Dragons Den

alexthecheese said:
But if they've patented a design that works, is cheap, and the companies sign up to before the law is imposed then they're laughing - particularly as they're adament there's nothing else available to do the same job.

I think part of the problem is that people - even when told to their FACE - don't understand how an appliance could draw so much current when on standby, when they can't actually see them doing anything. Like that guy said, my set-top box for my freeview runs hot even when off, though my entire bedroom is pretty much rigged up to a fat mains switch that I turn off when I go out (my dad is crazy about wasting energy).
Click to expand...

I'm surprised they never mentioned the safety aspect either. My daughter went out leaving a TV on standby and it caught fire. I don't think it's sensible to leave anything powered up that is not necessary.
 
Lagz said:
But what he is trying to say is that it IS no different than leaving a device on standby! A TV has to use power when it is off in order to 'listen' for when the remote control turns it on again. This is (unless I am mistaken) exactly what their 'product' does. The difference is that it turns your TV off completely and then the device itself listens for the remote (so it can turn the TV on again when you press it). So in both cases something is 'listening', the difference is only what is actually doing it.

Now they say that their way of 'listening' consumes less power than how a TV does it. Unfortunately for them TV companies could easily reduce the standby power consumption massively themselves if they wanted to, and they sure as well wouldn't infringe on their patent by doing so (they would be able to claim prior art). The only novel thing about their method was the use of a rechargable battery (I think?). There are plenty of people who already do this, so I seriously doubt that their patent would stand up in court.

Note that having a patent and having a patent that stands up in court are very different things. It is very easy to get a patent. The patent office dont really make sure that you are patenting something novel. If your not then you will still be granted a patent, only it will be completely useless.
Click to expand...

The difference is it runs off a battery for listening, so when it the TV is OFF, it is using 0W and the plug thing is using 0W of electricity as it is running off it's internal battery.

I thought they were mental for giving away 50% of their company for £100,000. The potential for that device being integrated in to "almost" any electrical device is amazing!

Good Invention, Bad Business sense is letting it go that cheap!
 
Just turn the damn thing off, preferably permanently!

If the law gets passed, all new TVs etc. will not possess a stand by function anyway and I doubt that anyone, except the most feckless and lazy, will leave it on all the time. Anyway, so what if it does use more electricity, build another nuke and enjoy the glorious tax revenue from 24 hour power usage.
 
The_KiD said:
The difference is it runs off a battery for listening, so when it the TV is OFF, it is using 0W and the plug thing is using 0W of electricity as it is running off it's internal battery.

I thought they were mental for giving away 50% of their company for £100,000. The potential for that device being integrated in to "almost" any electrical device is amazing!

Good Invention, Bad Business sense is letting it go that cheap!
Click to expand...

But the rechargeable battery will be consuming extra power when it is being charged. So where is the reduction in power consumption?
 
The_KiD said:
I thought they were mental for giving away 50% of their company for £100,000. The potential for that device being integrated in to "almost" any electrical device is amazing!
Click to expand...

With the five dragons onboard they will have the contacts and motive to fast track this product through. 50% of their company could be worth billions so with the expertise and profits coming in, I somehow think they won't be bothered. Of course it could all be false figures but that we'll have to wait for.
 
Bumhucker said:
Yeah I'd love to do something like that but at £99 it's a bit out of my price range :eek:
Click to expand...
Yeh 99 is far to expensive, I think they could do 2 one for the normal joe and one for puzzle experts as it's obviously selling well at 99
 
The_KiD said:
I thought they were mental for giving away 50% of their company for £100,000. The potential for that device being integrated in to "almost" any electrical device is amazing!
Click to expand...
you're not Chris Moyles by any chance are you as that's an almost word perfect quote of what he said on his show this morning.

btw if anyone heard Duncan Bannatyne on the Moyles show, did you laugh as much as i did when Moylesy asked Duncan the name of the man that sits to the left of Peter Jones?

it's Deborah Meaden :D
 
neocon said:
I hate the way those dragons talk down to people.

They are enjoying huge wealth that they made through ruthless capitalism and now they're morally above all the people that come in front of them.

I really find them annoying, especially the women.

Anyone else find them annoying?
Click to expand...

They are just doing their TV job. They are paid to to be bum holes to these people! It's part of the show..
 
Lagz said:
Note that having a patent and having a patent that stands up in court are very different things. It is very easy to get a patent. The patent office dont really make sure that you are patenting something novel. If your not then you will still be granted a patent, only it will be completely useless.
Click to expand...
This is very true in America, but here it is not. The patent office is actually very good at making sure they do their job properly, as can be seen by IP barristers being one of the smallest set of barristers out of any specialism - and those specialising in patents particularly are of an even smaller number.

fini
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom