Talk:Davison Design & Development

Davisonkristi (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Expanded on this page, siting references to awards and honorable mentions. Added brief description of the company that owns Inventionland.

User:Teh fontmaster I found this page while searching for information on Davison. I had to search Wikipedia for the actual website to get to find this page. Shouldn't the parent company have its own page, rather than the office? —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

Scam

All written was well sourced. There was no reason to remove my editing. It was removed by a user that was created and deleted quickly. Something doesn't smell good about this. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it was not well sourced. It was sourced to an online chatboard comment. Totally unacceptable, as is your lack of assuming good faith. GDallimore (Talk) 16:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To an online chatboard? That was to prove that they are still selling themselves. The scam itself is well sourced. Inventionland was all over the news!! The reason they were to pay was specifically because of the law for defending inventors from scams like this. There was no 'question' whether it was a scam or not. BTW to prove that they are still running with the same system, it is sufficient to go to their website. This of course is important only if the entry stays. Why was inventionland changed to Davison. Davison is not notable, but inventionland IS. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Inventionland is just a place of business for Davison. Misleading customers is not the same as a scam. The Forbes article does not use the word scam, so neither does this article. Unless you find a RELIABLE source calling it a scam then this article cannot even imply that they are scamming customers let alone state it outright as you want to do. GDallimore (Talk) 23:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Scam definition and Davison

You (User GDallimor) claim: Misleading customers is not the same as a scam

First I'll establish that a scam is fraudulent business. Then I'll show that the Federal Trade Commission defines invention promotion false claims as fraudulent business. So in effect it is defining invention promotion frauds as scams. Last but not least I'll show that The USPTO (US patent office), definitely a reliable source, specifically marks Davison for fraudulent behavior as an invention promotion fraud, i.e. The USPTO marked Davison in the past as a scam and is worried that they may continue doing so.

So first to establish the definition (if I'm not mistaken it was my edit for clarity) of Invention promotion firm scams (formerly just a section under Scams in intellectual property lending to the understanding that the 'Invention promotion firms' was a type of scam. It currently reads:

An Inventor promotion scam or Invention promotion scam is a scam where inventors are lured to pay money for developing their invention, or promoting it, without following through.Some invention promotion firms have been found to engage in improper and deceptive practices.[3].

The Federal Trade Commission issued a decree about fraudulent behavior by invention promotion companies (called 'operation mousetrap'). The follwing is written there:

A significant number of firms in the invention promotion industry are perpetrating a massive fraud on middle American consumers by claiming they have the resources and corporate connections to successfully develop and market individuals' inventions.

So misleading customers in the invention promotion industry, and specifically pertaining to Davison, as we'll see immediately, is called 'a massive fraud.

Scam according to dictionary.com is A fraudulent business scheme.

So there we have it! The Federal Trade Commission calls misleading invention-promotion companies customers (and as we'll immediately see, SPECIFICALLY THE CASE OF DAVISON(!)) as participating in a massive fraude aka according to the dictionary, They are participating in a scam. QED.

The USPTO is a reliable enough source. The clearly write that Davison lured inventors to pay money for developing the inventor's invention or promoting it, without following through. Here's the source: USPTO article about the Davison's misleading customers aka according to the FTC and the dictionary they participated in an 'invention promotion scam'.

Here it is spelled out:

• a) The title of the USPTO article: Court halts bogus invention promotion claims

Bogus according to dictionary.com is Counterfeit or fake. Counterfeit is To carry on a deception

Scam according to dictionary.com is A fraudulent business scheme.

So USPTO in the headline is saying that Davison was deceiving its inventor clients - which according to the FTC and the dictionary is defined as An invention promotion scam.

• b) In the verdict the Judge wrote: Judge Lancaster’s decision sends a strong signal to all those invention promotion and licensing firms that prey upon America’s independent inventor community that fraudulent and unscrupulous practices will not be tolerated.

The judge is referring to Davison. Saying that they were acting with fraudulent and unscrupulous practices causing American inventors to fall pray to their claims.

That is exactly the definition of an Invention Promotion Scam.

Is the USPTO website not reliable enough? Or do you have some other definition for scam? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

GDalimor About the good faith. I apologize for the claim about the one-time user. I recall the user 'went red' but I could have simply been mistaken. In any case I apologize a second time and will do so on your website. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no source specifically saying that Davison associates are running a scam. GDallimore (Talk) 23:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I found it. Simply written in the FTC statement. "This outfit is typical of invention promotion scams" by head of FTC consumer protection dept.

