A consultant advises a patent shouldn't carry you back. - 0 views

family

started by Slattery Abildgaard on 25 Jul 13

#1 Slattery Abildgaard on 25 Jul 13

As I often ask my customers what they'd rather be, the organization that developed industry or it that is dominated by the one a manufacturing consultant?

Heading writers love first-movers and we take for granted claims that we should innovate to build brand loyalty, force into new areas, capture market share at premium prices by targeting the early adopters and survive.

Within my role as production expert I attempt to help my clients see that what they might have isn't first-mover advantage but first-survivor advantage?

Let's go further and consider the features of letting your competitor function as the mine-sweeper.

Free real-world analysis - the outcomes of target groups and seeing consumer use can't equate to understanding what customers are really ready to pay.

You could offer an alternate - allow the pioneer experience all the client complaints before you enter industry with an item that addresses all their frustrations.

Reduced advertising cost - your opponent has the cost of increasing awareness of the merchandise, determining programs and educating potential customers. All you need to do is present your better alternative and recognize its limits.

So should you patent inventions or not?

As a production expert I believe a patent has two major purposes:

It offers the right to the inventor to sue anyone who feels has infringed his creation. This may be enough to prevent small would-be competitors, but won't be enough to withstand determined opponents with deep pockets. It doesn't immediately give a monopoly to the inventor or ensure that he'll earn money. If you think anything, you will possibly wish to check up about discount business consultancy. A more positive program is to guide the developer to raise finance.

We are all familiar with the reason behind a patent - the competitive advantage that comes with a monopoly. Why, then, is it usually a problem to be first? Obviously the first entrants are focused on their technology but can the patent itself be described as a obligation?

My experience as a manufacturing expert has confirmed that the possible threat of the patent is that it commits the initial mover to an unproven technology. I've personal knowledge of an organization that lost $5m+ and several years to unsuccessfully commercialise a patent.

The paradox was that the inexpensive alternative have been prototyped within two hours of asking the question - 'How could a competitor get around this patent?". The young technologist wasn't but permitted to pursue his thought because of the embarrassment that it would cause following the release of the patented invention.

Here are some of my suggestions if you're the first mover in the market

* Engage a seasoned manufacturing expert.
* Make sure you actually understand the consumer, the specialized requirements and the requirements which are expected.
* Customers buy solutions, maybe not patents. Can you solve the problem easily having an extension of reliable technology?
* Anticipate problems with services. Better still, set out to locate them. Get ready with the options before the competition will have time to respond.
* Look for ways around your own patents. If you can find them - so can competitors.
Using solutions outside your original patent isn't an admission of failure - it's a smart move to make. The mere existence of a patent can be a reason to saddle your company with extra costs or inferior goods
* Review and challenge cost estimates time and, pricing, market forecasts and the product's life-cycle. Assume that the competition may enter the market soon after you start.
* Take action to stay conscious of developments outside your immediate industry. They'll alert you to potential rivals and opportunities

Be aware though that often it's wise to hold straight back and see before planning your approach. It indicates that you've to be agile when you make your move to produce a great product at a fair value but at least you're perhaps not making the mistakes for your competitors to learn from. If you are concerned with politics, you will perhaps require to learn about powered by.

Last but not least understand that an expert production expert may advise and make suggestions through the important procedure for time in the marketplace which can be worth its weight in gold.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">As I often ask my customers what they'd rather be, the organization that developed industry or it that is dominated by the one a manufacturing consultant? Heading writers love first-movers and we take for granted claims that we should innovate to build brand loyalty, force into new areas, capture market share at premium prices by targeting the early adopters and survive. Within my role as production expert I attempt to help my clients see that what they might have isn't first-mover advantage but first-survivor advantage? Let's go further and consider the features of letting your competitor function as the mine-sweeper. Free real-world analysis - the outcomes of target groups and seeing consumer use can't equate to understanding what customers are really ready to pay. You could offer an alternate - allow the pioneer experience all the client complaints before you enter industry with an item that addresses all their frustrations. Reduced advertising cost - your opponent has the cost of increasing awareness of the merchandise, determining programs and educating potential customers. All you need to do is present your better alternative and recognize its limits. So should you patent inventions or not? As a production expert I believe a patent has two major purposes: It offers the right to the inventor to sue anyone who feels has infringed his creation. This may be enough to prevent small would-be competitors, but won't be enough to withstand determined opponents with deep pockets. It doesn't immediately give a monopoly to the inventor or ensure that he'll earn money. If you think anything, you will possibly wish to check up about <a href="http://www.paulforsythe.org/business-consultancy-and-the-art-of-war/" rel="nofollow">discount business consultancy</a>. A more positive program is to guide the developer to raise finance. We are all familiar with the reason behind a patent - the competitive advantage that comes with a monopoly. Why, then, is it usually a problem to be first? Obviously the first entrants are focused on their technology but can the patent itself be described as a obligation? My experience as a manufacturing expert has confirmed that the possible threat of the patent is that it commits the initial mover to an unproven technology. I've personal knowledge of an organization that lost $5m+ and several years to unsuccessfully commercialise a patent. The paradox was that the inexpensive alternative have been prototyped within two hours of asking the question - 'How could a competitor get around this patent?". The young technologist wasn't but permitted to pursue his thought because of the embarrassment that it would cause following the release of the patented invention. Here are some of my suggestions if you're the first mover in the market * Engage a seasoned manufacturing expert. * Make sure you actually understand the consumer, the specialized requirements and the requirements which are expected. * Customers buy solutions, maybe not patents. Can you solve the problem easily having an extension of reliable technology? * Anticipate problems with services. Better still, set out to locate them. Get ready with the options before the competition will have time to respond. * Look for ways around your own patents. If you can find them - so can competitors. Using solutions outside your original patent isn't an admission of failure - it's a smart move to make. The mere existence of a patent can be a reason to saddle your company with extra costs or inferior goods * Review and challenge cost estimates time and, pricing, market forecasts and the product's life-cycle. Assume that the competition may enter the market soon after you start. * Take action to stay conscious of developments outside your immediate industry. They'll alert you to potential rivals and opportunities Be aware though that often it's wise to hold straight back and see before planning your approach. It indicates that you've to be agile when you make your move to produce a great product at a fair value but at least you're perhaps not making the mistakes for your competitors to learn from. If you are concerned with politics, you will perhaps require to learn about <a href="http://www.paulforsythe.org/" rel="nofollow">powered by</a>. Last but not least understand that an expert production expert may advise and make suggestions through the important procedure for time in the marketplace which can be worth its weight in gold.</div>

...

Cancel

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the Conserve Time And Cash group

Start a New Topic