News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Invention Machine: Cleveland Duo Churns Out Ideas Wor... by rayiner on Friday September 26, 2014 @08:33AM (#8372395)
Whatever your views on the patent system, I think its worth thinking about companies like this, that just have engineers who do R&D without being backed by big sales and marketing teams. There is a lot of value to business models like this one (and ARM, etc). They don't need to think about users, scaling, marketing, etc, just the technology. Its not good for innovation if the only companies that can make money off R&D are ones that build end-user products to put it into, because ultimately the optimal conditions for many kinds of R&D aren't all that compatible with the conditions in product-focused organizations.
Re:The Invention Machine: Cleveland Duo Churns Out Ideas Wor... by JangoSteve on Friday September 26, 2014 @09:30AM (#8372564)
> They don't need to think about users, scaling, marketing, etc, just the technology.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post as a whole, this statement seems to state the opposite of what the article describes. All of their greatest hits were a result of thinking about users, scaling, and marketing. A few excerpts from the article show...

...that they're thinking about users: The process starts in a research lab in the church’s basement. Designers, engineers and prototype builders crowd into a small room on one side of a two-way mirror and watch through the glass as consumers use products like, say, a bottle of Pepto-Bismol. They take notes on potential problems, such as how sick people usually take two teaspoons instead of the suggested two tablespoons, underdosing themselves.

...that they're thinking about scaling: Clients walk away with a patent plus a prototype they can send straight to a manufacturer.

...that they're thinking about marketing: GOJO had developed a goo that would clean hands, but it wouldn't sell. Nottingham Spirk added air bubbles and clear packaging, helping turn GOJO's Purell brand into America's hand sanitizer.

In fact, article describes that they got their first big break when they took a company's (Rotodyne) existing manufacturing technology (rotational molding for bedpans), and figured out how that company could use their technology on a large-scale with an entirely new market (Little Tikes).

The introduction even states that they don't just think about technology:

Rather than invent products and then figure out how to sell them, à la Edison, the Nottingham Spirk Innovation Center invites corporate behemoths–from Procter & Gamble PG -1.07% to Mars –to come to it with its product quandaries.

Re:The Invention Machine: Cleveland Duo Churns Out Ideas Wor... by rayiner on Friday September 26, 2014 @09:38AM (#8372592)
I don't mean to say that you can design technology without studying how users will use it, or thinking about how it will be manufactured. But I think there is a benefit to the engineers being under a different roof from the guys who are worried that user growth was only 4% this quarter or that the product isn't trending in the 18-25 demographic or that factory workers in China are demanding a raise.

Not that those guys aren't useful too, but they tend to create an environment that inhospitable to certain kinds of R&D.

Re:The Invention Machine: Cleveland Duo Churns Out Ideas Wor... by sweeney2014 on Friday September 26, 2014 @04:02PM (#8374568)
There is a difference between thinking about users, scaling, marketing vs successfully carrying it out. Without needing to carry out the users, scaling, marketing they were able to focus on the technology and innovating.

This matters because often a small startup or individual does not have the resources (not just simply $money, but also things like distribution channels, enterprise relationships, etc..) to not only carry out bringing the finished and refined product to market - let alone recouping costs sunk in.

Let the small guys do what they do best (dreaming and tinkering in their garage) and the large corporations do what they do best (reduce manufacturing costs). Patents provide another avenue for startups or individuals to do this.

Re:The Invention Machine: Cleveland Duo Churns Out Ideas Wor... by mchusma on Friday September 26, 2014 @03:12PM (#8374325)
I get your point and agree to some extent, however I still think the externalities of the patent system are so bad/terrible that it should be abolished. This company does not make me think otherwise (in a meaningful way). If it took the world a few years longer to have a spinning toothbrush or paint can that pours, I'm okay with that. So yes, abolishing patents would have negatives but I'd look at the system on the aggregate.
Re:The Invention Machine: Cleveland Duo Churns Out Ideas Wor... by ssmoot on Friday September 26, 2014 @02:14PM (#8373972)
What if they just sit on the patents though?

I'm still waiting for my Mosquito Laser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser).