No inventory.
No employees.
No marginal cost of production.
No rent.
No business cards.
Just a server hosting fee, a few other startup expenses, and a bank account to hold a lot of cash coming in.
It’s every entrepreneur’s dream: the perfect business.
Lon Safko, founder of Papermodelsonline.com, has one and I have a video interview with him about it.
[podtech content=http://media1.podtech.net/media/2007/04/PID_010926/Podtech_Paper_Models.flv&postURL=http://www.podtech.net/scobleshow/technology/1447/the-killer-business-paper-models&totalTime=761000&breadcrumb=d3ed4e8a-065e-426e-ab80-ac4ca2c1f3eb]
Scobleizer 
Cool stuff.
I’ve printed out one of these from somewhere else, but they were special ones with optical illusions, like animals with eyes that appear to follow you when you walk around.
Shame he only has 59 models.
One could say that data transfer is a marginal cost, but quite insignificant for this kind of thing.
LikeLike
“No employees.”
Who makes the paper models?
Plenty of websites sell html templates, but they don’t make much money on them.
Even if a patent is approved by the USPTO, it does not mean that the author of the invention will be successful at defending the patent.
You can not patent an obvious idea. This is certainly on the absolute fringes of that.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F7072949
The only claim has many conditions, such as the model must be “fictional” ect… and is poorly written as far as patents go. I have 3 pending for actual inventions that did not exist before I submitted the patent application. Meaning they are anything but obvious.
I don’t see this patent standing up in court if it is challenged, because it is non-specific and based on an obvious concept. The FSF and electronic frontier foundation would kill a patent like this in 5 seconds flat.
It’s like saying you put the meat outside of the sandwich and that is now an invention that you take a utility patent on.
The patent may be approved but it is too weak to stand up.
Wow, I am amazed. The patent on the warp drive was kind of amazing, this takes the cake.
Sorry dude, too weak to stand up. Lawyers are so shameless, they will truly take people’s money for ANYTHING.
Sue your lawyers. Sad.
LikeLike
Cool stuff.
I’ve printed out one of these from somewhere else, but they were special ones with optical illusions, like animals with eyes that appear to follow you when you walk around.
Shame he only has 59 models.
One could say that data transfer is a marginal cost, but quite insignificant for this kind of thing.
LikeLike
“No employees.”
Who makes the paper models?
Plenty of websites sell html templates, but they don’t make much money on them.
Even if a patent is approved by the USPTO, it does not mean that the author of the invention will be successful at defending the patent.
You can not patent an obvious idea. This is certainly on the absolute fringes of that.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F7072949
The only claim has many conditions, such as the model must be “fictional” ect… and is poorly written as far as patents go. I have 3 pending for actual inventions that did not exist before I submitted the patent application. Meaning they are anything but obvious.
I don’t see this patent standing up in court if it is challenged, because it is non-specific and based on an obvious concept. The FSF and electronic frontier foundation would kill a patent like this in 5 seconds flat.
It’s like saying you put the meat outside of the sandwich and that is now an invention that you take a utility patent on.
The patent may be approved but it is too weak to stand up.
Wow, I am amazed. The patent on the warp drive was kind of amazing, this takes the cake.
Sorry dude, too weak to stand up. Lawyers are so shameless, they will truly take people’s money for ANYTHING.
Sue your lawyers. Sad.
LikeLike
1 claim? That’s the kind of patent they take on medicine or bio-engineered plant life. The claim is also extremely poorly written. The USPTO takes the money anyway to encourage you to buy again. No joke. This is not an invention.
LikeLike
1 claim? That’s the kind of patent they take on medicine or bio-engineered plant life. The claim is also extremely poorly written. The USPTO takes the money anyway to encourage you to buy again. No joke. This is not an invention.
LikeLike
Unless production costs are zero, there must be a marginal cost of production.
LikeLike
Unless production costs are zero, there must be a marginal cost of production.
LikeLike
“If you distribute anything over the internet and you fold it, bend it or cut it… I own it.” – Lon Safko
Please don’t buy anything from this guy until that claim is put to rest.
There must be prior art for selling paper dolls, T-Shirt iron on patterns, etc. similarly to his “patented business model”.
