three other NESTA execs grossed over £100k each.

Year after year, NESTA finds it impossible to make money in any real sense - so what is the point of its continued existence? Is it just a mechanism for providing disguised subsidies to a favoured few university and spin-off projects? Considering that this is a body originally set up to help private inventors, and which now does absolutely nothing for private inventors, the Chancellor’s belt-tightening exercise surely provides the perfect excuse to permanently derail this loss-making, self-serving gravy-train.

Postscript, 22 September 2009

Another few matters arising from the 08/09 Annual Report...
  • NESTA consumes annually a whopping amount of money - as mentioned above, over £25m in 08/09 - yet its portfolio of investments amounts to only £11m invested in 50 companies. That’s NESTA’s total investments over close to ten years. If that’s correct - and I’m no expert in interpreting accounts, so I encourage anyone to tell me I’m wrong - what does that massive cost-to-investment ratio tell us about value for money?
  • Interestingly, the value of NESTA’s investment portfolio is estimated at £9.5m [page 45]. This is £1.8m less than the sum invested. Some of those investments will be years old, so even given falling values thanks to the recession, that looks like a highly questionable return on investment.
  • In 08/09 NESTA gave just short of £3m to MTI Partners  - a company that invests in high technology start-ups. That’s a lot of cash to be handing over - so what does MTI Partners do with it? No idea. They’re not mentioned again; nor is there any relevant information on either the NESTA or MTI Partners websites. However: one of the MTI Partners, Ernie Richardson, was appointed in 2006 as a non-Trustee member of the NESTA Investment Committee. On page 57 of the 07/08 NESTA Annual Report a footnote states: ‘Ernie Richardson stood down from the Investment Committee in December 2006, due to a potential conflict of interest, but was subsequently reinstated in April 2007’. Doubtless this is all above board and hunky dory, but £3m handed out to a single private investment company and no further explanation anywhere? Come on...
For more on NESTA see:
Time to blow the final whistle on NESTA?
Where did the NESTA I&I Programme go wrong?



]]> Patenting your invention - watch this space http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=35 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=35 Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT Patenting an invention is complex, expensive and risky. We''re preparing a free PDF download that explains the pros and cons from an inventor''s point of view.

Despite all the precautionary stuff we’ve put in ‘A Better Mousetrap’ about patents being a double-edged sword, it’s clear that many inventors are still too easily suckered into needlessly or prematurely patenting their inventions. It’s particularly frustrating to find, over and over again, inventors being given the impression that whatever their invention, they must patent it. The reality is that if you haven’t weighed up all the complex pros and cons, patenting your invention could be the most expensive mistake you ever make.

We’re therefore about to batter out a supplement to ‘A Better Mousetrap’, working title ‘Patenting Your Invention: the Ugly Truth’ (email us any suggestions for a better one). It will give the lowdown on the patent system from a private inventor’s point of view. It’ll take a few days, maybe even a few weeks, to get it done, so bear with us. The plan is to make it a downloadable PDF, free to read and free for other organisations to reproduce in return for an acknowledgement and a link to this site. (Let us know now if you think you might be interested in that deal.)

In the meantime, send us your own experiences if you think they’ll help improve PYI:TUT, either in its first or later editions.

Patent attorneys please note: the intention isn’t at all to knock what you’re doing. It’ll doubtless contain some opinions you can’t publicly endorse, but we hope that privately you’ll be on board with at least most of it. We know that many of you try to give inventors good strategic advice, but for one reason or another it doesn’t sink in. That isn’t your fault but it often isn’t the inventor’s fault either. We want to plug an information gap, on the grounds that an informed inventor is a better client. 
]]> Criminalising patent theft isn’t the answer (but it’s a good try) http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=34 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=34 Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT Trevor Baylis'' campaign to criminalise patent theft has merit but in practice it probably won''t work. The real problem for inventors is the patent system itself.

Trevor Baylis wants the government to make patent theft a criminal offence. His reasoning is that it will help private inventors, who currently have to risk massive amounts of money taking infringers through the civil courts - if they can afford to start proceedings at all. He makes the fair point that it’s already a criminal offence to breach copyright in music, books etc.

Trevor’s heart and mind are in the right places, so it’s unfair to dismiss his argument as ‘barking mad’ - the reaction, according to a BBC News report, of one unnamed patent attorney.

But with regret, I have to side with the critics. If it works at all, criminalising patent theft will be a double-edged sword. Big companies will indeed be prosecuted - but so too will inventors and small companies. Big companies will see to that, and in some cases will be justified in doing so. Complex arguments about what exactly has been stolen, if anything, and what it’s worth, will tie up court time, run up massive bills and bring businesses and R&D projects to a standstill. And the appeals... As ever, the only winners will be those with the resources to ride out the nightmare.

