The Obsessed Inventor of the Paper Computer 256
One of our favorite Great American Myths is that of the lone inventor toiling in his garage or basement to produce a product that will revolutionize society. More often than not, in both the myth and real life, the inventor dies penniless and unrecognized, his invention either cast on the trash heap of history or adopted in a slightly mutated form by a Big Corporation that doesn't pay him a cent for his years of self-financed labor. But a few inventors - just enough to hold out hope for all the rest - strike it big and provide inspiration for all who follow.
Jim Willard hasn't struck it big. He may yet, but there's no telling. His idea was originally an outgrowth of the defense wind-down after the Soviet Union gave up on the Cold War, when defense contractors like the large systems integration company Jim ran during the glory years of DoD spending started looking for ways to make a living in the civilian world. There was no public Internet back then, but there were plenty of computers that required large amounts of remote data input, and this was the market Jim lit upon.
Imagine a census form made up of several glued-together layers of paper with simple keyboard-patterned membrane switches printed in between the layers, and a tiny, triggerable RF transmitter built into it. People would fill out the multiple-choice forms by pressing printed "keys," hit an "enter button" when they were done, and mail the thing to the Census Bureau, where the forms could be automatically read, via the RF interface, without even opening the envelopes. If - and Jim believes this goal is easily achievable - the cost of the "paper computer" forms can be held below $5 or so, the total cost of printing, mailing, and processing them would be much less than it is for traditional, non-electronic census forms.
Jim also found another lucrative-looking market for his product-in-the-making: polling places. He'd already done a study of a voting machine's life. "It sits in a warehouse for two years," he says, "then some grandmother is going to set it up and run it for one day. It's got to be easy for her to use, and its a true mission-critical application. It turned out cheapest to build a stripped-down PC, send it to the polling location, then throw it away after election day and buy a new one the next time around."
And having only one stripped-down PC per polling place, instead of one at each voting station - with paper computers used as the actual ballots - would lower the cost even further.
During the course of his study, Jim found that absentee ballots were even more expensive to process than those cast in person; in 1991 and 1992, he says, Fairfax County, Virginia, spent about $16 per absentee vote cast, and he figured he could easily get it down to the sub-$5 range using his paper computer technology. But no contract was ever signed and no functional test was ever made. Instead, Jim spent his time and personal resources in a years-long search for venture capital that he continues, still fruitlessly, today.
Fairly or unfairly, Jim blames most of his failure to make something big out of the paper computer concept on the flakiness of the venture capital business. "They won't even look at something unless it's presented by friends," he says, "and even then, if it's not something that immediately jazzes them, uh-uh."
Worse, he claims, venture capitalists live and die by industry fads. "One week they're doing nothing but biochem, the next week they're all doing dot coms," he says. "Paper computing is not a 'sexy' project, just a good market, so they're not interested."
The Thinnest Thin Client Ever
Here's the most recent incarnation of Jim's basic concept: a super-cheap piece of multi-layered paper with a flexible light-emitting polymer screen, a low-end dedicated processor, a stripped-down modem, and membrane switches built into it. You could use this technology to make a Web terminal so cheap that you could send it as a direct mail piece. Plug it into a phone line and it would automatically dial the company that sent it out, call up catalog info, and let you place orders. Computer knowledge (and investment) required by the user would be exactly zero. Jim engagingly paints the mental picture of a poster for Victoria's Secret from which you could directly order the products it displayed, literally making the poster into a point of sale terminal that would both make a sales pitch and "close" the sale, all on the spot, for next to nothing in the way of either cash investment or floor space.
Beef up the concept a little, add a decent general-purpose microprocessor and a bit of RAM, and Voila! - an electronic PDA that costs less than one of the binder-enclosed, paper-based "Executive Organizers" you see in office supply stores.
You'd think Oracle, with all of its talk about networked "thin client" computers, or Sun, where the network is (supposed to be) the computer, would be all over Jim. He says this isn't going to happen; that these companies "...have divisions that have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in current technology. I walk in to see the heads of these companies' thin client divisions and tell them they can close the doors, that everything they're doing is obsolete, they're going to laugh. Why would they want to put themselves out of work?"
In this story published on November 11, 1999, CNET News.com reporter Brooke Crothers quoted Jim extensively, but also mentioned research done by IBM that may lead to ultra-thin computing devices similar to his. Does this mean Jim is dead in the water? That he should give up hope the way so many small software developers have given up on projects once they found Microsoft had something similar in the works?
Jim has invested years in a concept that, if handled right, could change the way computing is done and Internet connections are made, and could change the way remote data gathering is done by governments, retailers, and many others. But Jim is running low on stamina - and is out of money. The comment about his old Nissan pickup needing new brake rotors he can't afford isn't a joke; it's a sad fact. This slow descent into poverty, followed by a life of bitterness and regret, is the fate of most independent inventors. Will it be Jim's? Or will he be one of the few who manages to turn a profit (and receive at least a little acclaim) from his work?
Here, for your review, is Jim's Paper Computer Corporation Web site. Take a look at it. Then let Jim know what you think, either by e-mail or, better yet, by posting a comment here on Slashdot. Jim will be reading what you have to say and taking it to heart. If he has time, he may even jump in and respond directly to your comments.
other applications ..... (Score:1)
There's a really good joke here, somewhere ..... (Score:1)
the voting machine issue (Score:5)
Side note: our software runs on Windows via IIS but some large, knowledgeable clients have requested a version for Linux. The reasons: stability of NT, which they don't trust for the above reasons. We're a mostly Linux shop so getting away from the IIS crap is our goal.
What???? (Score:4)
My heart aches bud (Score:1)
Rain on the parade (Score:2)
A depressing story... (Score:3)
Not because it's someone going broke - because it's true.
I personally have experienced similar. I have a *killer* business plan. A company that could turn first operating quarter profit without difficulty - minimum overhead, maximum ROI (return on investment). Brought it to three or four different VC's, and they all said 'we're not interested.'
