As this site indicates, having an idea, even a good one, is very far from becoming an instant millionaire. This sounds like a sucker business like those places that self publish totally unsuccessful literature for ego maniacal amateur writers.

If this seems like "This sounds like a sucker business like those places that self publish totally unsuccessful literature for ego maniacal amateur writers." I wonder why?!

What is the value in your comment, which indicates you do not have a good idea for us to benefit from; as it takes a lot of commitment from the inventor and the investor and all who are part of a new venture, and your low observation is a very poor reflection on people who take liberty to stay foolish with mistrust and wounded ego as it seems in your insulting case...

If you look up my suggestions you will discover plenty of ideas I have submitted, some fantastic, some impractical, and some with reasonable commercial potential. But I am fully aware that an idea in itself is not a gold mine and well over 90% of very good ideas result in all sorts of expensive and frustrating problems before they have even the faintest possibility of generating reasonable financial return to compensate for the effort and time required to make them commercially successful. The naive concept that an idea is a doorway to infinite wealth is on the order of playing lotto to become instantly rich and although I know that innovation is dependent upon those rare occasions when my suspicions are proved wrong, it is also a rich field of gullible people open for sharp scams. Your proposal may be genuine or it may be merely another way to bilk a susceptible eager fool. I remain suspicious.

Inventor, if you want people to take you seriously, you need to avoid attacking people like Sand who express skepticism about your proposal. People are naturally going to be skeptical. You need to understand this and address their skepticism by demonstrating that your proposal is legitimate. You also need to learn to break up your writing into smaller sentences, instead of posting one long rambling sentence. Poor writing is only going to make readers more doubtful.

THANKS for the advice and skeptics as well, as while one may be stuck in The Sand with the issue of trust and choices between good and bad, I write my thoughts in English and not employing English to impress my thoughts - poetically meaning - Superior English will be beneficial for people and not only machines.Yes, I can write simple sentences. My thoughts, are not simple; probably because of my engineering education to make new things work and fix old broken things!?(!?=Wonder Statement)

SAND seems to represent what is and was in the industry, and I sense sand (the member) is open to the opportunity that what I am writing and doing and thinking can be true. And, it is. I saw a need in the 80's for better Government understanding and realization of the importance, as I say it "To support the young inventor in school now realizing there is a better newer idea or concept or discovery" so to regain the economic benefits from our investment in education and industry so to be more competitive and more productive and more proficient etc...

Search the www for prepatent.org information - while it is not yet ready for publications and services are managed the old way, in person...lol

But it is real and it works and Government is informed.

If the effort is legitimate I have nothing against it. My reservations were merely in the direction of the vulnerability of a guy with an idea, good or otherwise, to an attitude of over-optimism. Fighting through the obstacles of getting into the market is a tough slog and that is only the first step. The market for even the best product depends on many factors beyond the central concept of a product and timing and the general economy are also important. I have fun conceiving ideas but I am not in the position nor in the mental frame to spend time and effort and money for a possibility so vague as commercial success. I wish the best to those who are but caution that, even under the best of circumstances, the process is very difficult.

The prepatent method in the UPRTPNOCP Center does resolve the problem why people with good ideas, do not try, give up, or get burned by the IP industry - because within the UPRTPNOCP Center, an idea can be simply auctioned or developed by the founders' company.There are people looking for such business opportunities.There are clients wanting or needing these solutions.There are 1.5 million ideas being registered each year... only very few thousands are made into projects.

the prepatent.org website has been on line for few weeks now...

The Polls, Forum, Club features have been added to the website - where users can log in for secured areas of the website.http://prepatent.org

Inventor, I visited your site just now. I see that most of the articles are attributed to "Centeralizer", who is obviously you. Why do you use pseudonyms? Notice that the creators of this site, Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff, use their real names. Using pseudonyms like "inventor" and "Centeralizer" makes it look like you're hiding something.

I noticed there is one piece attributed to "|00|". That piece is an article that was clearly lifted from someone else's site. There is no citation given as to who actually wrote it. I point this out because it is illegal to use someone else's work without their permission or a citation. It's copyright infringement. So I recommend you go back and cite your source so you don't get into trouble.

It's pretty obvious that you wrote the rest of the site yourself. The reason it's obvious is because it's still made up of long, rambling, grammatically flawed sentences. As I said before, you need to write better if you want people to take you seriously. You don't have to write "superior" English, but you do need to write "fair" English. Right now, the English on your site is on the border between "poor" and "epic fail", which will be the fate of your site if you don't improve the writing.

You have repeated described yourself as wise, but what wise man (besides yourself) have you ever heard of that did not communicate clearly? The ability to explain complicated ideas in such a way as to make them easy to understand is itself a mark of wisdom.

Get rid of copyrights and patents. They infringe on the rights of people who haven't even been born yet to create and build for the sake of pure hubris and egotism. It is not an altruistic system. It is archaic, barbaric, and becomes less and less sensible the more people are subject to it.

Population goes up. Number of ideas go up yet copyright holder per idea stays at JUST ONE. Stupid.

I am surprised that while NICK (worldnick) has many ideas and concepts, as we all have - plus a website to show and share plus explain - that he is making these statement Get rid of Patent & © and probably because of The Costs of certifying you have "new original art" ; but taking protected or published inventions or innovations into markets and sharing with the world these new arts and capabilities - is an additional art most inventors fail to see as the reality beyond the dreams and hopes of the shared blessing in the new art, idea or concept, solution or capability wisdom condensed into WANTED & NEEDED HAVES as in the PrePatent Partnering (see http://prepatent.org) - because making it successfully these age is like "Swimming in shark eats shark waters" and not 'any red carpet' is offered to the inventor - only expectations.For me it seems like I have to be the banker and researcher and developer, and negotiator, and employer, and businessman, who is building a special value new enterprise for some simple minded investor to take it over from me - where in the real-estate industry I made the deals, but the architect designed and the builder created and the market bought - and it was not all one man efforts handed on a silver platter - all of which teaches us about the creative process we are expected to manage.

Today, we use successful inventions, and new innovations also evolve, as too many people have too many ideas and solutions but can not 'pave the way for others or even a trail for the one' because the problem is as NICK said, the original stupid invention as well as the 'major-vendor' corporations who are in each industry of the economy.

Some think invention is dead, but I believe the possibilities for invention are endless. The traditional basement tinkerer may need to learn to use Cad software and build prototypes in Solidworks, but we haven't even begun to invent everything possible.

What's needed is an inexpensive AI search program that can search the patent database to reduce the cost of determining if an idea is patentable.

YES and TRUE - but most records are in print and I think the Patent Office has a way of searching - simple and not as good as it can be without modern technologies - as I have witnessed from my original patent applications.

In my method, the verification of new art is the key; where with the existing system, as in most cases, patents can be legally infringed upon by language, anytime one has an innovation beyond the existing patent language.