The fundamental problem for inventors and small companies is not patent infringement - which may never happen - but the patent system’s outmoded philosophy, which does little to encourage innovation. It’s primarily a machine for disclosing and exploiting ideas, not for protecting patentees. Industry is the master, the patentee the servant. In return for what is a lot of money for most individuals and many small businesses, patentees get almost no practical protection.

Renewal fees in particular can be crippling for an invention with international potential. They don’t kick in for five years or so, the theory being that by then, the invention should be paying its way. If it isn’t, the patentee is a slacker. The reality of course is that many inventions take far longer than five years to commercialise. Until the patent system recognises this, it will continue to hamper innovation by disadvantaging inventors and small companies. Therefore, making renewal fees deferable until there is a proven income stream will be far more beneficial to patentees than criminalising patent theft.

At the moment there is no sign of any ‘give’ in the patent system to make renewal costs more flexible. However, I’d put money on countries such as China and India forcing some kind of change - for the simple reason that if UK patentees struggle to pay renewal fees, patentees in countries where incomes are far lower will find them utterly impossible to pay. The Chinese in particular are now generating huge numbers of patents. Unless I’m missing something, they and other countries relatively new to patenting are unlikely to tolerate for long a system that makes innovation unaffordable for their inventors and SMEs. 
]]> Centre for Defence Enterprise - a model of open access? http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=33 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=33 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT Good grief! A department of government that actually invites ideas from inventors - or at least it looks that way - and in plain English too!

I’m indebted to inventor Martin Ade-Hall for making me aware of the Centre for Defence Enterprise, which opened in May 2008. For clarity, CfDE’s own description of what it does can’t easily be beaten:  

''The Centre for Defence Enterprise is the first point of contact for anyone with a disruptive technology, new process or innovation that has a potential defence application. The Centre acts as a gateway between the outside world and the Ministry of Defence (MOD), bringing together innovation and investment for the defence market, ensuring that our front-line forces have the best battle-winning technologies for the future.

You can submit a proposal for a research contract online - we have designed this process to be quick and easy. You are also welcome to come and talk to us at the Enterprise Centre before submitting a proposal. There is a team permanently based at the Enterprise Centre in Harwell and they are available to talk to you about your innovation. Once your proposal application is submitted you can track its progress online. Proposals can be assessed in as little as 15 days.

Successful applicants could benefit from:
    •    Proof-of-concept funding in the form of a research contract
    •    Support from our military scientists and engineers
    •    MOD trials and testing facilities
    •    A mentoring service ensuring a single point of contact within the MOD
    •    A unique customer insight into both UK and non-domestic defence markets''

What is remarkable about this is the openness to individuals and very small businesses - apparently part of ‘commitments made in the Defence Industrial Strategy and the Defence Technology Strategy to engage with a wider supplier base’. We haven’t had any inventor feedback yet so the sausage may not quite live up to the sizzle - hence the question mark in the title of this blog piece - but however it pans out, the message is wonderfully refreshing. It implicitly acknowledges that individuals outwith university or big company structures are capable of contributing new technology ideas.

This is no more than common sense, so the question is: why don’t other areas of government support for innovation do the same? What’s their problem with allowing - even encouraging - solo inventors or start-ups to join the party? Nesta remains a lost cause (though of course a nice little gravy train for its managers), while a quick tour round the websites of the seven deadly research councils shows no obvious signs that any of them are keen to ‘engage with a wider supplier base’.

Let’s hope that sooner rather than later, the CfDE’s refreshingly 21st century approach becomes the standard model for access to innovation support. It’s difficult to be optimistic but with a general election fast approaching, the inevitable tidal wave of change might just wash away Nesta and make the innovation support environment fitter for purpose.]]> Woolly thinking http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=31 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=31 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:00:00 GMT Does anyone have any bright ideas for adding value to wool? If you''ve got a  wool-related invention, you could be a big help to hard-pressed UK sheep farmers.

Does any inventor out there have any bright ideas for adding value to a fine and plentiful raw material that’s now practically worthless? Recently at Todmorden Agricultural Show (always a great family day out) I watched a demonstration of sheep shearing. The farmer giving the commentary asked the audience how much a full fleece is currently worth. The highest guess was a million pounds. The actual figure was about thirty-six pence - and to get that, farmers also have to clean, transport and grade the wool. Thus the real price is less than nothing. (And apparently UK wool can only be marketed through the Wool Marketing Board. Isn’t that a monopoly, and aren’t they illegal? But one digresses...)

The problem is that demand for woollen textiles, particularly carpets, has collapsed. Artificial fibres and laminate flooring mean you can barely give the stuff away. Wool can be used for building insulation, but that doesn’t add much value. Mike Donovan of the excellent Practical Farm Ideas thinks that some car panels are made of wool, but that the long-term focus is on breeding sheep that shed their coats naturally, to eliminate shearing. As he wrily notes: ‘There''s a moral there somewhere’. In a country whose wealth was once based on wool, there certainly is.

