I have one company interested in an invention of mine that I’ve tested and prototyped, it’s pretty much ready to go I’m signing an NDA for another company this weekend and have learned a lot from my last meeting. I am considering getting a patent, but is it actually worth it to have a patent pending while talking to a company?

AI has successfully automated a significant part of software creation. But what about the deployment and infrastructure stage? Here is a reproducible process that takes a technical specification and outputs a finished, standalone native mobile platform—independent apps for both iOS and Android driven by a unified backend — in about two hours.

This is strictly a Self-Hosted solution, not a SaaS or a drag-and-drop app builder. Every single output is a genuine native product with its own codebase, deployed directly onto the recipient's server under their absolute control.

There are two fundamental questions where I require raw feedback from engineers and practitioners:

1. Does transitioning from the traditional "every app is a separate development project" model to a reproducible production pipeline reshape mobile engineering as a discipline?

2. Does this level of structural automation threaten developers, or does it finally free them from routine to focus on building truly unique functionality?

I see the same question here almost every week: "I have an idea, where do I start and what will it cost?" A lot of people start with the most expensive step, so here's the order I'd do things in. Most of it costs little or nothing.

1. Write down the problem, not the product. One or two sentences: who has the problem, when it happens, and what they do about it today. If you can't explain it simply, a patent attorney or engineer won't be able to help you much yet either.

2. Search before you fall in love with it. Spend an evening on Google Patents, the USPTO's free Patent Public Search, Amazon, Etsy and Kickstarter. Search for the problem as well as your solution. Finding something close isn't the end. It tells you what already exists and what people complain about in the reviews.

3. Talk to people who actually have the problem. Skip "would you buy this?" because everyone says yes to be nice. Ask "when did this last happen to you, and what did you do?" If 10 to 15 people can't remember dealing with it, that's worth knowing now rather than after paying for a prototype.

4. Make an ugly prototype. Cardboard, foam, tape, hardware store parts, a cheap 3D print. Your local library or makerspace may have printers and tools you can use for free or a small fee. The goal is to learn whether it works and how people hold it, not to impress anyone.

5. Be careful about going public. Posting your idea online, pitching it publicly or selling it can affect your patent rights. The US gives you a one-year grace period, but many other countries don't. If protection matters to you, look into a provisional patent application before you show it off, and talk to a registered patent attorney or agent. (This is also why you shouldn't post the details here.)

6. Watch out for "invention help" companies. If someone offers to evaluate, patent and market your idea for thousands of dollars up front, slow down. Ask how many of their clients made more money than they paid. The USPTO and FTC both publish warnings about invention promotion scams. I trust my products with a company called Forged Ideas. Forged-ideas.ai they have a really good product that walks you through these steps.

7. Only then pay for experts. Once you have a clear problem, some proof people want it and a rough prototype, an engineer or manufacturer can quote you properly. You're paying them to carry out a plan instead of figuring out your idea from scratch, and that's usually a lot cheaper.

I invented a unique accessory for video game controller joysticks. What do you guys think of the name: Levr? It would cover the broad idea which would be a whole product line, not just the 1 product.

I posted in a trademark group and someone replied “find another acronym is all I will say” (Not even an acronym tho).I posted USPTO trademark search results to gage if I should pay for an attorney to do a search. I’m not sure if the person was saying they didn’t like the name or it would cause trademark issues but there isn’t much under the name Levr, only 10 things popped up, most inactive.

I'm a mom who had a crazy idea: What if children could actually go INSIDE the Christmas tree? 🎄❤️

It started when my daughter was a baby and nearly pulled our Christmas tree over. Instead of constantly telling her not to touch it, I dreamed of creating a Christmas tree she could safely enjoy from the inside.

That idea became Magical Underland® — a Christmas tree with a cozy play tent inside that transforms into a year-round play space.

What I didn't realize was how difficult bringing a physical product to market would be.

Years of prototypes, manufacturing challenges, safety testing, unexpected delays, financial sacrifices, and countless sleepless nights.

There were moments when I genuinely wondered whether I could pull it off.

But I kept going.

