Talk:Invention promotion firm/Archives/2012

Naming of individuals involved in law suits

Does the section "Legal actions against invention promotion firms" require revision per comment above by Arnold S. Thompson? Is the section "libelous and commercially disparaging" as mentioned?

This is a tough section. On one hand, these firms are frequently accused and not uncommonly prosecuted for defrauding their customers. On the other hand, the sample may not be representative. We don't normally include lawsuits unless they reach an important conclusion. That is, a company investigated by the SEC probably shouldn't have notice on their officer's pages unless the investigation resulted in indictments. Perhaps we should find better, more general sources for these suits. Those that didn't reach trial or settlement should certainly be struck.

In the meantime, I'll get rid of the names per BLP. The firms look legit, but we should find better sources. Cool Hand Luke 04:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

NOTE: The following comments are general in nature and not directed toward any specific invention broker firm or any specific entry or comment on this site:

Some invention promotion firms have taken to filing (or merely THREATENING) libel suits against anyone who posts derogatory remarks about them online or at the USPTO, even for the most innocuous of criticisms. It has been an effective strategy, as some people complaining to the USPTO have withdrawn their complaints. Others have shut down websites that tried to get the word out on invention brokers.

Basic information on invention brokers is the last thing the industry wants spread around. Every time there is a story on these organizations, it hurts their business.

Note also that the invention brokering business is HUGELY profitable. Each customer spends anywhere from $5000 to $20000, usually paid in advance. Ofentimes, these are very poorly educated and poor people. But somewhow, they manage to raise the money. One small firm, shut down by the FTC had over 3,000 Design Patents pending at the time. This works out to nearly $30,000,000.00 using an average of $10,000 per "customer". That's 30 MILLION bucks. And they were a small-time operation.

The larger firms make much, much more money than that. Efforts by the FTC and "Operation Mousetrap" have actually helped some of the larger invention promotion firms, as the FTC and the USPTO can only afford to go after the smaller players, who settle quickly or disappear and re-open under new names. The largest firms do not appear on the complaint site of the USPTO or in operation mousetrap.

Far from being an effective means of policing the business, the Inventor's Protection Act has served simply to keep down the competion in this billion dollar industry. The larger companies are still in business, and the FTC and USPTO have actually helped them by preventing smaller players from getting into the business.

Don't look so suprised. Welcome to America. Caveat Emptor.

I am not aware of any effective invention brokers out there, which is not to say they don't exist. But developing an invention is never a sure-fire deal (it is more like a 1000:1 long shot in most cases). You cannot simply hand the development of an invention over to someone, along with a paltry amount of money and expect them to make you millionaires. It simply doesn't work that way.

Most inventions simply do not succeed. A new and improved can opener may be novel and even useful. But bear in mind that the old-style can openers can be had for a dollar or two and work well. And more and more products are packaged in newer types of containers or even pop-top cans. So just because an invention is new and even useful does not guarantee success in the marketplace. Most inventors do not grasp this simple concept.

The invention broker scam is similar to the poetry scam (we will publish your poem for a modest up-front fee) or the recording scam. For a humorous look at the latter, I suggest renting The Great World of Sound (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0826547/)

The sales techniques for all are very similar - high pressure tactics and usally requesting an amount large enough to be profitable but not large enough to be worthwhile suing for. One key indicator is that if the broker gives you a first price (e.g., $10,000) and you tell him that is more than you can afford, the price suddenly drops to $5,000 or even $3,000.

Caveat Emptor. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Joe Patent (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * * *

SOME NOTES ON THE MESSAGE LEFT BY "ARNOLD S. THOMPSON, ESQ.":

I did a search on "Arnold S. Thompson Esq. Thompson, Waters & Noble Wash., DC" and various variations thereof online and can find no record of such a person or lawfirm on Google or in Martindale Hubble. Martindale has no listing for any "Arnold Thompson" anywhere in the USA. The firm has no website that I could find, and I could not find any phone number for it in the white pages. The DC bar has no listing for any "Arnold Thompson". The USPTO website has no listing for "Arnold Thompson" either. Does anyone have any leads on this firm or person?

Mr. Thompson did, however, leave his IP ADDRESS (68.56.67.72), as he is not a registered user. A WHOIS check reveals:

Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. JUMPSTART-1 (NET-68-32-0-0-1) Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. WESTFLORIDA-2 (NET-68-56-0-0-1)

I am not sure what this means. Does it mean the message originated from Florida?

The more I read his message, the more questions I have. For example, in addition to providing no identifying information regarding himself (firm address, etc.) he does not mention which company or individuals he is representing, if any. It amounts to no more than a generic threat.

In addition, the legal arguments regarding libel are somewhat thin. It is not libel to state what is on the public record - namely that a person or organization has been charged in a criminal or civil matter, provided the information is accurate.

The idea that failing to list the names of all such individuals or organizations historically charged with similar criminal or civil cases amounts to the libeling of those mentioned is, to say the least, a unique view of the law.

That would be akin to saying that you can't discuss the O.J. Simpson case unless you first mention, by name, every other person in the history of the USA who has been tried for similar charges. That of course, is ludicrous.

It is also not clear to me who he is referring to in terms of "organizations" who are "taking money" from inventors. Does he mean other invention brokers, or inventor's organizations like the United Inventors Association?

On the whole, the entire message an its attribution is rather odd. I am somewhat disappointed that you so quickly scrambled to delete references without bothering to even google this guy.

If Mr. "Arnold S. Thompson, Esq." can point to specific information that is inaccurate or libelous, and can prove that such information is inaccurate, then it should be removed. Mr. Thompson should also state on the record exactly who he is representing with regard to such matters.

But failing that, I don't see where your entry has listed anything in error or anything that is not already a matter of public record.

If anything, your entry on invention promoters is very generous to them and gives them the benefit of the doubt. The section on "Defense of Invention Promotion Firms" contains no cite other than to a page owned by Invent-Tech. BTW, I checked this link and it appears to go to a blank page at the present time.

Joe Patent (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the "Defense of Invention Promotion Firms" I made a slight change. The phrase "they point to the fact that..." implies that their allegations are indeed facts, when such "facts" have not been established. The United States Government, as embodied by the FTC and the USPTO are not a "few individuals". And there are many inventor organizations critical of invention promoters.

As for their high "customer satisfaction" rate, no hard data is mentioned here or in the (now blank) link.

At best, these are allegations, not "facts". FWIW

Joe Patent (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and thanks for your edit. Such a law firm does not seem to exist. But the argument per WP:BLP is as good as ever. We shouldn't malign select individuals based on the charges. I agree that this whole industry is basically a fraud, and the sources say so. We should stick to that. Bottom line: this is about the sources, and we should have better ones for living individuals. Cool Hand Luke 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

Your comment:

"I agree that this whole industry is basically a fraud, and the sources say so."

Is not an accurate reflection on my comments, or if it is, it was not my intention. I never said the entire industry is a fraud, only that I have yet to meet any decent invention brokers. They may be out there, I just haven't met them.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I don't want to be accused of libeling a whole industry.

One problem in prosecuting these folks is that what they are doing, basically, is not necessarily illegal - they charge a LOT of money for services that some might say are not of the best quality. Overcharging and providing sloppy service is the American Way - you might as well throw General Motors in jail for selling crappy cars and charging too much. This is why it is hard to prosecute these cases.

I read the BLP page and understand where you are coming from there. I still do not think repoting a fact on a public record is libelous, unless you feel the record is not accurately document.

In any event, listing the names of the people involved adds little to the article entry as it does not provide any useful information to the user.

The footnote link to "Defense of Invention Brokers" is still dead. It is from an Invent-Tech website. The web page is blank, however. There is still a link to the page on the Invent-tech site, but "fear on the web" is only available as a cached document on Google. I wonder why they took the page down?

But overall, I think you have provided a balanced view, and the mysterious Arnold S. Thompson is way off-base. Joe Patent (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)