It strikes me that while we await the self-shearing sheep, someone is missing a trick. There are all sorts of grants for high technology innovation, which is inherently expensive, while low technology is just as capable of creating wealth and jobs.  

So how about some organisation that claims to support innovation - for example, Nesta - putting its muscle into a campaign to find gold in them there hills? The rural economy is in desperate need of a lift, so Nesta would be providing a valuable national service if it invested in inventions that use significant quantities of wool.

But given Nesta’s habit of ignoring inventors entirely, I for one won’t be holding my breath. If it happens at all, it will be someone else who funds it.

]]> Community Trade Mark Filing Service - warning http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=30 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=30 Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 GMT Here''s what looks like yet another rip-off aimed at IP owners.

If you’ve applied for a UK trade mark, you may well get an invoice, typically for around £570, from a Liverpool-based business called Community Trade Mark Filing Service. It looks official but it isn’t. We suggest that you either throw it in the bin, or send copies to UKIPO  and/or the Office of Fair Trading and/or your local trading standards department.

According to its website Community Trade Mark Filing Service ‘provides a service for UK proposed/registered Trade Mark holders to have their UK mark used as a basis to file a Community Trade Mark Application, which if accepted, offers a more comprehensive level of IP Protection.’ What it doesn’t say is that its ‘service’ is significantly poorer value for money than similar services offered by many patent and trade mark attorneys.

CTMFS now seems to be changing its business terms (could be something to do with the flak it’s getting from within the IP profession) but at the date of this posting it just completes the OHIM form [OHIM is the EU agency for registering trade marks and designs that are valid throughout the EU] using the identical information available on the UK IPO website, and sends it to the client to forward to OHIM  with payment of the official fee (1050 euros). This is effectively a ‘do it yourself’ job for which CTMFS clients pay the same ball park prices (or more) that a full service patent and trade mark attorney would charge for the application and registration. Also, most qualified attorneys would only charge 900 euros for the official fee component, by filing the application online.

As one professional adviser told us, ‘To do the equivalent work that CTMFS do, if we were to offer it, we would charge £50-£100 for our fees, so their charge is exorbitant.’ Most attorneys don’t offer this kind of limited service because leaving the client without any guidance during the application process, when communications will be sent by OHIM, could lead to errors.

CTMFS clearly doesn’t like anyone treading on its toes. It seems very quick to threaten dire legal and financial consequences against anyone who even suggests that what it is doing could be interpreted as deception for monetary gain. We’ve seen a letter from CTMFS accusing one solicitor, who did no more than Twitter about it, of a ‘highly defamatory and/or malicious falsehood designed to damage the reputation of our company in the market place’.

As far as we can see, CTMFS is doing a pretty good job of defaming itself. Does a company of any integrity promote its services to potential clients by sending them a ‘pro forma’ invoice for over £500? Does a company that isn’t out to rip people off charge exorbitant fees for hardly any work of value?

Our advice to CTMFS is this:

If you want to avoid any suspicion that what you are doing is a scam, first change your name so that no one can confuse you with any official body, because this is exactly what scammers do. Second, stop sending invoices to potential rather than actual clients, because this is exactly what scammers do. Third, stop offering a derisory level of service, because this is exactly what scammers do. Put your house properly in order, then respected bloggers within the IP profession like IP Brands and Ipkat might leave you alone.

For this advice our fees are modest. An invoice will shortly be on its way to CTMFS for £573.40.

Postcript dated 14 September 2009:

As the owner of a trade mark for the abettermousetrap.co.uk logo, we’ve just received our own invitation from CTMFS to lash out £573.40 (inc VAT) on a Community Trade Mark application.

Maybe they’ve taken at least some of our advice. The company name seems subtly to have changed to Community Trade Mark Filing Support; and to anyone versed over the past ten or more years in the slippery ways of business directory, domain registration and other cold billed try-ons, the current wording of the Terms & Conditions sends a fairly clear signal that this is more of the same. That said, the mere fact that CTMFS is doing it at all suggests they''re still finding the exercise worthwhile. No mention at all of course of the highly questionable value for money.

By the way, have there been any official alerts or advice about CTMF activities from the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys or the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys? We couldn’t find anything relevant on the website of either. On behalf of their members and IP owners, shouldn’t CIPA and ITMA be showing a fairly keen interest in what CTMFS is doing?

See also New IPR scame - and some old ones

]]> A Labour government that doesn’t give a damn about inventors http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=28 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=28 Tue, 12 May 2009 00:00:00 GMT A venting of measured spleen about the Labour government''s dismal record on helping inventors. Written at night but still seems to stand up in daylight.

