I'm working with suppliers, and discussing the concept openly with everyone who is interested.
Most of the time however, I am working alone.
Should I pay someone to sit around and twiddle their thumbs for semantic reasons?
I believe a royal "WE" is appropriate, but I could be wrong.
You might need to make a tough call to do one or the other.
The research is obviously the most important thing at this point. Without validation it's all just conjecture.
I know I'll need solid evidence to back up the idea, but I've reached the end of my ability to evaluate the concept. I can't find a fatal flaw, and that's why I keep trying.
I'm really looking for an answer either way. I need help to prove it will work, or to show it's a dead end.
While it's in limbo I can't, in good conscience, drop it.
Do you really think having a patent and an LLC to organize under are fatal flaws?
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2945/choice-of-...
Short version: because it can be read as “we, the author and the reader”.
But the site above uses phrases like “we have been granted a patent”, which come across as somewhat dishonest, making it appear on first glance as though this is the work of a team, corporate body, or at least two collaborators (and two is a huge step up from one in terms of credibility of any idea).
I’m not saying there was any dishonest intention on the part of this author - I’m just suggesting that radical transparency is a good technique for introducing an idea to a skeptical audience, in a domain which is very noisy with bad actors.