That was so incredibly well said. Wish it could be hung on the “front door” here.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
You're probably overestimating the prevalence of DIY people. The number of people who reverse engineer or design their own audio gear is tiny. The number of people who own a fancy turntable, and who would pay $X00 for an accessory, but decide not to because they also happen to own a drill press?
Turn it around - if that was your target market, would you even bother figuring out how big it is? It would be a non starter. Tiny.
Speaking from experience, the pros and cons of different types of IP protection and corporate structures and stuff are very distracting to aspiring first time entrepreneurs. In reality it amounts to sophomoric bike-shedding compared to the much bigger challenge of figuring out manufacturing, suppliers, marketing, shipping, etc.
In other words, if you actually start a business around this, the necessity of a patent will tend to reveal itself, and probably doesn't need to be a major part of your strategy at this stage.
OP
GuidoK
Member
- Thread Starter
- #44
True. And in a sense I would encourage that. Because I'm like that. I'm sure that if I would bring it to market, or present my plans, certain members here would make one of their own and improve on it, extracting better results or implement it even further. Lots of people here that are way smarter and knowledgeable in electronics/physics/mechanics than myself.
One of the biggest hurdles at the moment is that I just don't have the knowledge/skill to make a professional version of my device. Like I said it's just cobbled together by stuff and modules sold on alie, or stuff I hacked out of stuff sold on alie and tied it all together. That's where that 25% chance of going through with it comes from.
So you have electronic modules with chinese writing on it from which I actually have no idea what it says (I imagine on/off or up/down whatever...) and some mechanical stuff thats drilled, sawed screwd soldered together clearly in a garage.
So for making it an actual sellable audio gadget, I need to design a bespoke pcb (which I've never done..first figure out the schematic...) and have that made at pcbway or whatever (which I've never done), and design the mechanical part in CAD (which I've never done) and have those parts cnc milled in a machine factory (never had that done either...). And of course have a decent custom housing made. (never had that done either....)
So next to that I don't know how (at least: yet) I also yet have no idea whether or not this can be done costwise.
Housing and packeaging are a big cost, the CNC milling parts might be expensive, and I might need some bespoke cutting/drilling of thin sheets too.
And then it has to be build by hand. There is some screwing/glueing/soldering required.
Yes NL
I could indeed go to Van den Hull or Tonar. Both within an hour drive from here.
Both are invested in the turntable market for decades now and they know everyone (and vice versa).
But they'll for sure will want to have way more than an 75% discount. At least 150% if they're gonna market/distribute it under their own name (and I can imagine more...).
But chances are they'll say yes. Tonar also distributes the Okki Nokki record cleaning machine under their own name as a rebrand.
Probably a result of the original owner/inventor of the Okki Nokki dying very young a few years ago and now his daughter tries to run the business, and probably sought help in the distribution/promotion network. Of course a record cleaning machine is a bigger market. But also more competition.
Last edited:
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
To figure that out, first start with a projection you feel confident in for annual revenues... from there the costs should start to tell a story.
One thing I can suggest is that (depending on projected unit volumes) you might think of hiring an engineer to dial in the design for you. Especially with mechanical designs, certain design choices can radically change the manufacturability and cost of a product. Like "could you put this over here instead" saves you 90% by avoiding an entire type of manufacturing process.
True of most electronic / audio products, to an extent. Mostly a problem where you want to build several hundred but not several thousand of something... i.e. it becomes very hard to do yourself but still hard to get a factory to take it on.
I took a look at two transducer patents.
Geddes is absolutely right about that. Even if anyone might be willing to copy an audio-related concept, it does not mean the copycat product will make sense and that it would actually violate the patent with some minor changes made. All the paperwork coming with a patent would disclose more details about the underlying mechanism rather than protecting the invention, IMHO.
While that is true to most of loudspeaker designers, there are a few principles which actually got copied due to enormous success. The most prominent story in recent years maybe the Kii Audio cardioid system invented by Bruno Putzeys. No idea if they hold a patent for that one, but seemingly there are several copies around.
A good example of Patent Abuse and/or USPTO incompetence/indifference is Elizabeth Holmes. Elizabeth Holmes was granted more than 200 Patents for claimed inventions. The scientists at Stanford knew that her inventions were Fugazi but without the support from the USPTO, Elizabeth Holmes would not have been able to finance her campaign of fraud upon the populace. The more Patents a company has, the more money that company can borrow.
How does Bruno get credit for inventing the use of Active Noise Control to implement an Cardioid Radiating Loudspeaker? Linkwitz discussed the concept in 2003, more than the life of any patent, 22 years ago. https://www.linkwitzlab.com/H-U woofer2.htm
Did not mean to say he deserved a patent for the principle of active cardioid which indeed was not a new invention. Was rather about the specific implementation with a double-cardioid integration, and the fact that it was successful enough to encourage others to use similar technology. Meant to say that the latter is a rather rare phenomenon in audio.
(Edited) This seems to be the reason for Germany only patents: https://www.dpma.de/english/patents/goodreasonsforapatentapplicationatthedpma/index.html
Last edited:
Jorma Salmi of Gradient introduced the "Revolution" in 1993, and it used (and uses - it's still in production!) passive cardioid loading down to about 200 Hz. I was a Gradient dealer for many years and still think very highly of the brand.
The passive cardioid concept may date back to a 1973 paper by Harry Olson but I let my AES membership lapse so I can't verify that.
Last edited:
Yawn, more borenson, purifi crap, get a room.
I'm mates with the inventory of the Supratrak range of tonearms. He invented and patented his novel horizontal unipivot bearing design. His arms sell for thousands, he sells a lot of them. I doubt he could afford to defend his patent in court, he's too small, but it proves a barrier for entry for copy cats.
In a low volume, profit world likes ours it's more about kudos and credibility than real world protection.
If your device is complex to make that'll be more of a barrier than a patent.
I'm mates with the inventory of the Supratrak range of tonearms. He invented and patented his novel horizontal unipivot bearing design. His arms sell for thousands, he sells a lot of them. I doubt he could afford to defend his patent in court, he's too small, but it proves a barrier for entry for copy cats.
In a low volume, profit world likes ours it's more about kudos and credibility than real world protection.
If your device is complex to make that'll be more of a barrier than a patent.
Similar threads