I don’t begrudge this guy a living selling his models at all. But I do have some serious concerns about funding him to control something so patently obvious as selling printable stuff and thinking he owns the concept, such that no one can compete in that space with other models, plans or “folded, bent or cut” end-products.
Don’t get me started.
LikeLike
“If you distribute anything over the internet and you fold it, bend it or cut it… I own it.” – Lon Safko
Please don’t buy anything from this guy until that claim is put to rest.
There must be prior art for selling paper dolls, T-Shirt iron on patterns, etc. similarly to his “patented business model”.
I don’t begrudge this guy a living selling his models at all. But I do have some serious concerns about funding him to control something so patently obvious as selling printable stuff and thinking he owns the concept, such that no one can compete in that space with other models, plans or “folded, bent or cut” end-products.
Don’t get me started.
LikeLike
John: OK, he paid an artist to produce the models. But his production costs are near zero after that. You print out the models on your own computer so you bear all the costs of production.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t have been as harsh, but the man claimed that anything you download, cut out and fold by means of the internet falls under his patent, and if you read the claim:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F7072949
Even if the patent wasn’t ruled invalid, which let’s face it, is a possibility here in this case, it would not cover what the man on the video claimed in his opening statement about the patent.
This is part of why the USPTO needs an overhaul.
It was originally created and lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry, and was later abused by the software industry.
I’m not saying this man is an abuser, more like IBM and Microsoft are, but this looks like a case which is questionable at best. I looks like the claims were written without legal help actually.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t have been as harsh, but the man claimed that anything you download, cut out and fold by means of the internet falls under his patent, and if you read the claim:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F7072949
Even if the patent wasn’t ruled invalid, which let’s face it, is a possibility here in this case, it would not cover what the man on the video claimed in his opening statement about the patent.
This is part of why the USPTO needs an overhaul.
It was originally created and lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry, and was later abused by the software industry.
I’m not saying this man is an abuser, more like IBM and Microsoft are, but this looks like a case which is questionable at best. I looks like the claims were written without legal help actually.
LikeLike
John: OK, he paid an artist to produce the models. But his production costs are near zero after that. You print out the models on your own computer so you bear all the costs of production.
LikeLike
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=papermodelsonline.com&url=papermodelsonline.com/
I don’t think this is as rosy as it was made out to be on the video or the blog post.
That being said, there’s nothing wrong with this type of business.
LikeLike
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=papermodelsonline.com&url=papermodelsonline.com/
I don’t think this is as rosy as it was made out to be on the video or the blog post.
That being said, there’s nothing wrong with this type of business.
LikeLike
I agree with #5 and #6, but would differ with #6’s:
“I’m not saying this man is an abuser, more like IBM and Microsoft are, but this looks like a case which is questionable at best. I looks like the claims were written without legal help actually.”
A bad patent is a bad patent, I don’t care how big the company is, or how nice this guy might be at his family BBQ gatherings.
The mere existence of millions of patents such as this give real inventors pause, knowing that they too might spend their life savings coming up with a new idea only to be told they can’t profit from it.
There *is* work in conceiving of these models (even thought the one I looked at appears to be nothing but rectilinear shapes. It is *that* work which would be factored into the price of the product, and it would certainly be wrong to buy one of this guy’s PDF files and start reselling it for half the price (or at all actually).
But if I want to put together my own model such as this and either sell it or give it away it is totally (avoiding the pun here) absurd that I should feel at all compelled to send this guy a dime.
LikeLike
I agree with #5 and #6, but would differ with #6’s:
“I’m not saying this man is an abuser, more like IBM and Microsoft are, but this looks like a case which is questionable at best. I looks like the claims were written without legal help actually.”
A bad patent is a bad patent, I don’t care how big the company is, or how nice this guy might be at his family BBQ gatherings.
The mere existence of millions of patents such as this give real inventors pause, knowing that they too might spend their life savings coming up with a new idea only to be told they can’t profit from it.
There *is* work in conceiving of these models (even thought the one I looked at appears to be nothing but rectilinear shapes. It is *that* work which would be factored into the price of the product, and it would certainly be wrong to buy one of this guy’s PDF files and start reselling it for half the price (or at all actually).
But if I want to put together my own model such as this and either sell it or give it away it is totally (avoiding the pun here) absurd that I should feel at all compelled to send this guy a dime.