But instead of arguing, I'll use the USPTO's and FTC's phrase, and make it clear that this was not just misleading behavior, it was fraudulent. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so long as you use words from the sources and don't try to use pejorative synonyms, I have no problems at all. GDallimore (Talk) 20:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I did a little searching on this. There was a 680-word article in the New York Times, "Making Inventions and Money" Mitchell, Dan. New York Times [New York, N.Y] 18 Nov 2006: C.5., that describes an FTC investigation and a Forbes article.

• According to an article in Forbes this week (forbes.com), the company charges as much as $12,000 to help develop and market an invention. The company takes a share of royalties, if any. Davison reported $2 million in revenue last year. Of the 37,000 inventors who have signed contracts with the company in the last five years, eight have earned royalties surpassing the fees they paid to Davison. Only 0.001 percent of Davison's revenue was derived from royalties paid on licensed products, according to Forbes. Mr. Davison told Forbes that he licensed a product every three days on average and that it often took a long time for a product to earn enough royalties to pay for his company's services. In March, a federal judge, ruling on the F.T.C.'s 1997 lawsuit, ordered the company to repay $26 million to inventors. The company appealed and Mr. Davison told Forbes that a settlement might be in the works.

I see the Forbes articles is already used as a source.[1]   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a word about fraud?

I really would rather spend my time working (back) on serious subjects such as science and technology. Its just that IMHO it is our obligation, when seeing wrong-doing to point it out, and not just pass it by, ignoring it, or worse, by misrepresenting the case with bland words. The court used extremely harsh words, the FTC used extremely harsh words, the USPTO used extremely harsh words and there should be no problem using them in the wikipedia entry.

You edited my entry (again), in a way that IMHO totally removes all the important information. Where did you see repetition? Why did you remove the comments? It was the largest fraud case in the USPTO and FTC history. It was specifically set by the court as an example for invention scams.But you are covering that up in the "neutral" wording, that makes it totally unclear to the reader. NPOV has to do with POV. But with the current wording and toning down, you are misrepresenting the facts and the court's decree.

The court says that its a scam. USPTO and FTC both extremely respectable call it "bogus" and "fraud" but anybody reading about this has to dig into the article, until they find these words, and even then it is not really clear cut.

The court warned of concern for continued actions of this sort by Davison (based on its former actions). You chose to remove mention of that. I brought proof of existing promotion with the original wording. You chose to remove that too.

Why?

In any case, now that you acknowledged that it was a scam, I'm putting the link back up to invention scam. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming this page

I'd like to expand this article, but first I'd like to propose renaming the page to Davison Design & Development, Inc. Davison & Associates, Inc. was the old name. Source: https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?859230 https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?859230 Christi212Cassidy (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't want to do it while the deletion was ongoing, then forgot about it. Forget the "inc", though. Just Davison Design & Development, or even Davison (invention promotion company) would be better. Make sure to add a link to Davison once you decide which title to go for. Happy editing. GDallimore (Talk) 22:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and well wishes. I'm thinking the official name of the company will be clearer. I'll make sure to add the link too. Christi212Cassidy (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't, however, know how to change the title display. Any help on that would be most appreciated. Thank you! Christi212Cassidy (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Got it, sorry. Done. Christi212Cassidy (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant from Davison, not to it! Done GDallimore (Talk) 22:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend! Of course that makes much more sense. I added a new sentence to the intro paragraph to explain more what the company does. I'm thinking the sentences about the court order and appeal/settlement belong under the "Court Order" section.Christi212Cassidy (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good sources, but I disagree with the edits. The lead needs to summarise the article, and it already successfuly summarises what davison do. Similarly, the lead needs to summarise the court case. GDallimore (Talk) 11:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, got it.Christi212Cassidy (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I expanded the Business section and have been working (in a Word doc) on expanding Inventionland. I'd like to add two more sections: Awards (there are seven of them between 1996 and 2011) and History. It seems like most companies that are twenty years old have a History section, although I could probably add the pertinent information to the Business section. Ideas? Christi212Cassidy (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Today I added History and Awards sections. I've expanded the Inventionland section too and will add that probably this week.Christi212Cassidy (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see on the FTC stuff in the intro. Is it always the case that a lawsuit goes in the introduction? I was looking at J&J and Tylenol, although I see now that Tylenol has its own page. Christi212Cassidy (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the article, and the article has an extensively referenced section about the court case. That's all... GDallimore (Talk) 23:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Can anyone find the actual link in ID magazine that shows they won awards? Several links including #12 don't contain any reference to Davison. Seeing as this company is known as a scam, these details are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.152.113 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Inventionland" was the recipient, as stated in the article. Nothing misleading there. Any others? GDallimore (Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

IDEA 2012 Annual Design Review

Mention of an award "IDEA 2012 Annual Design Review - Finalist, Kitchens" was just added. I can't tell how this award came to be. It looks like any random member of the public can submit a product and it becomes a "finalist". There are 45 pages of products in the same category as this Surprise Pan. A jury then selects winners from that list.

