Dyor.com Invention Philosophy
How things are vs. how things should be in the invention process.
I have been working in the invention space for the last 2 decades, and I have a confession: I don't think the current invention framework works very well for most people. This website is my attempt to share and evangelize some of my views, and hopefully help some other aspiring inventors achieve more impact.
Develop *Initial* Invention Technical Concept > File *Initial* Patent Application > Work to Convince Market of *Initial* Invention Value > Work to Sell *Initial* Invention
This progression for inventions is wrong for most inventors. First, the initial invention, as initially understood, is usually not as strong as it will eventually be, and the inventor may actually learn that there are better ways to solve the problem. If a plan does not exist at the onset that the inventor is going to continue to seek, find, and protect better IP over time, the inventor can get stuck trying to exploit a weak invention.
Second, the value of an invention will be determined based on the combination of the strength of the IP + the customer demand for the product. If the strongest IP (e.g., clearly non-obvious, detectable, etc.) has limited customer appeal, the inventor will have exclusive rights to a non-monetizable asset.
Develop *v1* Invention Technical Concept > File *v1* Patent Application > Get Feedback on *v1* Product Implementation > Iterate until You Have Proven Customer Demand (*Final*) > Work to Sell *Final* Invention
The proposed progression is more complex, but you end up with better odds of commercializing your invention. You knowingly start with version 1 (v1) and continually experiment until what you have built lines up with what customers want (without you having to convince them). You do not perfect your initial patent application, because the odds are that your technical concept will shift significantly as you learn from potential customers.
The key is to focus on identifying and protecting a sellable patent asset, and not letting yourself get anchored to a low-value patent.
If you are interested in talking invention strategy, grab 30 minutes from my calendar.