This idea is really a *great* idea! It would be so simple to make it nearly forgery proof, it would make processing easier, everything about it is beneficial in some way! It's the perfect solution to hundreds of problems. But it would put people out of jobs possibly, and it's not a, as it was put, sexy project.
To put it bluntly, that's bullshit. So what if it's not sexy? It's profitable and good ROI and financial (EPS, etc) is FAR more important than marketing and such.
Maybe we should take up a fund to help Jim start this business. Jim, if you're reading this, please email me - I'd like to help any way I can.
We need to help the *real* innovators in the computer world, like Jim, instead of listening to these marketing people telling us what innovation is. Like I said, I've been down this road before, and I wish anyone going down it the best of luck. Take care, and have a merry (insert celebrated holiday here).
-RISCy Business
How Can You Have a "Paper Computer" (Score:1)
The thing that bothers me most about computerized elections is that they're almost always closed source. I don't think that the public officials who approve and certify them are qualified enough to tell what's going on. How do they know that there are no backdoors in the software, or ways for the company that makes them to change theoutcome of an election?
Sounds like there's a otential for massive vote fraud...
Patent (Score:4)
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
Cool Idea (Score:1)
Dive Gear [divingdeals.com]
The future of spam? (Score:2)
You can bet that marketing is the #1 target audience here, and that if it ever gets funded that's who'll do it.
I hope he has a Patent on this (Score:2)
This is one of those thing that would truely deserve a patent. It sound like an idea that has has a place and a use.
Has a proto type ever been built?
potential (Score:2)
Potential Investors? (Score:1)
Gotta drop the name... (Score:2)
Seriously, though.. I remember reading a wired article a few years ago about e-books, and I remember thinking "well.. if you can do the e-books thing, you might as well make them touch-sensitive". So more power to you, Jim, I'd love to see what can be done with this technology, and if I had any money, I'd become a VC and fund you..
//Phizzy
A joke. (Score:3)
---
Re:first (Score:1)
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
Re:I hope he has a Patent on this (Score:3)
According to his website he already holds 2 patents on the device and concept. And it looks reasonably sound. Just a touch circuit board more or less, a small processor to translate the signal into something meaningful, and a bank of thin RAM to store the info in. I would suggest using laminated paper or some sort of cheap plastic sheet to avoid the affects of weather. But that would still only raise the cost by a dollar or two at most, might even lower it... The concept is sound, the implementation looks simply enough, and I think it would kick ass.
Kintanon
OPEN SOURCE INVENTOR (Score:2)
i can relate to this guy. you probably didn't notice, but i'm a bit obsessed with my copyrighted undistributable open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore project. not as bad as this poor slob, but i do spend practically every waking moment at least thinking about the project.
sure, i lost my wife. sure, my cats hiss at me when i walk in the door. sure, my mother breaks down screaming, "you cannot be my son! my son is dead!" whenever i call.
and yeah, i'm a bit pale from lack of sunlight. yeah, i spend every friday night watching my natalie portman and drew barrymore film collection. yeah, i dressed up like queen amidala on halloween.
none of it matters. not even the sleepless nights, the malnourished body nor the rotting teeth matter. because when it's done... the rewards will indeed be handsome. for all of us.
thank you.
Greeting cards (Score:5)
Re:Patent (Score:2)
[a] paper is flexible and easily destroyed. You can plastic laminate it but you can guarantee dat integrity and certification.
[b] Its already been done partially - if you open up a new model casio calculator you will find the all in one integrated circuit with membrane keyboard and chip in one big plastic rectangle which fits below the plastic and metal case -- most of the case is filled with air.
Its trivial to move it to the next step but consumers will feel ripped off -- i mean who would pay 40 bucks for a piece of light partially transparent plastic with a small blob of silicon stuck inside ?
not red hat (Score:1)
Good ideas..... (Score:1)
Re:the voting machine issue (Score:2)
Web site... (Score:2)
Well, one thing they could do would be to de-uglify theit web site. A "best viewed in IE" banner? A photo of the corporate HQ on the front page? A framed layout where I have to scroll to the right to read the content? And, good lord, is that a BLINK tag?? It does not exactly inspire faith in the company.
As for the idea itself...none of the scenarios discussed (other than the creation of more annoying marketing drivel) really call for a paper or disposable computer, they call for better computer-readable data entry. Why have a $5 paper "computer" broadcast its data to a reader when you can have a 1-cent "fill-in-the-bubbles-with-a-number-2-pencil" form scanned by a reader?
Re:How Can You Have a "Paper Computer" (Score:3)
You don't need a lot of smarts in a computer that really is just 3 sheets of paper with some circuitry in the middle that has a button for 'pay my phone bill' and an rf transmitter to bleep off the answer.
Battery life doesn't matter because its a one-shot item, hence its throwaway nature and materials.
I wouldn't expect one to have much of a life expectancy OTOH, and there are just too many issues with most potential applications of the system. If the RF broadcast missed or the post office creases the 'computer', the fact that its hard to get output to report a malfunction and you'd need a receiver in order to check to make sure your broadcast got through to be really safe for most applications and the fact that quickie contact keys like the ones described are prone to stick.
The question is, given that you aren't going to be able to put much processing power at all in the 'computer', is there enough that you CAN put in to make it worth the manufacturing cost for any real world application?
It is refreshing to see a legitimate patent application (or two) for a change though.
Not the proper application? (Score:4)
With the advent of the web, and now in recent times, the Free PC (really just a monthly installment - $400 PC with a $400 MSN rebate in trade for $20/mo worth of service), which placing the home computer in reach of everyone everywhere, I don't see any advantage in the voting or advertising arenas, which the article focuses heavily on.
A voting system could easily be implemented on a $400 PC. I'll assume that more than 100 people would vote per station, which is a pretty reasonable assumption... Even if the paper computer was able to hit the sub-$5 range that they want to target, the PC would still be more economical.