LikeLike
LOL,
When I read the first bullet points of the “perfect business” I thought it was going to be the software business. That’s what I thought after I sold my 10th piece and didn’t even realize how great it was when I first started.
Let him keep his paper models, I’ll keep the software business. 🙂
Chris
LikeLike
LOL,
When I read the first bullet points of the “perfect business” I thought it was going to be the software business. That’s what I thought after I sold my 10th piece and didn’t even realize how great it was when I first started.
Let him keep his paper models, I’ll keep the software business. 🙂
Chris
LikeLike
Any legitimate entrepreneur wouldn’t even pursue these alleged values (most businesses with no need to grow an inventory, product base, employee pool, tangible assets for operations aren’t much of an ENTERPRISE…)
I was going to suggest that anyone who pursues these goals is not a good business person, a scammer, or a hermit… and guess what?
Scoble, he offers printed versions. (I am suspicious of the quality despite the images on the site being decent.) He may not maintain inventory but he does have production costs clearly… even beyond initial design.
LikeLike
Any legitimate entrepreneur wouldn’t even pursue these alleged values (most businesses with no need to grow an inventory, product base, employee pool, tangible assets for operations aren’t much of an ENTERPRISE…)
I was going to suggest that anyone who pursues these goals is not a good business person, a scammer, or a hermit… and guess what?
Scoble, he offers printed versions. (I am suspicious of the quality despite the images on the site being decent.) He may not maintain inventory but he does have production costs clearly… even beyond initial design.
LikeLike
Thanks for doing this video. It’s good to see both what is interesting out there as well as what is ridiculous.
The patent is ridiculous. There is no “invention” here and anyway there are people who published paper models online before him. It would never stand up in court.
Furthermore, there are lots of businesses that sell virtual goods which have no marginal cost of production. Ever hear of downloadable software or iTunes, to name just two? This guy invented nothing. He seems like just a shameful self-promoter. It’s a sad day when the word “innovation” gets attached to something like this.
http://www.ii.uib.no/~arntzen/kalender/
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/kids/papermodels.cfm
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/paperplanes.html
etc…
LikeLike
Thanks for doing this video. It’s good to see both what is interesting out there as well as what is ridiculous.
The patent is ridiculous. There is no “invention” here and anyway there are people who published paper models online before him. It would never stand up in court.
Furthermore, there are lots of businesses that sell virtual goods which have no marginal cost of production. Ever hear of downloadable software or iTunes, to name just two? This guy invented nothing. He seems like just a shameful self-promoter. It’s a sad day when the word “innovation” gets attached to something like this.
http://www.ii.uib.no/~arntzen/kalender/
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/kids/papermodels.cfm
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/paperplanes.html
etc…
LikeLike
“and it would certainly be wrong to buy one of this guy’s PDF files and start reselling it for half the price (or at all actually).”
You are one of the many people that seem not to be able to tell the difference between patents and copyrights.
What you are describing is a copyright.
Utility Patents do not protect a design, they protect an idea, as an invention.
This was not a non-obvious new idea, thus the patent may fail if it is tested. The patent is also very loosely described in 1 single claim.
“But if I want to put together my own model such as this and either sell it or give it away it is totally (avoiding the pun here) absurd that I should feel at all compelled to send this guy a dime.”
You wouldn’t have to. Notice that this patent was not created with legal representation and was assigned to himself. You could *guess* that if a person leaves something as important as this to chance that they may have a hard time enforcing such a patent as well. You could also take into account that due to the patent being described in that way, that legal representation may not be anxious to take on such an offensive patent dispute based on the claim.
LikeLike
“and it would certainly be wrong to buy one of this guy’s PDF files and start reselling it for half the price (or at all actually).”
You are one of the many people that seem not to be able to tell the difference between patents and copyrights.
What you are describing is a copyright.
Utility Patents do not protect a design, they protect an idea, as an invention.
This was not a non-obvious new idea, thus the patent may fail if it is tested. The patent is also very loosely described in 1 single claim.
“But if I want to put together my own model such as this and either sell it or give it away it is totally (avoiding the pun here) absurd that I should feel at all compelled to send this guy a dime.”