I don't think this a user-nominated product is noteworthy as it is not a recognised award. If the jury had selected it from the pile then it would be worth mentioning, but that hasn't happened. Anyone know for sure how a product gets into the finalists category? GDallimore (Talk) 02:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Call for comments - Publicizing against court ruling

In revoking my latest edits, GDallimore (Talk) wrote:

a fair bit of original research and personal commentary in these edits. Also no need to quote mine every single negative statement. A summary and a link to the information is sufficient.

Please see my edits, and decide for yourself if this is original research and personal commentary.

The problems with the article as it is written now, and which were corrected by my edit are as follows:

1. As it is written now, the article is portraying Davison as a company that does exactly what it was prohibited from saying in the reinstated court order.

The article says: "...provides new product development services to inventors", while prohibited from saying that.

the article now reads: "created... a process... for bringing new products and inventions to market", while explicitely prohibited from saying that, and accused of using misleading messages by using that terminology in both those claims.

2. There is no mention of the USPTO's publication that the judge is worried by continued misuse and misconduct. Quotes:

"...continued to engage in deceptive practices, albeit in slightly different forms."

"Based on this past pattern of conduct, there is a very real danger that defendants will alter their business again, yet continue to engage in wrongdoing."

3. Whenever the CEO George Davison is mentioned, it is about how great he is. No mention of the court's designation of his personal fraudulent conduct, together with his associates.

4. There is no mention that the court used this as an example case for invention promotion scams.

5. The section dealing with the scam, is called in neutral language 'Court Order' whereas the company, although reaching a deal with the courts, retained the conviction of an 'Invention promotion scam'.

6. The charges against Davison are not listed, only in general, so the readers have no way of taking caution although Davison had been accused of:

a. luring inventors to sign up for their services with bogus claims:

b. false claims about their selectivity in choosing products to promote,

c. false claims about their track record in turning inventions into profitable products,

d. false claims about the relationship they had with manufacturers. They deceptively claimed that their income came from sharing royalties with inventors rather than from the $800 to $12,000 fees they charged inventors.

7. The fraudulent behavior is taken out of context, whereas obviously paid promotion of the firm, is used throughout the article. For example the reference: 'Pittsburgh Will Steel Your Heart, monthly awards sponsored by the KEYGroup' as opposed to the 'bogus claims' article on USPTO, where a short explanation of what the article contains has been removed.

I was about to correct what I wrote about the navigation to the court order text originally inaccessible from the Davison web page, which has recently (at most, as of January 2013) been changed.

It now has been put along as information for protecting the inventor, as if it is something that Davison helps the inventor with, and has nothing to do with fraud, but that, I agree is personal commentary and original research. I wasn't going to write about it. Please see the Davison website, and notice the workaround claims, which cannot be understood correctly and completely without the context of the court ruling. These claims, "misunderstood" by the media, are incorporated in the current article, achieving a problematic depiction of Davison, against the court ruling (and perhaps, as Davison could claim against his own company's will). פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment The article describes what Davison's business is and how they go about it. Nowhere is it suggested that their business model is any good or actually helps inventors, so this is a fair and totally factual description of their business as far as I'm concerned. Then the article, in both the second paragraph of the lead and in a devoted section in the body of the article, discusses how it's all a scam. This is also balanced and fair as far as I'm concerned. It also results in a well-structured article that is easy to read and follow. Quote mining every single negative thing about the company and littering it in random places throughout the article including personal comments about how Davison appear to be trying to avoid the court's ruling is not conducive to creating a good article. GDallimore (Talk) 15:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply: I'm changing my response to a shorter one. Please see the page's history for my detailed response:

A clarification is needed here: The claims against Davison were that they don't really (or: almost never) DEVELOP inventions, but rather make their money from inventors paying just for a consultancy. (14 in 236,000 inventors received more than paid to Davison from their invention, and at least 3 of those are now Davison employees.)

Davison was accused that they were using deceptive language on their publications and advertisements leading inventors to believe their invention might be developed by Davison, and possibly even marketed, and that these were and are capabilities Davison holds, which in fact he did and does not.