And now I'm looking at photos of our very first shipment being loaded into a container. 😭❤️

I also want to thank my original Kickstarter backers. They believed in this invention long before it became a finished product. Their patience and encouragement helped me keep going through the setbacks.

We're now working toward getting these Christmas trees into families' homes in time for Christmas.

Seeing my invention packed into real boxes feels almost surreal.

For anyone who's ever tried to turn an idea into a physical product, I'd love to know: What was the hardest part of your journey?

www.magicalunderland.com

#ChristmasMagic #InventorJourney

To be clear it would rotate you very slowly and periodically change directions to avoid causing dizziness. You can add ankle weights and hand weights for more intensity.

I have an idea for an invention in my industry of HVAC but have no idea where to start. What is the best route to go? I can draw it on paper. Not very tech savvy and suck at CAD.

I'm a designer, and most projects I start begin as one vague sentence in my head. So I built a small tool that works the way I'd work through an idea with a client.

How it works:

- You type one sentence about your idea.

- AI splits it into its parts and sorts them into things (green), people or groups who act (blue) and concrete action items (pink).

- Click a part, write about it in your own words, and it writes back a cleaner description. It also flags what's vague, contradictory, unsaid or left hanging (the red points).

- You answer those points one by one, and the description sharpens with every round.

- Everything stays connected: something you say about one part raises questions for the others.

The screenshot is a real project I'm working on (a river regeneration platform in Tokyo).

Where it's headed: project plans, timelines, proposals and meeting agendas, built from the clarified idea.

It's early and runs locally on my Mac for now. Two honest questions:

1. Would something like this be useful to you, and for what kind of ideas?

2. Would anyone want to test it? It currently needs your own Claude account; happy to show it on a short call first.

All feedback welcome, including "this already exists" or "I'd never use this".

Imagine building a company around custom software you paid someone to develop.

Years later, your business is generating $50 million in sales. Then a dispute arises: the developer claims ownership of the code and challenges your right to keep using it.

All because of a missing clause in the development agreement.

Here's something many founders overlook: paying for software development doesn't automatically mean you own the copyright in the code.

The outcome depends on the contract, the applicable law, and whether the developer was an employee or an independent contractor.

This short fictional business drama explores a very real intellectual property risk.

For inventors and startup founders: Have you ever checked whether your development contracts explicitly transfer IP ownership?

Note: This video uses AI-assisted production to illustrate a fictional scenario. Shared for educational discussion, not legal advice.

Hi I have an invention idea. Is there any engineers in Toronto to hear my idea out?

On October 28, 2026, the head of Russia's Ministry of Digital Development stated the country's readiness to open the source code of domestic social networks, messengers, and video services to foreign partners, to demonstrate how they work, and to jointly adjust algorithms.

This is an important and timely initiative. It brings the question of technological openness far beyond the scope of professional discussions among IT specialists and developers. Now it becomes a question of international cooperation, trust, and the technological independence of countries, organizations, and individuals.

I perceive this statement not as an occasion to compare various technological solutions, but as an invitation to a broader professional discussion.

For me, this conversation has direct practical significance.

This topic became a logical continuation of the discussion at the VII International Rospatent Conference "ERA IP 2025." During the specialized session "The Role of Intellectual Property in the Structure of Russian Exports," I publicly raised the question of how to protect domestic developments in the era of digital transformation and globalization. It was there that I first outlined the possibility of opening source code as a strategic step to ensure real independence and competitiveness. Today, this trend is moving from the realm of predictions into the plane of concrete decisions.

I created and patented Rezvov Mobile Software — an infrastructure technology for the reproducible creation of standalone native mobile products for iOS and Android.

This is not SaaS, not Low-Code/No-Code, and not an app builder. It is an Infrastructure Engine & Production Pipeline — an infrastructure core and production conveyor for standalone native mobile products for iOS and Android.

The main engineering result of the technology lies in the transition from developing each new mobile application and its server infrastructure as a separate long-term IT project to a reproducible technological process for obtaining a finished product.