You wouldn’t have to. Notice that this patent was not created with legal representation and was assigned to himself. You could *guess* that if a person leaves something as important as this to chance that they may have a hard time enforcing such a patent as well. You could also take into account that due to the patent being described in that way, that legal representation may not be anxious to take on such an offensive patent dispute based on the claim.
LikeLike
BTW, I think the business is great! I just don’t think the patent would hold up. I think highlighting that patent was probably the worst thing they could have done.
LikeLike
BTW, I think the business is great! I just don’t think the patent would hold up. I think highlighting that patent was probably the worst thing they could have done.
LikeLike
I am a papermodel designer. I have been for years. I am published in books in Taiwan and in Australia, and have had a web business for 4 years. This “business man” has been known in the Paper Modeling world on the internet for a long time with a less than sparkling review. Though I have no personal first hand knowledge, it is claimed by some that he pirates other people’s models and claims they are his own (I admid, this is second hand on my part). The very idea that his patent could give him ownership of my I.P. is ludicris and insulting. Internet distribution of Paper Models predates his influnce and his patents by MANY years. There is simply too much evidence against his claim for it to hold up in an actual case. I predict that there will never BE a case. Instead, with patent in hand, he will claim ownership of the right… bully others… or use it as a too of intimidation.
But don’t go by me…
-The Haggard
LikeLike
I am a papermodel designer. I have been for years. I am published in books in Taiwan and in Australia, and have had a web business for 4 years. This “business man” has been known in the Paper Modeling world on the internet for a long time with a less than sparkling review. Though I have no personal first hand knowledge, it is claimed by some that he pirates other people’s models and claims they are his own (I admid, this is second hand on my part). The very idea that his patent could give him ownership of my I.P. is ludicris and insulting. Internet distribution of Paper Models predates his influnce and his patents by MANY years. There is simply too much evidence against his claim for it to hold up in an actual case. I predict that there will never BE a case. Instead, with patent in hand, he will claim ownership of the right… bully others… or use it as a too of intimidation.
But don’t go by me…
-The Haggard
LikeLike
For a moment there, when I started reading this, I thought you were talking about podcasting/blogging 😉
LikeLike
For a moment there, when I started reading this, I thought you were talking about podcasting/blogging 😉
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
First of all, thank you for doing this interview with Lon Safko. Lon is a very likable man and very entrepreneurial. And obviously quite successful in his business judging from the list of clients he named.
Now, onto the patent. Although I disagree with some of the languages used in the comments above (some were rude and too too harsh), I have to agree that the patent with one highly compacted claim might not be the best way to write a claim.
In the spirit of learning and sharing, I like to focus on what I’ve learned about patent application. I highly recommend your readers to check out Patent Attorney Katherine White’s Google presentation ” Intellectual Property: How to Review a Patent Application”. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6077478554692706666&q=patent
Katherine is one smart no non-sense and insightful patent attorney and she talks about how to write good claims and I won’t repeat them here. note: I only know her via that one video, I wish I can learn more from her.
Now, back to Lon. I think people that beat up Lon because of his patent is missing one important point – patent is simply one of the tools that entrepreneurs use to make a business successful. Once the momentum is there, even without a valid patent, the competitors may be too late in competing. I am not saying this is the case for Lon for sure since what I know is from the video only. But I like the long list of big name customers he listed. And I like the creativity behind a man that cooked up such those neat ideas and executed them so well.
Just my 2 cents and an attempt to put some civility and something positive into the discussion of Lon’s patent. If nothing else, Katherine’s video is a must watch for patent geeks out there. I’ve watched it two or three times already and will surely watch it some more if and when I am ready to write my own silly patent application.
Cheers,
Kempton
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
First of all, thank you for doing this interview with Lon Safko. Lon is a very likable man and very entrepreneurial. And obviously quite successful in his business judging from the list of clients he named.
Now, onto the patent. Although I disagree with some of the languages used in the comments above (some were rude and too too harsh), I have to agree that the patent with one highly compacted claim might not be the best way to write a claim.
In the spirit of learning and sharing, I like to focus on what I’ve learned about patent application. I highly recommend your readers to check out Patent Attorney Katherine White’s Google presentation ” Intellectual Property: How to Review a Patent Application”. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6077478554692706666&q=patent
Katherine is one smart no non-sense and insightful patent attorney and she talks about how to write good claims and I won’t repeat them here. note: I only know her via that one video, I wish I can learn more from her.