As for advertising, a mass-production of CD-ROMs is much less expensive than $5 per for the papercomputer. Their example company (Victoria's Secret) could easily put a nice catalog, even include multimedia if they wanted, and make an easy-to-use interface to order their product on the Internet. Once again, much more economical.
So, anyway, my conclusion is that this is a very neat invention... But I think he's targetting the wrong market.
A giant step..... sideways (Score:2)
We should be looking to get rid of single use stuff, not spread the use of it.
The only thing I can think of that is as silly is the Fax machine. Send a mammouth bitmap to a piece of paper when in fact you could send 1K of ASCII test in the form of an email and convey the same information.
Re:Cool Idea (Score:1)
A worthy project (Score:1)
If I had the money I would definately invest in this. At the very least it would save my company money on the expense of sending out a lot of expensive paper catalogues and it would let me reach a broader market than just a web only catalogue.
If you can at all do so keep up the good work Jim, and here's to hoping you'll get some capital very soon.
Re:What???? (Score:3)
It makes me sick to be called an American! I dont't throw anything away unless it is completely and utterly useless.
My first computer is still running beside me... A 386. I've never thrown away a good computer part.
Re:first (Score:1)
A big "but" (Score:4)
I think Jim has *part* of a great idea.
Here's the "but."
I am also an environmentalist. I think that small devices should not be disposable.
Imagine how much it would cost to recycle one of these for raw materials or a different application.
Imagine getting a mailing with a reply card using this technology. It is set up specifically for that mailing. To recycle it, for a different mailing would be a real pain, especially if the second mailing requires more buttons, etc.
How about consumer packaging? To recycle that milk carton is all of a sudden not so simple anymore. It's more expensive. If it's too expensive, it'll be thrown out because it'll affect a company's bottom line. It'll just add to the ridiculous amount of garbage that the US has been trying to export to other countries. New York tried to set up a deal to ship garbage here in Newfoundland a few years back. They wanted us to be their landfill... again (the US navy used to have a base here, they left tons of contaminated waste and then refused to clean it up when the base closed).
Unless he can guarantee that this technology is truly reusable/recyclable, and guarantee that users of the technology will reuse/recycle it (ie. easy to do), most companies won't want to touch it.
Re:the voting machine issue (Score:1)
He needs to contact e-ink (Score:2)
They are the electronic ink guys, i.e. "paper" that can display like a screen based on using electrically sensitive chemicals as "ink." Similar concept to an LCD screen, except you can do it on paper.
This would simply be the most perfect strategic partner for him, especially as they are already in contact withthe kinds of money that would be interested in his project.
- The Count
Re:How Can You Have a "Paper Computer" (Score:1)
I read the posts, and I've read about computerized elections. This has nothing to do with alladvantage. When people disagree with me, or if they're assholes, or just plain having a bad day, the often criticize the sig.
Federal Guidelines (Score:1)
Re:How Can You Have a "Paper Computer" (Score:1)
it seems to be more like a flexible integrated circuit, however. check this thing on their site. [papercomputer.com].
Overclock (Score:2)
Fortune favors the bold. (Score:1)
Re:Greeting cards (Score:1)
Seems like this would be a good idea for Certified Mail or "recipe sharing clubs" and the like... but it must be cheap.
Re:Federal Guidelines (Score:3)
The code has to be reviewed, as well. The guidelines state that each source file must contain a certain level of information about the file. The end result is, you end up with comments that look like
int counter;
which is making everyone where freak out.
It bears repeating... (Score:3)
In the case of voting, the environmentally friendly solution would be to have LAN's running ballots with encrypted data packets.
Paper computers are a step backwards, in the wrong direction. It's fortunate that nobody has been naive or short-sighted enough to financially support this scheme.
True environmentalists aren't worried about saving the trees, or the whales, or the planet... They're worried about preserving the future of the human race.
Re:Patent (Score:1)
Does he have technology, or just an idea? (Score:1)
If so, he is the leech in this situation. Waiting for IBM to develop the technology, then swooping in with his patent to say "this is my idea".
I have ideas for antigravity devices, faster than light travel, fusion reactors, and Holodeck porn. I'm gonna run out and patent all of these.
Re:first (Score:1)
www.alladvantage.com Sign up under EBS-939
www.utopiad.com Sign up under Valis
So there!
Kintanon
I will design your site (Score:2)
I also believe his idea has a lot of merit.
Unfortunately, I do not have the money to invest in the project, but I can contribute something. I am a web page/kiosk designer, and, if Jim is interested, will volunteer to redesign his webpage for free. The page and content won't require much complexity, so it's something I can complete in my offtime without any serious loss of hours.
Jim, if you are reading this, feel free to email me and we can talk about giving your site more of a professional look.
Good luck!
Chris
chrisa@flummox.com
___________________________
How about real smartpaper? (Score:1)
- Static text - just print it
- Text input - a sticky matrix with hair-thin wires held apart by a very thin layer of insulating gel. Write on top of it with a pen and wires stick together. With enough wires you should be able to read off pixels quite easily at a speed considerably faster than optical scanning.
- Connectivity can be provided by a simple computer port. Plug it into a USB port and put a small serial controller chip on the paper. The chip can be made small as a speck of dust with current tech, then draw lines with conducting foil for edge contacts and have a clipboard-like contraption to hold the paper to the port adapter.
Mass production is, of course, possible. You could just make the entire paper one large wire grid with bus lines on the edges. The chip could be built using a separate assembly on a silicon platform and soldered in at the last moment. There would be some problems with gel stiffnes, to ensure that only a pen or something sharp like it would penetrate it, but this certainly is not insurmountable.So what do you think?
Cardboard keyboards (Score:2)
But it didn't come with the keyboards; so they made keyboards themselves. Take three computer punch-cards, cut holes in the middle one, in exactly the fashion outlined on Jim's site, place aluminium foil "row" strips between the first and second card, and "column" strips between the second and third. Draw "keys" on the first card. Voila! Instant keyboard.
As the keyboard got older, it would get harder to use, and you'd have to bash the keys with a pen, and eventually throw it away and build a new one.