That is not clear and in fact contrary to the current article.

Also, George Davison was accused of fraud and found guilty. That was reinstated by the court.

It is important that the potential clients understand what the problem was (and possibly still is) with the business, and that Davison's past actions explicitly and clearly be told, along with the judge's concerns of continued misconduct.

It is important that the past scam and fraudulent actions be emphasized and clear.

The location of my added text was not random but rather exactly located in context. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comments and Questions - Hey Guys. I've just taken a glance at this. My initial impression is that both פשוט pashute ♫ and GDallimore are making reasonable points. פשוט pashute ♫, I was a little concerned about the tone, style and content of some of your edits. That said, you do raise some legitimate points, particularly re "As it is written now..... the reinstated court order". This company seems fraudulent, and parts of this article seem to be trying to lend the company credibility in a way that may conflict with WP:NOTADVERTISING. I've got two questions for you guys before I think about delving into this more deeply - 1) Have you two tried talking this out? I don't see any discussion on this talkpage. @פשוט pashute ♫, did you try to talk to GDallimore before starting an RfC?, 2) Would either of you mind if I tried to reword and reinstate some of the edits פשוט pashute ♫ tried to make? NickCT (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am happy for someone who doesn't have a history with this article to make some edits.

To explain some of the history and my position: You'll see comments on this page going back to 2011, and there are several related articles as well. As you'll see above, my view is that pashute's first comment on this page was to assume bad faith, and things have not improved since. Other conversations have led me to believe that he has had a personal negative experience of Davison and is trying to push a personal POV in retribution. I don't have much time for such people and have largely given up trying to discuss matters with pashute on his occasional flybys of this article.

On the positive side, the first time this cropped up, I made some extensive edits to get the article to its current version and think it's far more balanced than it was previously, thanks in no small part to several reliable sources that pashute brought forward. I will happily agree that these were sorely needed. But pashute has made clear that he won't be happy unless it's basically an attack page and has not brought forward any new sources since to support further extensive changes to the article. I'm not going to get into an argument about this, that's just my view of pashute and his edits formed over the last 2 years and I'm sticking to it.

But, I repeat again, glad to have a more neutral pair of eyes on board. GDallimore (Talk) 23:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@GDallimore - Thanks for your comments. פשוט pashute ♫ isn't responding, so I assume he's either lost interest or is taking a break from this page.

I understand you may have had difficulty פשוט pashute ♫. As always, we should eternally strive to have positive, productive conversations with those with whom we disagree. And, failing that, we should seek outside intervention. Do you have anything to back your "he has had a personal negative experience of Davison" assertion? If this is a speculation or an assumption, I'd be careful making it, b/c it essentially assumes a WP:COI which may run afoul of WP:AGF.

I think I'm going to see if I can reword some of Pash's edits, to see if they can be phrased little better and rework them into the article.

Out of curiosity GD, in your assessment, was FTC accurate in calling this place a "typical Invention Promotion scam"? NickCT (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't dispute the FTC's findings which is why I worked to include them in the article once relevant and reliable sources were provided. I just think the point can be made succintly and clearly in a couple of key places without engaging in what, to my mind, is a messy attack that litters negative quotes throughout the article.

Also, discussions have been ongoing for a couple of years across several articles and I don't know where the particular conversation you ask about took place. I'll have a hunt for it... GDallimore (Talk) 14:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Here it is, on his talk page. Not exactly as I remembered but a couple of key comments are that: pashute is an inventor who was "was luckily able to catch the small print in their publications", "almost falling into [a scam]" but "did not loose money" and personally "filed a complaint with the FTC [and an] organizations for consumer protection". Forgive me if I don't have much time for someone who was (or is?) pursuing a complaint against a particular company and is also editing the Wikipedia article about them in a dubious way. GDallimore (Talk) 15:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There were some comments here too, on the Inventionland Talk page. Christi212Cassidy (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And since we're muck-spreading, I'd point out that ChristiCassidy is essentially a single purpose account... GDallimore (Talk) 00:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, GD! I'm sorry if I don't have as much time to spend here as I did during the recession. I have several pieces I'm trying to work on, but your comment was hurtful.67.164.139.246 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I've made a couple edits trying to qualify the language. @פשוט pashute ♫ - I looked at the edit where you tried to include "Following a court order, where Davison misrepresented its services to clients, Davison has been prohibited of presenting itself" in the ref. The link for the ref looks broken. Is there a good link for this assertion out there? NickCT (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with these edits. Davison DOES provide invention promotion and product design services and nobody, not even the FTC, disagrees with that. No reliable source has ever said their schemes are bad, or that their invention design/promotion work is shoddy or a scam. The specific reason the FTC have a problem with them is that pretty much nobody except Davison makes any money. Put another way, they are not simply taking people's money and running without doing anything at all, which lots of "claims to" scattered through the article would imply. They are taking people's money and providing a service, but that service ultimately puts an inventor in a better financial position one time in 10,000 (if that!).