Now, back to Lon. I think people that beat up Lon because of his patent is missing one important point – patent is simply one of the tools that entrepreneurs use to make a business successful. Once the momentum is there, even without a valid patent, the competitors may be too late in competing. I am not saying this is the case for Lon for sure since what I know is from the video only. But I like the long list of big name customers he listed. And I like the creativity behind a man that cooked up such those neat ideas and executed them so well.
Just my 2 cents and an attempt to put some civility and something positive into the discussion of Lon’s patent. If nothing else, Katherine’s video is a must watch for patent geeks out there. I’ve watched it two or three times already and will surely watch it some more if and when I am ready to write my own silly patent application.
Cheers,
Kempton
LikeLike
It’s easy to criticize this guy’s granted patent. Just as it’s easy to criticize thousands of so-called “inventions” that are completely obvious and probably have prior art. Nevertheless, his patent is granted.
I think the more interesting question is: how popular is this kind of idea? I suspect the answer is: not very. Do children really want to make models from cutting paper in 2007? Perhaps. However, my bet would be that they’d much prefer to make and play with computer models on-line that they can easily interact with and share with their friends.
Just one comparison – here’s a link to an Alexa comparison between papermodelsonline.com and stardoll.com. Stardoll.com is a site that lets children make *on-line* versions of traditional “paper” dolls.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=stardoll.com&site1=papermodelsonline.com&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=3y&size=Medium&url=stardoll.com/
Clearly, this guy’s site has a had a couple of small blips in popularity (one in 2005, and one 2006); but they really do seem to be only small blips. The comparison supports the view that children prefer computer models to paper models.
LikeLike
It’s easy to criticize this guy’s granted patent. Just as it’s easy to criticize thousands of so-called “inventions” that are completely obvious and probably have prior art. Nevertheless, his patent is granted.
I think the more interesting question is: how popular is this kind of idea? I suspect the answer is: not very. Do children really want to make models from cutting paper in 2007? Perhaps. However, my bet would be that they’d much prefer to make and play with computer models on-line that they can easily interact with and share with their friends.
Just one comparison – here’s a link to an Alexa comparison between papermodelsonline.com and stardoll.com. Stardoll.com is a site that lets children make *on-line* versions of traditional “paper” dolls.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=stardoll.com&site1=papermodelsonline.com&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=3y&size=Medium&url=stardoll.com/
Clearly, this guy’s site has a had a couple of small blips in popularity (one in 2005, and one 2006); but they really do seem to be only small blips. The comparison supports the view that children prefer computer models to paper models.
LikeLike
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22warp%20drive%22.TTL.&OS=TTL%2F
If you get a chance please check out this patent. It’s the best one I’ve seen granted.
The patent is now under review, as can happen to *any* patent, and the inventor was asked to provide a working warp drive.(good luck)
“Applicant is required to furnish a model of the instant invention. 35 U.S.C. 114. See Also 37 C.F.R. 1.91.”
All this to say, that just because it’s granted doesn’t necessarily mean it will stay that way. That’s why patents filed by lawyers are so complex and convoluted.
LikeLike
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22warp%20drive%22.TTL.&OS=TTL%2F
If you get a chance please check out this patent. It’s the best one I’ve seen granted.
The patent is now under review, as can happen to *any* patent, and the inventor was asked to provide a working warp drive.(good luck)
“Applicant is required to furnish a model of the instant invention. 35 U.S.C. 114. See Also 37 C.F.R. 1.91.”
All this to say, that just because it’s granted doesn’t necessarily mean it will stay that way. That’s why patents filed by lawyers are so complex and convoluted.
LikeLike
What he’s not telling you is
a) according to alexa, he has no traffic. While Alexa is not entirely accurate, its likely he’s only making a few thousand dollars per month.
b) he may not have manufacturing costs, but he has traffic costs. If he’s doing some pay per click advertising, his traffic costs will more than make up for any manufacturing costs.
He makes it sound great, but 95% sure the revenues are minimal.
LikeLike
What he’s not telling you is
a) according to alexa, he has no traffic. While Alexa is not entirely accurate, its likely he’s only making a few thousand dollars per month.
b) he may not have manufacturing costs, but he has traffic costs. If he’s doing some pay per click advertising, his traffic costs will more than make up for any manufacturing costs.