Re:A giant step..... sideways (Score:1)
It isn't that silly. A bitmap, which is compressed before transmission, can transport text, layout and graphics in a standardized format. A fax can also transport copies of existing paper documents. If I want to send someone a copy of a design document or technical paper, including tables, equations and graphics, a fax machine will get the job done with a minimum of fuss.
Bad Idea - voteing (Score:2)
idea and would be firmly against it. In fact...
it apears that it would even more firmly kill the
idea of write in campaigns.
For voting reform I like the libertarians ideas
much better (of course...I would much prefer to
dissolve government alltogether but...for now
its the realistic evil)
They wish to END offically aproved ballots
alltogether. This is because it means state
aproval of who we can vote for. In reality MOST
voters will never look past the offically
sanctioned candidates, thus snubbing out any
candidates who arn't able to win those
all imortant ballot lines.
They call for an end to standardized ballots.
Allow peopl eto vote with pre-printed cards that
are printed up by their candidate...or they
make themselves. (they also call for an "None
of the Above" vote which - if it wins- would cause
the post to go vacant for that term)
I think the problem is not that these paper
computers are a bad idea (which they are. we have
enough disposable products around) but that
saving money should not be the goal of an election
process. Just because its easier, doesn't mean
its better.
Yes, more than you think (Score:1)
Re:Not the proper application? (Score:1)
What about the money being spent on the infrastructure to support the deployment, inventory, storage and purchase of said $400 PCs.
Perhaps another suggestion for Jim, assuming it is not in the business plan. How about some actual projections of money spent on equipment and infrastructure to fund a city election and compare that to using PaperPCs to save money.
Websites make or break initial attitude toward a company. Better graphics and more information (prototype tests/pictures, cost projection/comparisson) can help tremendously.
Don't forget the adage, CYA (cover your ass)
Joe
jrm_mn@hotmail.com
Generic Version (Score:2)
A blank page with a generic grid of switches (you don't have to enable or label them all), basic display and a small tab (or holes) from the middle sheet with contacts to interface with a desktop computer (think Palm cradle). Use PROM for the memory so that a desktop program could design and burn in the software for the application, then send the sheet through a spitjet printer for the graphics. If it catches on, you could get printer manufactures to include the PROM burner in the printer. Need to do a survey? Just pop down to Office Despot and buy a ream of PpC, design your form, then click print and burn. Use of the PROM would allow each PpC to be customized as easy as doing a mail-merge. This would also give geeks a VERY cheap Pic type toy to play with.
Other ideas involving the RF interface include security access badges that also require a password (think HUD door scanners).
I do wonder about the phone connections though; the FCC requires some rather bulky (in this vein) surge protection. I'm not sure how carbon strips on paper will handle the 600 ohms needed to grab a dialtone. I'd like to hear Jim's ideas on this.
If the home/office printer idea takes off, we could then create 'letters' that have built-in public key protection.
I better stop now, I'm starting to think of PpC - Lego Mindstorm interfaces.
Bad idea (Score:1)
the Internet?
It's no accident that many (if not all) of his specific ideas have been done or considered on the net:
census
voting
direct mail
ad plus order-taking (You can go see that Victoria's Secret poster on the web right now, and place the order, too.)
And of course, the internet has even lower costs (by orders of magnitude) than his disposable e-paper. The only advantages he has are authentication: one could mark the paper forms with some unique watermark or holograph or whatever (but ultimately, paper docs are forgeable, too); and market size: not everyone has the internet (yet).
Now, if he had thought of this before the internet...
Re:A joke x2 (Score:2)
I think I know what happened here (Score:3)
Re:A giant step..... sideways (Score:1)
I know plenty of people in the work environment that print their emails out and have tons of paper strewn all over their cube. (I don't..)
Regardless of how UP on technology we are, we have to remember the MILLIONS of people that are don't even own a computer or have access to email. This is not just something that can be used in the U.S.
To get away from silly Faxes and get onto email...it has to be as commonplace as the telephone (if not more so). Computers are not their yet, but are quickly getting there. I don't know what the PC penetration data is as of late but the last time I saw PCMagazine do a report...just over 60% of homes had a PC (and this is the U.S. let alone other countries).
Joe
jrm_mn@hotmail.com
Pluggable Books (Score:1)
If you had two parts to this idea of viewing any assortment of books, magazines, newspapers, or even photo albums, one being a client, which could take the shape of anything from a classic novel to a small pocket guide. You simply take this reusable client, and any time you wanted to read a new book, you just buy a card that had the book's text and illustrations stored in it, as well as a possible number to call and list of links that your client could access. Then you just plug the book into a slot in the client, much like a game boy plugs in new games.
And the client itself could be much more useful than static books. You could have an automatic touch-sensitive table of contents or scalable fonts, and much smaller and thinner than paper volumes would be.
And the expansion would be limitless- You could plug in today's headlines, an R.A. Salavatore book, or the lates issue of Time. Then just throw the card into a drawer for later, or away if you don't really plan on reading it again.
- WrexSoul
\/.
vvv
engineering is full of depressing stories (Score:1)
perhaps you should read what's written (Score:1)
secondly, in having to do with census, it's the definition of recycling... people enter their info and send the thing back to the census dept., which in turn reads the info, clears the computer and sends the thing to the next person on the list. lather, rinse and repeat until the thing doesn't work anymore.
thirdly, no, LANs used for voting would be much worse than paper voting... paper turns to dirt within a year or so and grows again as a new tree (hence the name 'renewable resource'), it's been a while since I've seen a computer do that.
fourthly, if you're soo worried, most of the device could be made using biodegradable plastic... the only parts that'd last more than a few years in a landfill would be a few wires and a couple pieces of silicon.
"It's fortunate that nobody has been naive or short-sighted enough to financially support this scheme."
Actually I think that most slashdotters hold the opinion that it's unfortunate that VC firms are so naive or short-sighted to not support the idea.
and lastly, you needn't space your comments so much.