Now, I've seen inventors struggling to make money from their inventions and, when it comes to making better mousetraps, 1 in 10,000 isn't bad odds really. The only problem which we can source reliably is Davison misrepresenting those odds to inventors. In other words, the only thing they've really been called up on is false representation of the likelihood of success. GDallimore (Talk) 15:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@GDallimore - I can't help but feel you're being a little disingenuous here. I asked you straight out whether you thought DDD was basically a scam operation, and you said that you "certainly wouldn't dispute" it. Now your comment above seems to be suggesting you think they provide legitimate services.

Either you accept this place is essentially a scam or you don't. If you do accept it's a scam, I struggle to see why you'd argue with language that seeks to qualify some of the claims DDD is making. NickCT (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you only think in black and white? I explained the shades of grey just above. GDallimore (Talk) 13:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... Ok. Fair enough. So your argument then is that DDD is a semi-scam? That it's partially fraudulent?

That's fine. Heck, I might even agree with you on some level. But, the thing is, I think you'd agree that a reasonable person might look at this operation and call it a scam. You'd probably also agree that WP should be very very careful about reciting claims of organization which might be reasonably called a scam. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's go back to the sources. The sources say the problem with Davison is they give a misleading impression of the likelihood of success, NOT that they don't provide an invention development service. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the article saying what services Davison provides. The only problem is saying that those services are likely to result in a financial gain for an inventor, and the article should instead make clear that a financial gain is highly unlikely. Which it already did before all this...

Put another way, the FTC did not preclude Davison from offering/marketing invention development services - there were just certain caveats which they must follow if they are to do so. GDallimore (Talk) 15:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You're not addressing a point. If the operation can reasonably be called a scam operation, WP would be remiss to repeat claims made by that operation without qualification. Do you believe DDD can reasonably be called a scam operation?

Regardless, to address your point re "NOT that they don't provide an invention development service"; the implication is clearly that whatever service DDD is providing is not legitimately intended to "develop inventions". Without qualifying the language WP might make it seem as though these services are legitimate. NickCT (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing your point. I'm disagreeing with it. Davison DO develop inventions. The DO do product development. If you can find a source which states that they don't, then I'll agree with you. But there is no source which says the product design/development work Davison does is sub-standard. Go back to my original comments: I am saying that YOU have misunderstood the nature of the scam in that you have failed to understand at which stage in the process the inventor is being cheated. They are being cheated with misleading indications of success, not in the work that is done to develop their inventions. GDallimore (Talk) 15:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you were "missing" my point, I said you weren't "addressing" it (a subtlety you ironically seem to have missed). I've asked you two times now whether you think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to recite in an unqualified manner, the claims of an entity that a reasonable person might readily call a scam organization. You haven't answered.

If I had a car cleaning company, and I scammed people by claiming I'd clean their whole car while only cleaning their headlights, by your logic it would OK for WP to state "Nick's car company cleans cars" b/c technically it does actually do that. That's a slightly perverse kind of thinking.

The fact is that Davison doesn't exist to "promote inventions", in the same way that the hypothetical "Nick's car company" doesn't exist to "clean cars". They exist to scam people. Saying "Davison promotes inventions" or "develops products" or anything of that nature in an unqualified manner is highly highly misleading.

Honestly, I'm beginning to feel as though we should be real explicit about this and just start the lead sentence off with "Davison Design & Development, formerly Davison & Associates and often referred to as simply Davison is an invention promotion scam.". NickCT (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

OK then, explicitly, just because a company is misleading customers in one aspect of its business doesn't mean we have to qualify EVERYTHING that company say about its business - only those aspects which there are reliable sources to say they have been misleading people, or where there is obvious puffery. This is the point I was making above, highlighting the key distinction between where they have been found to be misleading people and where they haven't. Davison DOES promote inventions, and the FTC has said that they CAN advertise themselves as being an invention promotion firm, it's just that the inventors don't make money.