Two heartfelt postings from M Chung (after the two NESTA pieces) remind me of a problem that I experience time and again, as do many inventors: when you contact government departments such as BERR (Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) or DIUS (Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills) enquiring about support for inventors, or offering ideas to help encourage invention, you get given the run-around. No useful information whatsoever. No encouragement or help whatsoever.

What you get instead - if you get a reply at all - is a few paragraphs of PR garbage (probably pulled off a roll, like kitchen towel) that usually bears little relation to your original enquiry. All it does is keep some low-level, know-nothing civil servant in a job.

What does this tell us?
  • That a Labour government that supposedly attaches so much importance to innnovation has no understanding of where ideas come from. It obviously thinks all good new ideas come only from committees, or from a hat.
  • That a Labour government treats individual innovators with contempt. By their one brain cell way of thinking, inventor equals loser, and why help losers?
  • That this Labour government is itself bereft of new ideas. NESTA proved itself to be rubbish at helping private inventors, so what’s the solution? Pretend that private inventors don’t exist. They’re so small and unimportant, no one will care.
  • That this Labour government will never create the innovation culture the UK needs - the one that doesn’t stop at established companies and university research departments, but digs right down to the grass roots - individuals with enquiring minds and the bravery to follow their ideas through, whatever the odds and obstacles. Our future entrepreneurs, no less. (I’m currently dealing with two great inventions - both of them from individuals who work alone and never went near a university).
  • That invention isn’t sexy, and this Labour government is too shallow to respond to anything that isn’t perceived as sexy. If Joanna Lumley was an inventor, things would be different.   
Will the now inevitable David Cameron government do more to encourage individuals - potentially, every man, woman and child - to invent and innovate? I won’t be holding my breath but nothing can be worse than the desperately frustrating and insulting non-environment for inventors we’ve got at present.

]]> New IPR scam - and some old ones http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=27 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=27 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 GMT Scams aimed at unwary inventors never go away. A newcomer we’re aware of is a Brussels-based outfit calling itself the ''European Institute for Economy and Commerce''.

Apparently it doesn’t exist – for information see, for example,
http://www.competex.co.uk/news_views_events/news/EIECandDataProtection.pdf.

You’re likely to be targeted by EIEC – and maybe other scammers - if you apply for any form of IP where your contact details are legitimately published as part of the application process. For example, you apply for a trade mark and in due course your details are published in the official Trademark Bulletin. You then receive an invoice for ‘registration fees’ totalling hundreds of pounds (on the one we’ve seen, the sum demanded was £479.75). The invoice looks authentic, and its very cunning wording may keep it technically legal, but for all practical purposes it’s completely bogus.

Other related scams are aimed at patent applicants. As soon as your application is published, fraudsters have the information they need to find you. The scam here is either the same EIEC-type invoice for ''registration'' or ''filing’ fees; or, more insidiously, someone may contact you expressing a very keen interest in licensing your patent. You’ll think: ‘Great! Success at last!’ – but all they want is to get a hook into you, so you can be milked for a series of increasingly large ''introduction'' or ''arrangement'' or ''marketing'' fees.

Don’t fall for any of it, because most of the outfits are based overseas, and not even necessarily in the country they claim as their address. Therefore, if you pay them anything at all, your chances of ever getting it back are remote.

Your only real defence is to be hyper-alert to deception. If any organisation asks you for money, no matter how official or ‘genuine’ they appear, check them out. Run their name through a search engine, or talk to someone at your local trading standards department, or at UKIPO. The more friendly and persuasive they are on the phone, the bigger the danger you’re in.

Finally, report what they’re doing if you think they’re up to no good – the UK and US governments have a decent track record of closing cowboys down, but they need to know about them first.

]]> Time to blow the final whistle on NESTA? Share your thoughts with us http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=25 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=25 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 GMT NESTA was set up by the government to help inventors. Now they''re the last people it wants to help. What went wrong, and what''s the point in keeping NESTA going?


We think it’s high time to shut NESTA down, because it’s doing the very opposite of what it was set up to do. It’s maybe also high time to put an end to NESTA’s propaganda – sorry, PR output - which has been aptly described to us by one seasoned business adviser as ‘an endless stream of happy-clappy bullshit about some pseudo-science called innovation’.

But rather than propose leaving just a smoking crater, over the next few weeks or months we’d like to construct a blueprint for a replacement organisation much closer to the original, invention-oriented NESTA of 1999. We have our own ideas, but on their own they won’t be enough – so please send us YOUR thoughts [use the Replies box below] on what might make a workable, credible, affordable and sustainable organisation committed to supporting and encouraging invention by individuals and very small companies. Then maybe we can persuade some department of government to fund it. But NESTA will probably have to go, or at least change radically, before that can happen.