-----
Yeah right (Score:1)
a neat idea, but...(markets!) (Score:3)
It's a neat idea, but perhaps not a good idea. Instead of bemoaning the sad fate of all genius inventors, think of why an idea like this hasn't been produced. I can think of several reasons:
-ruggedness. How much of anything can a paper computer withstand?
-Use. If your target market has capable PCs sitting on their desks, why would you send them a cheap single-function computer that would look chintzy compared to what they already use (color monitor, full size keyboard, etc, etc). for other applications, what kind of interface is possible with a paper computer? If you have to retrain everyone and take lots of support calls everytime a new one is released, there go your savings.
-Quality. Do paper computers work consistantly? Are many defective and, if so, to what extent? Even more important, with the way that we view computing devices do they look and feel reliable to the target audience?
-Advantage. What purposes can these paper computers fulfill that other computers can't or that can be done much more efficiently than existing computers. Voting ballots might be nice, but, when everything is considered, I'd imagine paper computer ballots would cost about the same as traditional voting methods, if not more. Also, don't forget transition costs!
To be compelling, a new product has to be significantly better than what is already installed. Nobody would by a fax machine that was 2% faster; probably not even 20% faster. Only at 100% or 150%, I'd imagine, would a new generation of machines be likely to sell.
My point is that plenty of capital exists in the market for funding companies and bringing ideas to fruition. However, that money is guarded (usually), by people who consider these things, who think about their return on investment. It may seem like something is a great idea, a leap forward in technology. Well, technology doesn't matter for it's own sake, only for what can be done with it, which translates roughly into sales. I think a paper computer is a neat idea, but there aren't too many things, well any, that I could with one that I couldn't do nearly as efficiently, if not more efficiently, with existing, already purchased and installed technology.
Venture capitalists are in the business of making money. If an idea, no matter how great, won't do that, they will be uninterested. Looking at it from the economic perspective, though, products lose money when either there isn't enough demand for them or the technology for producing them is prohibitively expensive. In other words, even as they look at their own bank-accounts, the VCs are also acting as a proxy for consumer valuations. Knowing several people who have set up a few VC funds, I can tell you that if they only looked towards their friends for ideas, they would have been out of business very quickly. First an foremost, VCs are economic actors and will leap at ideas which they believe have promise. For proof of this, take a look at the past couple hundred IPOs on NASDAQ. 'nuff said.
--Andrew Grossman
Ummm... isn't that a little simplistic? (Score:1)
Jim sounds like he's done the research and is vanguarding the idea, but to think he should get something is simplistic and in the end may be part of Jim's problem...
Does he have a prototype? Does he have a manufacturing plan? Does he know who will buy it? Can he produce them now? Or is he still missing critical technologies?
If you even break down the concept completely you'll see how stupid it is... A paper computer... That's like a plastic car...
You can use ocmposites and near magical engineering but it's going to be no more a paper computer than you're going to have a plastic car... The engineering is too complex...
You could market it as a "paper computer" in that you engineered it to be like paper and thats how you want people to think of it... But the true device will need either 2-3 years of hard R&D to make it work *OR* when the technologies have been discovered and the right mix of time, resources, and people come together it will happen...
Or it won't... If Jim really wants to make it happen I'd recommend making the prototype and researching a viable manufacturing path... Then find a high cost, high profile application first...(Based on the 5 minute scan of his page I can't tell how far along he is or what the potential difficulties are with his manufacturing procedure and design..)
Business cards... Greeting Cards... Legally protect as much ownership of the idea as he can and then go forward... If he only sells 5 a year he will have proven it can be done and then funding would be easier...
Realistically there is no way Jim will get 100% control or revenue from his idea... But if works on it in the right way he may get a good 20-30% if it takes off...
But going after government ballot boxes when the technology is not even realized or produce-able is... nonviable... Anyone who thinks government is the place to try new technologies... is... well..
Going to have a tough time of it...
The proving ground is the caveat emptor marketplace... Take a lesson from Jobs and Wozniak.. Make the prototype and try the best you can... If the time is ready it will take off... In the meantime you've proven that you can make it, and legally you've done all you can to show it's yours... Then you just have to make a deal that it's in a company's best financial interest to work with you than to R&D it on their own...
All else fails you sue them for all their worth...
But if you going to just complain that after 10 years no one handed you an R&D budget because you aren't a friend... Well.. that makes sense actually.. Perhaps via this article or the internet you can find someone.. Maybe a college to work with you on a manufacturing plan and prototype... That will go farther...
I'd die to see how far he's gotten and where he's getting stucked... But from all the articles ten years looks pretty silly to be honest... Was their nothing of his research that produce a viable product? Perhaps a paper thin novelty watch/address book?
I'm done now...
Oh one more thing...
www.wearlogic.com
I wish I had more sympathy for the guy. (Score:3)
Let's face it. The definition of insanity is to go about the same problem the same way, expecting different results.
It's very well known that companies in rich countries tend to have a Not Invented Here attitude. Approaching said companies for something like this is, well, stupid and (frankly) insane.
A British guy, who invented a clockwork radio, realised this, very quickly. As the idea was aimed at African countries, he took it straight to the prospective customer. Africa. His idea sold, almost immediately, and he's now a millionaire.
Instead of selling the paper computer to companies, who have no need of them or interest in them, this guy should be talking to the people who WOULD want something like this. Joe and Jane Shmuck.
Why would they care about a paper computer? Picture this. Ever tried to keep track of a shopping list, a to-do list, the cash you've got free, the best prices for goods, etc? It takes a lot of paper, after a while. On the other hand, all this is just numbers. Just punch them into a paper computer. How to get output? The display off an old-style pocket calculator would be more than adequate and very cheap to make, and if you make it detatchable, it wouldn't need to be disposed of or even on the computer at all times.
Alternative use: Let's say you're looking for some specific DIY parts. Tap them into the computer, and go shopping. Type in the bar code, and have an LED on the front which lights up if it's what you want.