Taking your car analogy, there is nothing in the sources which suggests Davison only does half a job in promoting inventions so the analogy is flawed. You can promote inventions brilliantly and still make no money... GDallimore (Talk) 22:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a tad disturbing that you plead technicalities for a scam operation which preys on the hopes and dreams and naive aspiring inventors. Do you get paid to play Devil's Advocate or do you just enjoy it?

re "one aspect of its business" - One aspect? That one aspect is a complete misrepresentation of their service. They represent themselves as folks who can get peoples' products to market, while essentially never doing so. They are either doing a half job or no job at all, b/c any real effort would achieve greater than a 0.001% success rate. NickCT (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please quote a source that says they are "completely" misrepresenting their services. Please quote a source that says they essentially never get products to market. Please quote a source that says what the success rate for an indiscriminate selection of products is. Don't you recognise all the original research you're doing here by saying anything which isn't supported by the FTC findings that Davison's sole act of misrepresentation is the chances of success. Ensuring no OR is not playing devil's advocate, it's trying to uphold a core content policy!

Oh, and the fact you're implying I'm being paid is grossly offensive. GDallimore (Talk) 01:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I was being facetious about your being paid. It's just hard for me to understand what makes one stick up for a con man.

You say "sole act" like it's a little thing.

Regardless, why don't we talk about specific issues rather than genrealities.

I'm a little concerned about some of the sourcing going on here. Specifically, I'm a tad dubious as to stuff sourced to "American Executive". Is that an RS? Also, the "Awards" section appears to be patched together from somewhat dubious primary sources. Could we delete the entire awards section? NickCT (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not happy with the history, inventionland or awards sections but have never been able to work out what to do to improve them beyond just dumping them all in their entirety and starting again. I searched for some of the awards ages ago and found confirmation of some of them, but not in any way that could be easily linked to. The nature of the awards themselves was also dubious - couldn't find much about how nominations and awards were decided. I sought help about the American Executive piece ages ago because on the RS noticeboard, to see if any knew if it was essentially a paid for op-ed piece, but didn't any concrete info. I thought it was being used on the article about Davison himself inappropriately, but its use doesn't seem too bad here.

As for the business section. I am happy with it where it is if we're talking specifics. GDallimore (Talk) 12:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Well, two things I'd like to do. 1) Dump any award which isn't obviously referenced to some reliable secondary source. 2) Look for some real RSs to back the content in the "Business" section up. My sense is that the American Executive ref is probably not reliable. NickCT (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(I moved all my responses to one place) Sorry for the late edit.

GDalimore wrote: Davison DOES provide invention promotion and product design services and nobody, not even the FTC, disagrees with that later on he wrote: Put another way, the FTC did not preclude Davison from offering/marketing invention development services - there were just certain caveats which they must follow...

I would say to the contrary. The judge precluded Davison from marketing invention development services as their main business, unless it became its main business. Its not "just certain caveats", its due disclosure of what they are doing (which equals in this case: where they are making their money from)!

Even Davison carefully avoids explicitly claiming this on their own site:

"For over 20 years, Davison has helped everyday people prepare and present their ideas to corporations, manufacturers, and retailers for possible licensing. Our exclusive idea to product method is responsible for more products in the stores than anyone else in this industry. Founder George Davison has spent his entire career creating our method that helps inventors and idea people chase their dreams at an affordable price. Davison will build your product idea into a working prototype or product sample that we can then present to a corporation." The words: Possible licensing links to a page which after some exciting rhetoric states: ...Licensing a new product does not guarantee that it will make its way onto a store shelf, but it is the first step in getting to the marketplace. Many products never make it past the idea stage... (because they don't have companies like Davison to assist them).

Nick wrote: link looks broken. court halts bogus invention promotion claims (wish it did...) it says: (my emphasis)

The agency alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements that: * Consumers who bought their invention-promotion services stand a reasonably good chance of realizing financial gain. * Their invention-promotion services helped many of their customers' invention ideas become profitable products. * Their invention-promotion services helped specific inventions become profitable products. * That they have a vast network of corporations with whom they have ongoing relationships and regularly negotiate successful licensing agreements. * That their invention marketing services are necessary for consumers to license their invention ideas. * That they prepare objective and expert analyses of the patentability and marketability of consumers' invention ideas.

All of the preceding descriptions are of their false and misleading statements.

The decree continues: Judge Lancaster agreed that the company had engaged in deceptive practices... To prevent those practices, he ordered the company and its principals... $26 million... a 10-point disclosure statement to allow them objectively to measure the value... when they highlight or advertise specific consumer products or ideas... they disclose whether the inventor earned... to disclose that the “Pre-Inventegration” and “modeling” services they sold to inventors were not necessary to achieve licensing agreements... that they disclose that they are not providing consumers with objective or expert opinion of marketability.