He makes it sound great, but 95% sure the revenues are minimal.
LikeLike
“If you distribute anything over the internet and you fold it, bend it or cut it… I own it.” – Lon Safko
muahahahaaaahahahaha !!!! Get a day job, funny !
LikeLike
“If you distribute anything over the internet and you fold it, bend it or cut it… I own it.” – Lon Safko
muahahahaaaahahahaha !!!! Get a day job, funny !
LikeLike
This interview really rubbed me the wrong way.
I am a paper model hobbyist, and I have viewed, purchased and downloaded models from literally *hundreds* of sites, all of which could be interpreted as covered by this patent, a number of which were operating prior to September, 2000, which is when this patent was filed.
Safko’s patent doesn’t just cover *selling* paper models; as written, it just uses the language “distribution”… there are some very prominent sites that give away paper models… Yamaha, Canon, Epson, to name a few, plus hundreds or thousands of hobbyist sites.
Yamaha’s papercraft site has a paper model dated January, 1998, more than *two years* before Safko’s patent was filed:
http://www.yamaha-motor.co.jp/global/entertainment/papercraft/seasons/01/index.html
But that wasn’t examined in the patent.
Safko isn’t the only one in this business:
http://www.flying-pig.com
http://www.pmodel.net
http://www.worldworksgames.com
are a few others… Safko certainly isn’t the first in this business, and his patent is only going to hurt this community and this business.
LikeLike
This interview really rubbed me the wrong way.
I am a paper model hobbyist, and I have viewed, purchased and downloaded models from literally *hundreds* of sites, all of which could be interpreted as covered by this patent, a number of which were operating prior to September, 2000, which is when this patent was filed.
Safko’s patent doesn’t just cover *selling* paper models; as written, it just uses the language “distribution”… there are some very prominent sites that give away paper models… Yamaha, Canon, Epson, to name a few, plus hundreds or thousands of hobbyist sites.
Yamaha’s papercraft site has a paper model dated January, 1998, more than *two years* before Safko’s patent was filed:
http://www.yamaha-motor.co.jp/global/entertainment/papercraft/seasons/01/index.html
But that wasn’t examined in the patent.
Safko isn’t the only one in this business:
http://www.flying-pig.com
http://www.pmodel.net
http://www.worldworksgames.com
are a few others… Safko certainly isn’t the first in this business, and his patent is only going to hurt this community and this business.
LikeLike
“I wanted to see if I could make something for kids and keep it under 10 bucks.”
Good job, fella. Now let’s see if you can keep it under 5 bucks. Hey! Lookie there, you can do that, too!
/no problem with this guy, but that was a disingenuous explanation for pricing.
LikeLike
“I wanted to see if I could make something for kids and keep it under 10 bucks.”
Good job, fella. Now let’s see if you can keep it under 5 bucks. Hey! Lookie there, you can do that, too!
/no problem with this guy, but that was a disingenuous explanation for pricing.
LikeLike
That profits matter. That may have been the case for several years after the dot-com explosion, but venture capitalists are hungry for deals now. And, in light of recent high-priced acquisitions (for example, Skype), it makes more sense for startups to lose money and go for growth–not build a stable, profitable business
LikeLike
That profits matter. That may have been the case for several years after the dot-com explosion, but venture capitalists are hungry for deals now. And, in light of recent high-priced acquisitions (for example, Skype), it makes more sense for startups to lose money and go for growth–not build a stable, profitable business
LikeLike
“If you distribute anything over the internet and you fold it, bend it or cut it… I own it.” – Lon Safko
So sue me. I’ve had an origami model available over the internet since 1993 (linked, its the eagle at the bottom of the page). Joseph Wu and Robert Lang were there way before me, I created that for something to do when I had the flu.
LikeLike
“If you distribute anything over the internet and you fold it, bend it or cut it… I own it.” – Lon Safko
So sue me. I’ve had an origami model available over the internet since 1993 (linked, its the eagle at the bottom of the page). Joseph Wu and Robert Lang were there way before me, I created that for something to do when I had the flu.
LikeLike
Hey, what about the profit?
LikeLike
Hey, what about the profit?
LikeLike