Once you've started getting into the domestic market, like this, the "big players" become almost an irrelevency. It might sound a bit like "Field of Dreams", but if you make it, the customers will come. A brand logo means a lot, in the field it's for, but outside of that, it's just some ink in some squiggles. Your name means as much as IBM's, in Home Economics, Modern Art or Paper Computers. But if -YOU- are selling them, rather than IBM, it's -YOU- who'll make the name and have the money.
Re:It bears repeating... (Score:1)
I am more concerned about the pollution and energy use involved in the manufacture of tens or hundreds of millions of embedded chips or personal computers that have a limited life due to technological obsolescence.
Considering the amount of junk mail and packaging material that is generated every day, a paper ballot is insignificant in its impact.
Thank you for your vote of confidence! (Score:3)
If he'd been near Holland, Michigan, Rob or Jeff might have done the interview.
It was simply an interesing little article that turned out to have more human quality than I expected, so that's the side that came through most clearly.
The car came into the story because it was a tangible symbol of how Jim Willard's obsession with his invention has ruined his life. This is what writers call a "metaphor."
But IANALET (I Am Not A Licensed English teacher), so for specific information about metaphors, similes, allusions, punctuation, capitalization, and other writing basics, I suggest seeking help from a qualified local professional.
Meanwhile, "don't panic," as my fellow metaphor-user Douglas Adams has said more than a few times. Whenever a Slashdot author writes about a personal friend, we'll let you know. ;-)
- Robin
Re:A depressing story... (Score:1)
Re:A depressing story... (Score:2)
If you went and built one for even $500, then stepped on it, dunked it
in water, took it out of the freezer and tossed it a 150 deg oven, then
gave it to your grandmother and had her enter her some data 100%
error-free, VCs would probably sit up and take notice.
But you can't. Why? Because what you propose is impossible today. All
your website describes is how to make a paper keyboard.
And, unfortunatley, it's not even worth it. By the time your paper
computer becomes possible to build, bill paying, etc. will all be
online, where it should be.
Success is just getting up one more time than you fall down. I hope you
find another idea to devote your energy to.
Think again... (Score:1)
Paper, in landfills, has been known to last more than 20 years, as it frequently never gets water, heat or air after it gets buried.
Many energy sources, like hydroelectric, for example, are ultimately renewable. Nuclear, though not perfect, is extremely clean when properly insulated and operated, so many LANs don't have that much impact on the environment via electricity, as the electricity is produced cleanly.
"Biodegradable" plastic is actually only partially degradable. It first transforms into a goopy clump that kills birds and can clog drainage systems, and then becomes millions of plastic molecules that are often toxic to the local environment.
Spacing points out makes them infinitely more readable. Besides, didn't you look at your own post?!
I'm not quite unaccustomed to debates like this, seeing that I've spoken worldwide about the environment, as well as a the UN headquarters.
What a flake. (Score:3)
He hasn't developed suitable batteries, a cheap and power-efficient display, an appropriately durable and cheap microprocessor, or even the conductive ink (some these things may or may not exist, but he didn't make any of them). There is no prototype which resembles the end product, and no meat to his technical plans. He has absolutely no way to support his claim that he can make it for that cheap.
This guy is just trying to cash in on an obvious idea which will probably become feasible in the next few years, when he doesn't have anything to contribute to the development, except some oddball ideas about what it should be used for.
I'm supposed to think it's tragic that big companies are turning this crackpot away?
dammit (Score:1)
Re:What???? (Score:1)
Re:Patent (Score:2)
After some thinking (Score:3)
I neglected to mention the positives.
I've done some thinking, and I believe that these paper computers have a lot of great reusable/permanent applications.
A while back I was thinking about remote controls. I got a few emails about it, which I haven't gotten around to responding to yet (I have a lot of ideas, I'll probably get around to it tonight).
One of the things I was thinking about was the ability to print a template and place it under a clear plastic cover.
This looks ideal.
Have a plastic base, and be able to slide one of these into it. A lot of devices have remote controls. If a company can make their remotes like this, their cost drops significantly. For the companies that sell multi-remotes, they can have a base model, plus "templates" that customers can get cheaply. That way, instead of making a couple of remotes that have differring features, they can make one or two, plus tons of different templates that consumers can choose from.
That's an idea that just might flourish in both the short and long terms.
Re:It bears repeating... (Score:1)
The amount of deforestation that would occur if every household in America received a paper 'census computer' would be devastating.
Excuse me? Junk mail alone - catalogs, fliers, charity solicitations - dwarfs the amount of paper that a 'census computer' like this would 'waste'. Also, as others have pointed out, such computers can easily be reused, which is better than recycling, correct?
Given the choice between recieving a dozen dead tree's worth of catalogs every year, and recieving the equivilent data delivered via 'paper computer', I'll go out on what seems to be a sturdy limb and guess that using paper computer catalogs would save more resources than they wasted, even if they were never reused or recycled.
I smell a hoax. (Score:1)
My poop detectors are beeping and flashing red lights on this one.
LK
Somehow I'm Reminded... (Score:1)
Of that old SNL sketch where Eddie Murphy was hosting a bogus "Black History Minute" about George Washington Carver -- where "Skippy" and "Jif" became millionares, while "Carver died penniless and insane, still trying to play a phonograph record with a peanut." :)
On a more serious note, I can think of one company about a mile up the road from me who would probably love to talk to him about the technology and its potential for inclusion in direct mail. I suspect that the problem isn't that potential and VCs are uninterested in the technology as much as it is a reluctance/inability to hook up with a sufficiently competent marketroid to present it to them correctly. Some of the r&d companies with the best technology around languish for years because they can't sell their way out of a paper bag....
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
wow! (Score:1)
I think this is a really great idea. It brings us one step closer to the millinium future that you imagined as a kid where you were flying around in cars like "The Jetsons."