So what’s wrong with NESTA?

In our Invention Watch posting of 26 September 2006 [‘Where did the NESTA Invention & Innovation Programme go wrong?’] we commented on the sudden closure of NESTA’s Invention & Innovation Programme, the best-funded programme of help for inventors ever seen in the UK. Since then, NESTA has turned completely away from helping individual inventors – and in doing so has put itself in breach of the law under which it was established.

According to the National Lottery Act 1998:
NESTA’s principal statutory purposes as set out in Section 17(2) of the Act are:
(a) helping talented individuals (or groups of such individuals) in the fields of science, technology and the arts to achieve their potential
(b) helping persons to turn inventions or ideas in the fields of science, technology and the arts into products or services
(i) which can be effectively exploited; and
(ii) the rights to which can be adequately protected; and
(iii) contributing to public knowledge and appreciation of science, technology and the arts.

The Act has not, to our knowledge, been amended. NESTA’s remit therefore still includes helping inventors; and we recall NESTA’s senior personnel in its early days being adamant that the Invention & Innovation Programme was there to help ONLY individuals and very small businesses and NOT universities and other large organisations. The thinking – as correct now as then – was that most organisations already had access to sources of innovation funding, whereas individuals and many start-ups did not.

How, then, can NESTA reconcile one of its statutory purposes with this key statement among the FAQs on its website (http://www.nesta.org.uk/faqs/ - or at least there on 26 June 2008):

Who and what do you fund? NESTA uses its resources to build and test new models of innovation, often working in partnership with other organisations.
We are not primarily a grant-making organisation, so for example we do not fund the following:
  • Individuals looking for funding to develop an invention or idea (with the exception of our Starter for 6 programme in Scotland).
  • Charities; however, we do work in partnership with charities that are delivering work on our behalf.
  • Student funding, i.e. for courses, bursaries, etc

That’s it then. No matter what the National Lottery Act says, if you’re an inventor you’re a nobody. You’re lumped in with charities and students and deemed unsuitable for funding. (For the record, the Starter for 6 programme is aimed at business start-up – something many inventors don’t want to do – and offers only £10,000 of support. The programme ends in 2009 and application for 2008 is already closed, so not much joy there.)

A good idea can’t come from anywhere

And it gets worse. Not content with kicking inventors into the long grass, NESTA seems hostile to the whole notion of individualism in the field of innovation. This is rarely explicit, but one example illustrates it perfectly. NESTA’s Annual Review 2008 contains an article by Megan Smith, a manager at Google. Its title is: ''A good idea can come from anywhere''. Whooee! Right on, Megan… But then you read her piece and discover that it’s actually a rather dull hymn to collaborative innovation at Google. Her ''anywhere'' means ''anywhere within a large organisation''.

What NESTA seems to be promoting as its vision of innovation is Orwellian stuff - the outsider has no right to innovate. You must be a paid-up member of some corporate or academic party, then you’ll get a licence to innovate. Imagine telling that to an artist, a film-maker, a poet - all of whom other parts of NESTA seem keen to support. One could dismiss NESTA as a lost cause were it not for the fact that one of NESTA''s stated missions is to help educate future generations of innovators. Will this include how to invent, think for yourself, maintain control of your inventive efforts and fend off those who will rip you off? We''ll happily put five quid on No. Instead, it''ll be how to become an innovation apparatchik within some university or large company. Disturbing.

Model, schmodel

Let’s go further and look at NESTA’s messianic desire to ‘build and test new models of innovation’. This begs one very simple question: who needs a model of innovation? Can anyone imagine Alan Sugar, James Dyson or any of the ‘Dragon’s Den’ lot needing one? Or, more to the point, needing NESTA to ‘build and test’ one for them?

A model of innovation may just possibly mean something to large organisations, who often struggle with new ideas because everything has to be filtered through layers of bureaucracy and internal politics – but if so strapped, they’re probably beyond any help a model can give them. To small companies and individuals, a model is irrelevant; their main struggle is with resources (usually financial) and the risk aversion of others. One learns very little from NESTA about how to deal with these rather crucial aspects of getting new ideas off the ground - possibly because there is scant evidence that anyone at NESTA has any experience of risking everything they''ve got for an idea.

And let’s look at the notion of innovation itself. Most businesses probably wouldn’t recognise innovation as something they deliberately set out to do. They simply strive to develop new or improved products and services, and whether or not it’s innovation really doesn’t come into it. Whether or not it makes a profit is all that matters. NESTA seems unable to grasp this – but then, to do so might involve puncturing the balloon of self-importance they have very successfully inflated around themselves. And that’s one risk they’re unlikely to take.

In our next instalment of this gripping yarn, we’ll attempt a spot of forensic on what NESTA costs, who runs it, and what it does with all the money at its command. And maybe we’ll get around to talking about what should be put in its place. In the meantime, please let us have your comments, criticisms and suggestions to keep the pot boiling. Postings will be moderated, but we promise to air all views as fairly and fully as possible.

For more on NESTA see also:
Where did the NESTA I&I Programme go wrong?








]]> Inventor associations: why bother? http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=22 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=22 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:00:00 GMT We’ve just been invited to join yet another new inventor-led organisation for UK inventors. Let’s play devil’s advocate and ask, bluntly: what’s the point?

We hate to pour cold water on people’s best intentions, but it’s perhaps time to consider why associations of inventors come and go but rarely last long or make any significant impact.

It’s important to start by saying that we’re not taking a swipe at regional inventors’ clubs, which usefully act as a hub for information about resources available to inventors in a particular area. They genuinely help, so long may they proliferate and thrive.

The problem seems to start when inventors are tempted to stray from the eminently practical (let’s help each other out locally) to the ideological (let’s change the world). In order to do this effectively they need at the very least to have some influence, some clear and achievable plans and some funding.

Most inventor associations don’t have any of these things. All they seem to have is a list of whinges, with no coherent vision of what might make a difference and no convincing strategy for making it happen. And because there is no such calling as ‘inventor’ - no exams to pass, no standards to meet, no minimum entry requirement, no career progression - their representatives are vulnerable to the suspicion that they represent no one but themselves.

Because of all this, inventor associations struggle for credibility. They don’t attract support from the right quarters and tend either to be written off completely, or at best consigned to the outermost orbit of any sphere of influence.

So how can the climate be improved for invention in the UK? We’d argue that a priority is to work out what sort of association would have enough clout to make a difference. We’d also argue that experience now shows beyond much doubt that the last thing that will work is an association run by inventors for inventors.

Better might be an association that recognizes that invention/innovation is a collective endeavour involving more players and stakeholders than just inventors. Invention is a form of enterprise, and the line of attack surely ought to be that private individuals with ideas of proven quality (not just the self-selected!) are no less deserving of support than innovators in small companies and universities. One might argue about levels of funding but the principle of support for innovation from any source needs to be established.

What may be needed is some kind of Innovation Council, analogous to the Design Council or the Arts Council, of which invention is an important but not the only component. It would have to include representatives from business (to exploit ideas), from higher education (to produce more and better inventors), from enterprise agencies (to encourage business start-up and to monitor projects), from IPO-UK, from patent attorneys, from venture capital.

Who would represent inventors? One can think immediately of James Dyson, Mandy Haberman, Ted Prosser and perhaps a handful of others. Most new or aspiring inventors are learners, so for best outcomes let’s think meritocracy rather than democracy. But if the other components were in place and committed to helping stimulate open-source invention, it probably wouldn’t matter. The important issue is not who should be the voice of inventors, but that invention is recognised by everyone as a precursor to innovation, and supported accordingly.

]]> Gowers Report - not much joy for inventors http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=18 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=18 Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:00:00 GMT Does the Gowers Report (more accurately, the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property) make any recommendations that will help or encourage inventors? Basically, no.

Gowers is undoubtedly worth reading as a grounding in all forms of IP and their use and abuse, and it details with clarity the case for reforming the patent system to make it cheaper, quicker and more internationally consistent.

It’s also undoubtedly unexciting. It makes no bold or unexpected recommendations - most of those concerned with patenting simply endorse existing initiatives - and is generally content with the status quo. It presents the views of those who want changes to strengthen their own IP, and those who want fewer restrictions to their use of other people’s IP. Gowers seems marginally to favour the latter, though without nailing anything particularly colourful to its mast.

But in contrast to pages devoted to the impact of changes to IP practice on developing countries, there isn’t even a sentence on the likely impact on private inventors. There is in fact no significant reference to private inventors anywhere in the 120-page report. The assumption seems to be that only businesses have any interest in IP, and that all that matters is the benefit to business first and economies second. In a report full of facts and figures provided mainly, one senses, by accountants and economists, there is little room for the interests of individual inventors.

While it’s undeniable that most innovative ideas start within an existing business, many thousands don’t. Private inventors deserve to have more attention paid to their needs, because the current situation creates a chicken-and-egg effect. It’s almost a certainty that many potentially inventive individuals research the problems that lie ahead of them - chiefly the cost of protecting and exploiting their IP - and decide that the way the odds are stacked, the risk is too high to be worth taking. Ergo, invention - grassroots innovation - is effectively discouraged outside a corporate environment.

A serious weakness in Gowers is that it doesn’t sufficiently acknowledge where the roots of the best IP often lie: in the efforts and sacrifices of unsupported individuals. Its lack of concern for individual interests is perhaps best exemplified by its controversial recommendation not to extend musical performers’ copyright beyond the current 50 years. Arguments for and against an extension are wheeled out and analysed, but they’re all essentially the arguments of bean counters. Hardly surprising then that Gowers comes up with a recommendation justified by more bean counting.