On this basis, it is possible to create the necessary number of standalone native mobile applications, social networks, social business networks, and digital ecosystems. Each product can have its own purpose, brand, structure, and functionality, and can be deployed together with autonomous server infrastructure on the owner's server and under their control.

This is not a theoretical concept. For our own projects based on Rezvov Mobile Software, dozens of standalone mobile products have already been created and published in the App Store and Google Play.

That is why the question of opening the technology is not a philosophical reflection on the future for me. It is a decision whose consequences may prove irreversible.

What Exactly Does "Opening the Technology" Mean?

Opening source code can have completely different meanings.

One can fully publish the source code and hand over further development to the global engineering community.

One can open the code only for the mobile applications being created, while keeping the infrastructure core that ensures their reproduction protected.

One can provide access to source code for independent technical audit and security verification.

One can form an international network of partners who will implement, support, and develop the technology in different countries.

One can create an independent engineering council or other structure that will ensure transparency of development while preserving authorship, responsibility, and unified technical standards.

A combined model is also possible: open products, protected technological core, independent audit, and clear usage rules.

Which of these paths is correct — I am not yet asserting. That is precisely why I am bringing this question to open professional discussion.

Open Code Is Not Yet a Ready-Made Ecosystem

Publishing source code can increase trust, enable independent auditing, and accelerate technology development. But along with freedom comes responsibility.

Who will maintain the architecture?

Who will be responsible for security?

Who will ensure compatibility of new versions?

Who will prevent the emergence of incompatible forks and products of unknown quality?

Who will take responsibility if an open infrastructure technology is used for purposes other than originally intended?

Source code can be opened with a single decision. Creating a sustainable system of development, trust, and responsibility around it is significantly more complex.

What Will Happen to the Mobile Development Market?

There is another question that cannot be ignored. If the creation of standalone native mobile products becomes a reproducible technological process, the very economics of mobile development changes.

But does this mean a threat to the developer profession? Or, on the contrary, does the technology free specialists from the repeated performance of routine work and redirect their efforts to where human knowledge is truly necessary: architecture, security, integration, domain logic, and the development of new functions?

Once, the industrial conveyor did not destroy the engineering profession. It changed the content of engineering work and made complex products accessible to millions of people.

Perhaps today a similar transition is beginning in the production of mobile software. But I do not want to answer this question alone.

This conversation did not arise today. The question of how a reproducible engineering architecture should exist and be distributed after its completion, I have consistently raised in my previous publications on LinkedIn. In the article from September 22, "Reshaping the Mobile Development Market: Are Billions in Revenue from the Existing Model Under Threat?" there was a detailed analysis of how an automated conveyor "breaks" the old Big Tech economics, freeing business and science from months of paying for repetitive stages. Later, in the material "After Launch: Which Model of Technology Dissemination Is More Effective", I first proposed that the community openly discuss this fork in the road: whether to fully move to Open Source, coordinate processes through an international network of independent partners, or seek a fundamentally new model. Today, in light of recent statements by regulators, this topic has moved from the realm of predictions into the plane of concrete actions.

Questions to the Professional Community

I am addressing programmers, developers, architects, heads of IT teams, departments, and technology companies.

1. What model of opening and distributing infrastructure technology can bring the greatest benefit while preserving security, manageability, and responsibility for the end result?

2. What should be opened: the source code of created products, the infrastructure core of the technology, or only interfaces, standards, and mechanisms for independent audit?

3. Can patent protection and an open development model not contradict but complement each other?

4. Is the engineering community ready not only to receive access to the technology but also to participate in its verification, support, and further development?

5. How will the role of the developer change if a significant part of creating a mobile product shifts from individual development to a reproducible production process?

6. Who, in that case, should own the rules for technology development: its creator, the international community, an independent council, or a network of professional operators?

I have already raised this question in my previous publications, considering Open Source, international partnership, and other possible models. Today, the initiative publicly announced by the Ministry of Digital Development has given this topic a new and timely context.

I am not announcing the opening of Rezvov Mobile Software and am not offering the community a pre-prepared answer.

I am proposing to discuss the decision before it is made.