I think what he needs to do, though, is make so they aren't a one use then trash it concept. He should make it always reuseable Let's say you want to take a census. You plug it in to a phone line, and have dial the number for the organization that is taking the census. Then download the data needed to take it, take it, and send it back to them. Then if you want to vote a week later you could dial the apropriate number, download the data over your previous census data, vote, and there you go. It would be a wounderful concept if it was a bit more open. I really would like to see this go someplace
Energy Flow
Re:It will fail (Score:2)
flat stuff (Score:3)
I do have a problem with the complaints one hears in conspiracy discussions like this. The basic premise is: the people with money are dumber than the people without money. They must be, they can't see how good these ideas are! Come on! Not only are many people who have money plenty smart (some having founded technology companies), they can even afford to hire the smartest people to make investment decisions for them. You could take their message to heart: they think there is something wrong with the package. If not the idea, then the risk of the team, the risk of weak intellectual property protection, the risk of competition, the risk of substitute products... any explanation that starts out "I know better than everybody else" just falls flat. (I want points for that segue back to "flat":)
Anyway, the suggestions I read all have to do with government paper pushers. Look for applications that are driven by high demand in markets where tracking is really worth some dough, where there are a small number of players who are large and potentially willing to take the risk because they are in a position to reap the benefit. How about FedEx shipping labels, or NYSE buy and sell orders, or medical records. Could he whip up a version and stand on the floor of trade shows taking surveys with it? Many times, exposing technologies like this to many potential customers directly results in them thinking of the applications.
Re:Good ideas..... (Score:1)
Or NASA (Score:2)
I know of several DOD efforts underway now and listed in the Commerce Business Daily [gpo.gov] that are currently soliciting for "Light Weight" computing devices.
Or possibly Today's Commerce Business Daily, the Contractors Reference [govcon.com], These sites have thousands of RFP's each week.
Thoughts??
Re:I will design your site (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
US society consumption. (Score:4)
Look at the twinky wrapper. A piece of cardboard, a shell of plastic, and none of it is recycled. You want to vote? Don't use a piece of throw-away paper with no security (reading without opening envelope? Does no one else see the problem?), use a proper system that uses the voter's fingerprint. Walk up to a public terminal, verify your identity with the fingerprint and/or retinal scan (both technologies are existant today), and then enter your vote. Strong encrypted, your vote is sent to an automated computer which will tabulate the votes quickly and cheaply. And no more garbage.
Want more info? Go to adbusters [adbusters.org].
---
Re:flat stuff (Score:2)
That's already been done, I'm sure it was reported here on slashdot a few weeks ago.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:What a cynical view! (Score:2)
Inventing things is often applying technology or in fact anything in a new manner. There's very little in our present current society that was actually invented from scratch and not a collection of other already existing parts.
If we had to wait for someone to invent everything from scratch then I can guarantee that we'd never be typing on
Re:What???? (Score:2)
--------------
To start press any key...Where's the any key?
Call for a new Slashdot section (Score:2)
Just look at the parallels between this paper-computing article and the article posted yesterday about the 'scientist' making hydrinos:
Both hope to revolutionize the industry
Both claim to be suppressed by the establishment who fear being obsoleted by the new technology
Both need that little kick in the pocket book to get things rolling (albeit, one has that financial backing and the other is still seeking it).
It's a common enough type of story, and unfortunately most variations are indistinguishable regarding whether it's for real or just a scam. Now all we need is a spiffy icon.
The facts. (Score:2)
Today the latest scheme with VCs is the so-called dot com crowd. They've changed the whole investment window timeframe with their huge IPOs. In other words, they VCs expect to get many times their money is two or three short years. This can't and won't hold up. However, the problem with this is that:
a) Most of these internet companies are going to go poof in a year or two. They just don't have the fundamentals.
b) They are diverting money from even higher rewarding investments with much much better fundamentals. It's not just Joe Schmoe's like this who're getting turned down, but people in strong industries [where the industry is atleast a sure thing], strong management, great experience, great technology [strong IP], and great marketing.
I'm not proposing that we create laws to force VCs to change their behavior or anything. But, coming from a family of sucessfull entreprenuers, I can tell you that VCs as a group are not all they are cracked up to be. Not when it comes to risk. Not when it comes to experience. Not even when it comes to even basic common sense.
Re:A big "but" (Score:2)
Ok, a little explanation on my stance as an environmentalist.
I have never trusted most of the pamplet propoganda that most environmentalists swear by. When I was in high school, I helped my chemistry teacher question the "environmental action commitee."
If we simply separated, say, aluminum from everything else, and dumped it in it's own places, we would have more aluminum mines in the future. That takes less energy and is cheaper than simply recycling it. We have tried-and-true processes with aluminum, why abandon them?
An integrated circuit is a very different beast. They are commonly made of aluminum and silicon encased in plastic (non-biodegradeable) or ceramic. They can't be easily recycled, and the aluminum example wouldn't work out so great either.
Reuse the chips, displays, etc, and places like New York wouldn't be generating their land mass in garbage and dumping it in other countries.
All life is creation and eventual destruction. Throwing out something that will eventually be broken up and returned to its original components is sane and sensible.
I agree, but the quicker the better. What if we're using resources at a greater rate than it is being reclaimed? This is where nanotech intrigues me.
I hope Jim's paper computer is "the next big thing" since I want computing to become so ubiquitous that nobody can claim they are "computing disadvantaged."
So do I. I sent an email directly to him earlier expressing my interest in his project and explaining some stuff I have previously worked on that he might be interested in.
Been there, done that (Score:2)
But you're right, the greeting card industry does appear to be interested in new ideas!
Entrepreneur Naivete (Score:3)
The fact is that there are THREE criteria that have to be met *strongly* for an idea to get funded, not one.
1) Is it a good idea?
The ways to tell this of course are what most of us are used to thinking about in the startup world. Where is the money? What is the revenue model? What kind of capital requirements are there to create the necessary factories, etc. to produce the product (this one is why dot-coms are so attractive.)? How long will it take to make money? Are there lots of customers? How will the market change over time? etc.
My sense from the article was that he has a *couple* ideas for uses and customers, all of which are basically centered around the government. Ideas get moderated down if they involve changing heavily bureaucratic organizations. It's just not going to happen, imho. But ok, let's grant point #1 and say it's a great idea.