I do not "assume bad faith". I also do not think my edits were dubious. I explained them above. Yes I'm an inventor, and yes I filed a complaint against the company, but not as an inventor who has been hurt, but as someone in the field who understands how others are being mislead. And, mind you, done that FOLLOWING my research for wikipedia, after realizing how wikipedia was being misused. Sadly, invention scams as a subject have been downplayed on the wikipedia in the past. It seems lately there are many companies doing this: telling inventors they only take a small fee for evaluation - while their main business is exactly that - the initial fee, and almost nothing else in invention "promotion". For some reason, as of 2013 the FTC and legal system are not pursuing it.

As to Davison, I seriously don't understand GDallimore. They were accused of misleading inventors because their main business was actually NOT developing and marketing inventions. The court stated that "To prevent those practices, he (that is, the judge) ordered the company and its principals etc etc. And then our WP article can say that the company promotes and develops inventions?! Notice: On the Davison website they are careful to use other wording. But the WP source is from outside the company, so they can always say they had nothing to do with it. GDallimore, I'm not assuming bad faith in you or your edits. I'm sure they are proper, and that you think I have a personal agenda with Davison. I AM assuming bad faith in Davison, as the judge put it: Judge Lancaster agreed that the company had engaged in deceptive practices, noting that even after he had issued an order barring deceptive claims, “defendants continued to engage in deceptive practices, albeit in slightly different forms. Based on this past pattern of conduct, there is a very real danger that defendants will alter their business again, yet continue to engage in wrongdoing.” Those are not my words. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the final injunction against them, including a list of things they must not do. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/9623310/080718davisonorderpi.pdf Where in this list does it say that Davison cannot market itself as developing and promoting inventions? It doesn't! It says it must be honest WHEN it markets itself as developing and promoting inventions.

I think most of the points in this list are already mentioned in the article. For example, I specifically added a reference to point 1 "defendents are selective in deciding to whom services will be offered" by adding to the business section that "Davison do not provide any evaluation of the commercial potential of a product or invention".

On the other hand, an example of where the article fails is in the list of Davison-designed products. This is actually a section of text that neither of us have made any edits to! Personally, although I hate this section, I didn't want to just remove it because I thought it could be changed to serve some useful purpose. The injunction actually gives a hint as to how to fix this section - be more careful about which products to list and make sure an indication of their profitability is included as well. That can then make it a useful section in helping a reader actually understand Davison's business. Surely that's the goal: providing understanding of Davison, not attacking them and not promoting them, but giving the facts accurately and fairly and letting the reader make up their own mind.

The above two examples of good and bad things in the article illustrate my ONLY agenda in editing this article: make sure to represent the sources fairly. I am sorry, but this cannot be said of you Pashute, as you have (a) admitted to having a personal interest in this and (b) done nothing to edit this article but add disparaging comments.

The other thing my examples above give are specific ways the article has been and could be improved, not vague generalisations about scams and bad faith. What actual edits do you want to see made? GDallimore (Talk) 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC Responses

Comment - I was recruited randomly by RFCbot to contribute here. Please review the guidelines for RFCs. The request should be stated simply and clearly and without opinion. An RFC request statement should not serve as a platform for any party in a dispute to explain their positions as this one does. I strongly recommend letting this RFC be closed and starting another one that is properly stated and is not dominated by the disputing parties. The idea of an RFC is to get outside opinion, not to reinforce the existing conflict. Thanks. Jojalozzo 00:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your absolutely correct lozzo. This was a poorly crafted RfC. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