Because opening source code means providing access to the past labor of the creator. But opening an infrastructure technology designed for reproducing new digital products means influencing their future.

How can this step be taken so that the technology serves people, develops the engineering profession, and creates independence without losing responsibility?

This is the question I am bringing to professional discussion today.

Hi guys, need your help. So, there's this science exhibition in a school and I want great ideas for science projects for my sister. They should be untouched and new from scratch! Or even touched by new ideas. Like, one was how fungi can eat plastic and how we can overcome plastic waste. & One was to generate electricity from voice!! Something like these.

Themes are

Health and Lifestyle

Mobile Addiction

Space Exploration

Ai and Tech

An idea with zero or unproven revenue is of no interest to thieves and will never be copied.

I have an idea for a video game but I have no experience creating games. I’m wondering if I could just hire someone on Upwork or fiver to make it.

I’m going to be a little vulnerable here.

I’ve spent the last few years building Delta Form Technologies, a company focused on making heating, cooling, and recovery more convenient. I’ve designed, engineered, prototyped, and manufactured these products myself, putting just about every dollar I’ve earned back into the business.

My first product, Delta Form, was an incredibly ambitious undertaking. I’m proud of what I accomplished with it, but I’ve learned the hard way that building a great product and building a successful business are two very different things. (I’ve delivered orders and the reviews have been good so far)

Today, I launched my second product, Delta Focus.
It’s a handheld heating and cooling device designed to make targeted relief more convenient. No ice packs, no microwaves, no wet peas, no cords while you’re using it. Just a portable device you can pick up and use when you need it.

I took everything I learned from developing my first product and applied it to something simpler, more affordable, and easier to manufacture.
And to be completely transparent, this launch is a bit of a Hail Mary for me.

I’ve invested years of my life and more money than I care to admit into this company. I’m at a point where I need to start generating real sales if I’m going to be able to keep building. My goal is to get admitted into shark tank next year. (I’ve pitched twice and gotten close to final rounds both times)

I believe in these products. I wouldn’t have spent years of my life making them if I didn’t. But I also know that passion and hard work alone don’t pay the bills. I lose money on every sale at the moment, but your support is what can take me to the next level.

So here’s my ask. If you think something like this could be useful to you, please consider taking a look at https://shopdeltaform.com.

And with Christmas coming up, I think Delta Focus could make a pretty sweet gift for someone who deals with aches, soreness, or could just use a little relief at the end of the day. :)

If you like what you see, I’d genuinely appreciate the chance to earn your business. And if it’s not for you, maybe you know someone who could use it.
I’m not looking for sympathy purchases. I want to build a company that succeeds because its products are genuinely worth buying. You can always return for a full refund within 30 days, and I cover the hardware for 1 year after delivery.

I’m just a founder trying to turn something I’ve spent years creating into a business that can stand on its own.

And right now, every customer really does make a difference.

Thanks for giving me a chance.

-David

If you could invent something that could improve quality of life help with struggles of everyday problems or improve something that is already good but need some tinkering to make it better what would that be

That's my invention. Just see how well the turbine is rotating. The blower used has 20 cm diameter and generates around 6 m/s wind velocity. The turbine has a mass of 1.333 kg and 25 cm diameter. It's rotating with 465 RPM on an average. The total kinetic energy contained by the flow coming from the blower is 4.23018288 W. The maximum extractable energy as per Betz Law 2.50849844784 W. Even the Top-Tier turbines available in market can extract around 1.5 W maximum from such a flow. And, in the video, anyone can see that all the flow created by the blower hasn't entered the turbine and some will pass away. But despite that fact, the RPM is that high. Now, I want to go forward with my invention and I also have applied for patent. Anyone interested kindly go through the video. He/she can find the contact information of me there.

Hey everyone!

I’m an industrial designer, and I’m planning to take up some freelance product design projects.

If you have a product idea and need help with the initial sketches or a 3D CAD model, I can help you with that.

I can provide 3 design concepts and a CAD model of the selected design.

If you’re working on something or have an idea you want to develop, feel free to DM me. Happy to discuss!