2) Who is the competition and how will you handle them?
This idea is one which clearly has numerous competitors, some of which are heavily entrenched (like the existing balloting systems), and some of which are still under development (like the other poster doing the PalmPilot balloting). There are also all sorts of apples-to-oranges competitors like punched cards, CD-ROMs, etc.
Point #2 basically says that it's not enough to show the Promised Land to the VC... you have to show him that you understand the minefield between you and the Promised Land, and each and every mine between here and there, and how you're going to get through it.
This article did not give me a comfort feeling that this guy understands his competitors and understands a) how he is different from/better than each one, b) what is the barrier to entry for those competitors to do something similar, or c) what he will do to raise the bar on them when they do figure out how to react to him. But for now, let's grant him point #2 as well, just to get to #3...
3) Why You?
The last question is usually the hardest for entrepreneurs to answer. They hem and haw and say "well because it's my idea." Well guess what? Good ideas are a commodity. Everyone (including the poster I'm replying to here) has their own great idea. Lots of people have duplicate ideas. So why should the investor sink millions of dollars into YOU personally?
Most of the time the answer is helped by proprietary technology, patents, etc. But the real reason is because of the *team*. The saying among VC's is "Bet on the jockey, not on the horse." In the original posting, the inventor was quoted as saying "well you have to KNOW someone to get meetings with VCs." Well guess what? Yes you do. After this many years, it should tell him something that he doesn't have A-1 talent signing up to help him out. Where is his board of directors and advisory board full of A-list players who have taken companies like this public before? Where is his team of technologists and his team of financial guys? Where is his team of VC experts who KNOW the people you need to know to get the right meetings?
I've been going through it recently (and gotten this education), and trust me, it's not that hard to find these sorts of people if your answers to Points #1 and #2 are good.
Anyway, I've been writing long enough... but *sigh* if even ONE entrepreneur out there reads this and saves themselves 10 years of needless frustration, it will have been worth it.
...Crash
Talk about a gold mine... (Score:2)
If you're feeling down and about ready to quit, let me tell you a quick story about two college dropouts who had an invention that no big corporations wanted. All the corporations that saw this invention said "It won't sell! No one's going to want one!" Well, that little invention was called the personal computer, and I don't think I have to explain about HOW WRONG the corporations were. The two little simpletons who decided to make the invention had their own corporation within five years called Apple Computers!
Let me first say GOOD JOB! It's pathetic, how 99.9% of stuff we purchase is either an overpriced, overhyped spinoff of last years fad or a product which went through a year of corporate testing and surveying before implemented. There's rarely ever an Original Idea that a simple person came up with in their little "personal work space."
When I read about this, I was thinking if this thing could even possibly have a good use. So, what's the problem? You're barking up the wrong tree. I work for Coca-Cola, and personally, I can see this working PERFECTLY in this business: invoices. Right now, Coca-Cola and Pepsi lug around a unit weighing about 16 pounds with one of those "Trackers," and a printer, and the unit costs around $250 (in this tech age, it isn't worth $15). But they continue to use it, because it gets the job done.
It would be SO CLEAN AND EFFICIENT to have a small, cheap "Paper Computer" that we could simply program to list the products on an invoice, compute their cost, and display it in a simple table (something even an 8088 processor could do), and have a little place for a signature. Personally, though, I'd much rather have it so they could be recycled rather than thrown away. The drivers would be much more happy to have a simple paper sheet they could pull from their truck programmed with the order, able to display it, and obtain/record a signature.
Another idea: use these paper computers on electronic clipboards. If you could make, as you claim, a cheap way to display text digitally on paper, you could easily replace all those "digital clipboards" that cost around $100.
There are plenty of inventions that were invented for a specific purpose, only to be adopted for a completely different use. Great example: the Tommy Gun. This gun could fire more rounds in a second than any other gun in it's time and was manufactured for use during WWI. They were shipped late, however, and were never use during the war. The inventor tried and tried to persuade security companies and police agencies to adopt the gun, but too many officers just couldn't fathom a use for an expensive gun that fired that fast (and was that big). So, where did it find it's niche? The mob. Price didn't matter, and it fit PERFECTLY into the lifestyle of the rich and aggressive.
Case in point: your invention sounds like a great one, but don't limit your views to a small market (and a very difficult one to enter into... the government, that is). Brainstorm, and try and find other markets.
One last thing to realize: if you want to push your product, YOU'RE going to have to do it, rather than hoping that some big-time corporation (or the government) will adopt it. Look around, becuase I'm SURE that there's a market for this somewhere!
And for all those asking about patents, quit asking. Had you actually looked at his web site, you would have discovered that it's patented... good thing too, considering how many inventions have been toiled over by individuals only to be swept away and adopted by corporations.
Re:The future of spam? (Score:2)
Problem solved.
--
Re:Yeah, Its like a conspiracy (Score:2)
The problem with tatoos is that they are too easily altered. What they need to do is cut off some of your fingers when you're born. You have 10 fingers, so there are 1024 possible ways they could cut off your fingers. They could also cut off the corresponding toe for every finger. Then they incorporate that into a checksum in the tatoo on your forehead. That would sure make identity thieves' jobs' a lot harder.
Better yet, cut off either the whole finger, none of the finger, or to the first knuckle. That way there are 59049 (3^10) possible checksums. They could also incorporate your race/gender into your mutilation checksums to make it harder to steal someone's identity. For example: all women could have mostly intact right hands (so they can give handjobs to support themselves), or all Native Americans could have no thumbs (because the government doesn't like them).
Re:So what? Paper grows on trees (Score:3)
Re:I will design your site (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Don't I know it (Score:2)
Re:first (Score:2)
Yes, people can put whatever they want to in their sigs, congratulations. As for my posts, I can put whatever the fuck I want to in them, m'kay?
Just like the "tradition" of grabbing first post, just because you can doesn't mean you should.