OK I agree. How do you close this RFC? And what would be good wording for a short non-opinionated and concise one. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I also am here because of RFCbot. I am saddened to learn about this company and its history, in that it seems both surreal and terribly predatory in a way which shakes my faith in the goodness of humanity. My initial thought is that the section heading "Court order" is too general, and that "Invention promotion scam" is more appropriate, and so I agree with User:Pashute's version of that section in the diff given at the beginning of the RFC statement. However, I think that User:GDallimore's version of the rest of the article including the introduction is better in that diff, although I prefer the current version of the introduction as I write this to both. The most salient information about this company should continue to be that they prey off the hopes and dreams of inventors, taking their cash while providing very little of value in return that angel investors would be far more suitable to provide. EllenCT (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. To make it clear: My claims against the original edit are simple common sense, not POV. Unless scamming is a question of POV. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you are shocked by Davison indicates that you haven't actually come across any other invention promotion firms. What's REALLY shocking is that Davison is far from being the worst. They're just more high profile than most. However shocked you are, it's still wrong to making sweeping statements that "Davison make bogus claims", without quoting the sources carefully to identify WHICH claims are bogus. GDallimore (Talk) 15:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources which we can use on all the invention promotion firm articles, stating the superior outcomes of seeking angel investment? Something like [2] perhaps? EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the invention promotion firm article is already pretty disparaging of the work they do, and there aren't many business practices that get a specific mention in the Scams in intellectual property article. What's interesting to me about that link is that the injunction against Davison is pretty much exactly what is apparently set out in the "American Inventors Act 1999", not some special punishment that has been meted out to them. I should have paid more attention to that Act! But it proves my point above: Davison are typical, not extraordinary - except in their public visibility. GDallimore (Talk) 08:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Does this RFC still need comments? The RFC is not properly constructed.  A m i t  웃   17:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm also randomly selected for the RFC to examine the contention described in the Talk page here and to examine the article content. I have to agree with the other RFC commentator that the specifics of what is at contention has not been stated properly, negating a volunteer response.

The article is already flagged as appearing to be something of an advertisement and looking at the text as well as the Talk commentary, there does appear to be considerable bias toward promoting the company and toward down-playing or minimizing the unsavory aspects of the company (or, for that matter, there also appears to me to be a rather minor bias toward legitimizing "invention promotion services" which has an historically negative, criminal context in Western countries.

Even though the RFC has not been stated properly, may I make a suggestion? How about deleting the Wikipedia page entirely. Remember: Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, it is not intended to be an arena for righting wrongs, for exposing criminal enterprises, for advertising of for-profit companies, or for a variety of other behaviors, Wikipedia is supposed to be Neutral Point Of View while being informative and relevant.

Looking at the article, I don't see any useful, informative information that anyone would care about which Google would not retrieve and provide far better information on. My opinion isthe page should be deleted or entirely reworked from scratch to meet the NPOV policy. Damotclese (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Image licensing?

@User:Christi212Cassidy, you have uploaded a number of images used here and on related articles, from http://www.davison.com/news/photo_gallery.html which you have indicated are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Who released them under that license? http://www.davison.com/legal/terms.html seems to say otherwise. EllenCT (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought they were. I'll go look at the link. Thanks. 67.164.139.246 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:EllenCT. I got the photos off Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/inventionland/ Christi212Cassidy (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the images you uploaded on Flickr, and all of those that I do see say "(c) All Rights Reserved". I gather that you do not actually have any evidence of a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License? I am afraid you have committed a copyright violation. EllenCT (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I Think That Looks Better

The latest updates that remove the emotive and judicial wording seems an improvement in my opinion, enough so that perhaps the RFC can be eliminated. Looks good! Damotclese (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

§ Buisness seems to state only the bad reasons for Davison to work the way it does and not the good reasons. For example, modifying people's inventions probably does good for the world because probably more customers want to buy the modified version of the invention than the original invention and keeping more than half the profit might also do good for the world because it enables Davison to afford to be such a successful company paying lots of people to do good research on how to produce copies of an invention, how to market them, and how an invention should be modified. There are probably way more customers who benefit from Davison working that way than inventors who get a loss from it. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. However, that's just personal speculation. We need to cite reliable sources for information we add to Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I already knew that. I just thought that maybe this post would cause some people to find reliable sources for that information. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

quote: enables Davison to afford to be such a successful company paying lots of people to do good research on how to produce copies of an invention, how to market them, and how an invention should be modified.

Are you sure your not paid by Davison. If you are this is against the court order, which specifically prohibited them from presenting their "success" as "paying lots of people"...

They were marked by the court as one of the most notable scams of this sort. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Davison Design & Development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405050903/http://www.wqed.org/ondemand/onq.php?id=136&search=Inventionland to http://www.wqed.org/ondemand/onq.php?id=136&search=Inventionland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323002547/http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/169993/2/At-5-Inventionland-Where-your-ideas-come-to-life to http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/169993/2/At-5-Inventionland-Where-your-ideas-come-to-life
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405050903/http://www.wqed.org/ondemand/onq.php?id=136&search=Inventionland to http://www.wqed.org/ondemand/onq.php?id=136&search=Inventionland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128134727/http://www.pghtech.org/events/art-and-technology/call.aspx to http://www.pghtech.org/events/art-and-technology/call.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111023235640/http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/07/mouse.shtm to http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/07/mouse.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026124220/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_577525.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_577525.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)