Observations about innovation in the UK

Not only is an innovator expected to publish the invention in order to establish the monopoly in his/her own name but the inventor is now required to expose the way in which money can be made by marketing the invention.

The Black and Decker 'workmate bench' took a flash of inspiration to invent and 14 million to patent world wide.

This money was paid to lawyers and was recovered within a year of marketing by lawyers successfully defending the patent.

The world is now controlled by those who have control of vast amounts of money. Their first priority is that they acquire even more money and are able to spend enough to live to any standard that they wish.
This is a good system as it does away with the notion that violence is beneficial. It will also become apparent that 'competition' is not 'healthy' but that co-operation is the way to make everyone benefit from the free market economy. This is already happenning and is apparent with the existance of the large multi-national corporations.

An individual innovator has difficulty under the present system for the obvious reason that any innovation is disruptive to the 'status quo' in which the majority have a stake.

A close colleague invented a vehicle lifting system which used the exhaust pressure to inflate an airbag under the vehicle. This was very practical and the market demand was established. He patented it himself and approached Dunlop who offered to but the patent for a derisory sum, which he turned down. Dunlop then spoke to the MOD who had a 'D' notice issued in respect of the invention making it impossible for the inventor to make any money at all from his considerable investment in the product.

While developing the Alexander Cell a patent was submitted by a Patents Lawyer naming me as 50% owner of the device. I did not agree with this and it took a considerable amount of my time to submit my own patent and satisfy the Patents Office who withdrew the offending patent.
During the intercourse relating to this matter I was told of an inventor who went to a Patents Agent with the design for a tooth paste dispensor. He did not have much money and the agent persuaded him that the item had no commercial value. He later saw his exact design in the shops and note that the mane of the patentee was that of the Patent agent to whom he had entrusted his intellectual property. He was unable to act as he had no money.

There are many well known historical injustices to support the notion that the way in which innovation is handled is corrupt. There are glaring examples of scientific advances being delayed by active resistance of established leaders.

The Business Plan

An innovator recognises problems and devises solutions to them. It follows that they are brighter than those who just accept the status quo as being correct. Albert Einstein reckoned that he was not a genius but that he did not automatically accept existing axioms. Stephen Hawkin allows his opinions to be subject to changes due to observations. My own innovations are all based on practical demonstrations which are then found to be supported by scientific understanding.

Innovators are used to observing the way things are done and therefore cannot be fooled by standard practices. This applies to financial, political and social matters as well as physical and technical understanding.

Innovators look at the real purpose of a business plan. It is for investors. The investors have money. Money is conceptual and resides in those activities which are in demand by the market. In order to move money from one enterprise to another the owner of that money must be convinced that there is personal gain.

The money lender is not likely to invest in an enterprise that reduces the need for his services in an existing activity.

It is the nature of competition that threats are recognised and forstalled.

This explains the purpose of the business plan

It doesn't take a genius to work this out!