Ok so I have designed something - now for the big time
- Thread starter Pinter75
- Start date
An nope can't say what it is
"My first laser weapon of mass destruction: space orbit edition"?
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 9,940
- Location
- Poland
Hmm, can I get clarification on some points:
1. Why did you choose not to patent before seeking a licensee? Having at least a priority date would have enabled you to argue for stronger terms and would have given the company a better way to asses the product's commercial value. Without this they ultimately had to guess the extent to which patent/design rights will cover it.
2. Why did you not speak to more than one manufacturer before selling what sounds like an exclusive license?
3. You refer to it as an option. This term only makes sense if you were manufacturing under contract for Matell prior to this invention. They would be exercising their contractual right to negotiate an optional license to resulting IP. Is this the case or are you just misusing the term?
4. Why did you choose to go down the license route rather than have it manufactured yourself via VC funding?
5. You say that they've agreed to 6% gross. This seems very strange that you were negotiating in terms of gross revenue. Every revenue sharing agreement I've ever dealt with is in terms of NET (with a tight definition of net). This is because gross, for matell, is really difficult to deal with as their variable costs aren't taken in to account. For example, they are effectively penalised for advertising the product as the entire cost of advertising comes out of their slice.
5. Is the gross on revenue or profit? I sincerely hope it's revenue for two reasons. 5% on gross profit is a pretty bad deal considering you've taken a 'ready for market' product to them. Secondly, it's entirely possible to write your books in such a way that a very proftable product is seemingly making no profit. Lots of internal charges for legal, advertising, buildings etc that would normally be covered by the manufacturer's central funds, but that can be assigned to a single product will be in an effort to drive down the amount that they have to provide to anyone recording a share of profit only. That's why no tech transfer or IP lawyer would negotiate based on profit unless absolutely forced to and, even then, with a concrete definition.
1. Why did you choose not to patent before seeking a licensee? Having at least a priority date would have enabled you to argue for stronger terms and would have given the company a better way to asses the product's commercial value. Without this they ultimately had to guess the extent to which patent/design rights will cover it.
2. Why did you not speak to more than one manufacturer before selling what sounds like an exclusive license?
3. You refer to it as an option. This term only makes sense if you were manufacturing under contract for Matell prior to this invention. They would be exercising their contractual right to negotiate an optional license to resulting IP. Is this the case or are you just misusing the term?
4. Why did you choose to go down the license route rather than have it manufactured yourself via VC funding?
5. You say that they've agreed to 6% gross. This seems very strange that you were negotiating in terms of gross revenue. Every revenue sharing agreement I've ever dealt with is in terms of NET (with a tight definition of net). This is because gross, for matell, is really difficult to deal with as their variable costs aren't taken in to account. For example, they are effectively penalised for advertising the product as the entire cost of advertising comes out of their slice.
5. Is the gross on revenue or profit? I sincerely hope it's revenue for two reasons. 5% on gross profit is a pretty bad deal considering you've taken a 'ready for market' product to them. Secondly, it's entirely possible to write your books in such a way that a very proftable product is seemingly making no profit. Lots of internal charges for legal, advertising, buildings etc that would normally be covered by the manufacturer's central funds, but that can be assigned to a single product will be in an effort to drive down the amount that they have to provide to anyone recording a share of profit only. That's why no tech transfer or IP lawyer would negotiate based on profit unless absolutely forced to and, even then, with a concrete definition.
Howdy,
Bit of an update.
Yesterday went to a very well known manufacturer to present a gadget I designed, they loved it and hope to hear soon if it is to go into production.
Today went to another major toy co and presented another idea, liked it too and kept it for review, hope to hear about that one soon too
Bit of an update.
Yesterday went to a very well known manufacturer to present a gadget I designed, they loved it and hope to hear soon if it is to go into production.
Today went to another major toy co and presented another idea, liked it too and kept it for review, hope to hear about that one soon too
Hardly an update is it, not until you tell us what it is can you use the update word!In seriousness though, congratulations. Can I claim first on the new stuff?
2Nd :
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,032
- Location
- A box in the Astral Plane
CLAIMED!!
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 1,353
- Location
- Here and There (mostly)
lol 3rd is a biggie
Howdy.
Got some awesome news today. Concept 4 is a go'er - just done the licensing deal on it.
NO CLAIMS ON THIS - you all have to go out and buy it - that is how I will be able to afford to run the DB7
Still can't say what it is, but 99% of you will go and get it.
Got some awesome news today. Concept 4 is a go'er - just done the licensing deal on it.
NO CLAIMS ON THIS - you all have to go out and buy it - that is how I will be able to afford to run the DB7
Still can't say what it is, but 99% of you will go and get it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,862
- Location
- South East
Do you make lots of money out of this?