Absent is perhaps the most potent argument for an extension: that recorded works can now live on well past 50 years, and so can their performers. For ex-performers in their seventies and eighties, even a pittance from extended royalties might come in very handy indeed. Gowers is therefore in effect recommending that pensioners be deprived of an opportunity to top up their pension (at negligible cost to the rest of us) in order to give an advantage to businesses who want to exploit their IP for nothing.

There will be a backlash from musicians, so it’ll be interesting to see whether respect and fairness for the individual prevails over the soulless over-sophistication of the Gowers view. Whatever the outcome, there may well be a message in it for future generations of private inventors.

Download the Gowers Review in PDF format free.]]> Invention funding - the Catch-22 for inventors http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=17 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=17 Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT Funding for inventions is never easy to get, often because inventors ask for too little money. Here''s how the Catch-22 of invention funding works.

Most inventions don''t need much funding at first. Somewhere in the £5-15,000 range will usually cover basic technical development and IP protection. But very few innovation funding bodies will even entertain such (in their terms) small amounts.

One reason is that the costs of processing applications, awarding funds and monitoring projects tend to be quite high and are about the same no matter how much money is awarded. What this means is that if an inventor wants £10,000, the total cost to the funding body may be £20,000. To an accountant, an administrative overhead of that size makes no sense. Larger funding makes better sense because as the amount awarded goes up, the administrative cost percentage goes down.

Why can''t inventors just ask for more? Because they''ll then be told that they''re overbidding, or lack management skills, or can''t show prospects of a return on investment. The funder may be right on all counts, but that''s no consolation to inventors. No matter what sum they ask for - large or small - they probably won''t get it.

A solution is for funding bodies to find some way of cheaply and quickly identifying inventions with promise, to which they then give small, realistic amounts to get them to the next logical stage. Then, if the promise is still there, further funding can be provided when needed. There would obviously have to be a bit more to it than that, but none of it need be rocket science. The obstacle isn''t money - we''re not talking vast sums overall - but an official mindset that seems to have to turn every conceivable process into rocket science.

In short, to improve grassroots UK innovation we first need those who control the funds to think boldly and innovatively. Don''t hold your breath.


















]]> Where did the NESTA* Invention & Innovation Programme go wrong? http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=16 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=16 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:00:00 GMT The NESTA Invention & Innovation Programme was a brilliant idea that started well, but was then mishandled and abandoned. Here''s our view of what went wrong.

What follows is, we think, a reasonable interpretation of information and opinions received informally from various sources. It therefore can’t be regarded as gospel. We invite more authoritative information from anyone and will be happy to put the record straight if needed.

NESTA’s Invention & Innovation Programme abruptly closed down in April 2006, and the biggest and best-funded programme of public sector support for private inventors ever seen in the UK came to an end.

NESTA’s PR claims that the shutdown is temporary but the rapid disbandment of the I&I team - some redeployed, others taking redundancy - suggests otherwise. While I&I may technically re-emerge, it’s almost certain to be in a form that has nothing to offer the average private inventor.

There has been no noticeable outcry, but this perhaps shouldn’t come as a surprise. Despite having some excellent people running I&I’s day-to-day operations, the suspicion of many in the innovation support community is that NESTA lost interest in private inventors well before I&I closed. With progressively fewer friends, there were never likely to be many mourners.

That’s a shame because the original I&I set-up was potentially brilliant. Free application for any UK resident. A dual application process consisting of a rapid ‘first sift’ followed by a more thorough vetting of the (far fewer) applications deemed worth the effort. As much assessment work as possible done online. Positive discrimination in favour of ideas that conventional investors wouldn’t or couldn’t touch. An award limit of around £50,000. All in all a sensible and sustainable approach.

So what went wrong? Meaningful answers won’t be found on the PR-driven NESTA website but as I&I’s lead external (by 200 miles) assessor team throughout its existence, here’s our take on it all.
  • NESTA appeared fairly rapidly to become bureaucratic and self-serving. An increasing amount of I&I effort seemed to go into meeting the internal needs of committees rather than the needs of inventors. For example, we heard of numerous complaints about long and sometimes damaging delays over simple decisions. Tellingly, an ‘improved’ version of the application form was longer and more complicated than the original.
  • NESTA preferred to dismiss ideas deficient in what it termed ‘wow factor’. This meant that many ideas which were unexciting (in the God-like view of NESTA) but potential money-makers didn’t get backed. Had NESTA been around in the 1980s, would it have invested in James Dyson’s bagless vac? Probably not.
  • Arts projects never likely to make money got funded as innovation, while invention projects had to undergo a much more rigorous appraisal of risk and return on investment. Many inventors and invention support bodies perceived a double standard at work.
  • Rather than make lots of smallish initial awards to spread its own investment risk and at the same time encourage more inventors to apply, NESTA chose to throw big money at very few projects. Instead of a £50k award limit, six-figure jackpots became the norm. With so few awards made, many inventors saw little point in applying just to be rejected.
  • The high level of rejections also disillusioned at least some invention support bodies. As a result, sources of potential quality applications dried up.
  • NESTA wasn’t keen on projects wanting less than £20-30k because of the disproportionate administration cost. We’re not aware that this was ever spelled out to applicants but it disadvantaged the many inventors who initially need only relatively small amounts of funding.
  • While I&I had some highly intelligent people on its team, we knew of no one on the NESTA payroll with engineering or manufacturing or even general business experience. (We may be wrong on this, but if they were there they kept very quiet.) [Since posting this we''ve heard from an ex-I&I staffer that there was indeed an engineer on the I&I team and two others had business experience, so apologies duly rendered.]
  • NESTA seemed increasingly to apply conventional (= play it safe) venture capital criteria to its key investment decisions and rarely lived up to its claim to take the risks no one else would. (Though given the size of the awards it chose to dish out, serious risk-taking would indeed have been folly. The smaller the award, the greater the risk you can afford to take.)
  • Perhaps because it took such a large stake in projects, NESTA seemed to have difficulty ‘letting go’. Projects that should have been signed off after a year or two of funding seemed to hang about forever, soaking up I&I resources (including more funding - good money after bad?) that ought to have gone into new projects.
Some time reasonably soon, Invention Watch will trawl through NESTA’s portfolio of funded projects to see what degree of success it has had as an investor. The prima facie evidence doesn’t look good, but more detail in due course.

Why does the failure of I&I matter? It matters because without some serious analysis it’s too easy for politicians and mandarins to conclude that if I&I failed despite being well-resourced, it must not be worth supporting private inventors. That’s entirely the wrong message. Good inventions from private sources are worth some public support and I&I could have been world class. It failed not because it was bound to, but because NESTA got too many simple things wrong.

For more on NESTA see also:
Time to blow the final whistle on NESTA?














RESPONSES: We''ve only had one response so far, posted in full and with permission here. Are there any more of you out there with views?





From John Knowles, Chairman, NanoSight Ltd, www.nanosight.co.uk:





''I have to say that your recent article did not reflect our experience with NESTA. The bureaucracy was less than many VCs and the experience much better than SFLGS, the assessors and mentors had relevant technical and business experience (e.g a PhD running his own business, our next CEO etc), and the support was excellent.





I do agree that it was a major shame closing down the investment side (not just I&I?) and as I understand it the new investment director has concluded that the original strategy was not that bad! It seems more that there was some internal politics.''











]]> Does the ‘Not Invented Here’ syndrome exist? http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=15 http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/newsitem.asp?id=15 Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:00:00 GMT For years inventors have ranked the ‘Not Invented Here’ (NIH) syndrome close to the top of the list of reasons why companies reject their ideas. Are they right?

A company will reject a cracking good invention, so the NIH argument runs, simply because someone else thought of it before them. Rather than exploit it and make millions, they sulk and show the inventor the door.

But is this definition of NIH credible? Leaving aside the minority of firms run by genuinely stupid people, is this how grown-up companies really behave? In our experience, in companies where an NIH syndrome can be said to exist there’s a rational and positive explanation for it.

Companies with their own R&D resources may shun external ideas out of loyalty to their R&D people. As the IP manager of one extremely well-known company put it to us: ‘We employ over 200 designers and engineers whose job is to keep us ahead of the field and they’ve never let us down. If we started taking in ideas from outside, it would look as though we’d lost faith in them.’

Another company offered broadly the same explanation, but with a significantly different slant. ‘The very specialised R&D people we need are in short supply, so it’s important to retain them once we’ve got them. To do that we’ll sometimes help them develop their own ideas even if they’re not part of our core business. Given all that, the chances of us giving priority to an idea from a total outsider are just about zero.’

Companies which do a lot of R&D may have a further concern that could be interpreted as NIH syndrome. They may genuinely be working on an idea similar to one an inventor brings in, and they fear litigation if it isn’t crystal clear who invented what first. Some companies tackle the problem by looking only at patented ideas. Others play safer still by shunning all external ideas. Either way, there’s an often profound reluctance to let non-company ideas muddy the waters.

So does the NIH syndrome exist? Yes it does, but in at least some and perhaps most larger companies it happens for justifiable strategic and operational reasons and isn’t done out of spite or short-sightedness. In the interests of fairness and accuracy it should perhaps be renamed the No Opportunity Here or NOH syndrome.]]>