There are many entities using the monikers “Millennium” and “Marketing” and a web search returns few usable references to Millennium Marketing Group™ Ltd, (MMG) of Overland Park, Kansas, which is the only company using this name you are concerned with if you are perusing this site. Other names associated with MMG are Scott Norman, President of MMG, and http://www.patentmovers.com/, MMG's web site.
If you are an inventor with a patented invention you might have received a marketing offer in the mail from an invention promoter using the name Millennium Marketing Group (MMG). You should know at the outset that what you have received is a form letter, sent out by the hundreds by MMG's commissioned sales force.
MMG trolls the database of the USPTO looking for potential targets for its marketing "services". The letter may tell you that there is an "excellent" chance that your product will succeed in the marketplace. But other than a quick glance at the patent abstract no one has actually looked at your product. And the chances of MMG successfully marketing your product are closer to zero than they are to any other number.
In the past MMG followed a business practice of writing marketing contracts for the holders of patented inventions. Based upon a ratio of contracts sold to actual product placement which resulted in income for the patent holder, those contracts were essentially worthless to their purchasers. That business practice appears to be continuing today, with an emphasis on a few unverifiable marketing "successes" as a means to draw in more purchasers of contracts.
Since MMG is not transparent, meaning that it does not adhere to the reporting requirements of the American Inventor Protection Act or any other independent audit, you have no way of independently verifying if MMG's claims are valid. And accepting at face value statements made by Scott Norman or the marketing claims made through MMG sources is a very bad idea.
Who am I? Why this blog?
My name is Walt Bujaryn (email). Simply stated, I am a reference for MMG. From 2002 to 2003 I was contracted with MMG to provide marketing services for a patented invention; from 2004 to 2006 I was involved in a lawsuit against Scott Norman and MMG. Everything in this blog is based upon direct personal experience, and while that experience may conflict with statements made in both public and private by Scott Norman I can assure you that what I state herein is accurate.
I am the inventor of a new type of ergonomic chair, one which uses a compound lever to effect a differential in tilt among the various components of a seating device. I hold two US patents on the device. I wrote the patents myself and filed with the aid of a good patent attorney. I have designed and built two working prototypes. I have the better part of ten years invested in developing the design. I have put money into it, but probably a lot less than you might think. This is because I have learned to do most things myself, which is what any inventor should do. One thing I did need help with, however, was effectively marketing my design.
In 2001 I received my first solicitation from MMG. The letter was slick and seemed professional, and offered a very good commission split. I did everything I could to check them out and came out neutral, with one lukewarm endorsement. Not being able to effectively research MMG was my downfall, and part of the reason for this blog is to help you, members of the invention community, research the company and make an informed decision. Scott Norman maintains that he can supply references on request, and I suggest you take him up on that offer if you are so inclined. As I have already stated I too am a reference. I paid to become one and now Mr. Norman can deal with me.
In the middle of 2002 I signed a marketing contract with MMG. In the middle of 2006 Norman and I agreed mutually to dismiss the lawsuit I had launched against him as a result of that contract. This site covers most of what happened during that period of time, and should prove interesting, and hopefully useful, to anyone considering doing business with Scott Norman or MMG.
Scott Norman is making a variety of increasingly desperate attempts to represent that I am simply a disgruntled client, that I am slandering him, or lying about the capabilities of him and his company, or that I am upset because he didn't get me a product placement (read the blog), or that the legal case I brought against him was thrown out of court because it was "baseless".
All of this is completely false. The events and the business "practices" presented on these pages are documented and speak for themselves. The idea that I would have deliberately invented the content of this blog or that I am maliciously persecuting a reputable company to amuse myself and subject myself to potential legal action is simply idiotic. Welcome to the world of Scott Norman.
I believe that you, the invention community, have the right to be as fully informed about your marketing options as possible. My specific problem with Norman and MMG ended in 2006, and as I disclaim below I don't know what he is doing today. I seriously doubt that the details could have changed, and you need to pay close attention to those up front marketing fees and his little problem with the American Inventor's Protection Act.
Personally, had I known in 2002 what I know today about Scott Norman and MMG I would never have gotten involved with either the individual or his company. I made a very serious mistake and I don't want you to do the same. The information contained in these pages is simply provided to help you, the independent inventor, make an informed decision as to how and where you wish to proceed with your scarce and vital marketing dollars.
According to one of the posts at the bottom of this page, Scott Norman through MMG is now charging $7500 for his invention marketing "services". That is a lot of money, and charging up front fees to market an invention is the number one red flag in the invention community.
According to Inventor Scam Statistics , and the numbers are not current, 25,000 American inventors are scammed every year at a total loss of about $200 million. One estimate on that site is that less than one (1) percent of all purchasers of marketing services from invention promoters get their money back, much less make a return on their investment. The real number is probably closer to one tenth (1/10) that amount. Davison Design, an invention promotion firm cited elsewhere in this blog, has been forced by the FTC to disclose that its licensing royalty income is .001% of its total cash flow. That means that the rest of Davison's income derives from marketing services, which represent a total loss to the purchasers of those services.
But Davison is just an example, albeit a good one that gives us a solid benchmark from which we can extrapolate how the rest of the industry is performing. So now you, the independent inventor possibly undergoing a barrage of solicitations by MMG, have to decide a) how much better you believe that MMG is doing than Davison's .001%, b) WHY you believe this, and c) wouldn't you be better off just buying lottery tickets or donating the money to charity, which would at least make you feel good.
By the way, MMG will provide you with no detailed accounting as to how your money is spent. No time cards, no tracking of postage or printing, no phone logs... nothing. In my case, out of a $6000 fee $1200 went to the commissioned salesman, $250 went to the "research consultant" who scribbled together my "prospectus", and the other $4550 is unaccounted for. It was not spent in marketing my product. Plus, I had to sue Norman to get even THAT much information.
You do the math. Ten contracts sold at $7500 is $75,000, one hundred is $750,000. It can add up real quick. Remember, MMG contracts are being sold by commissioned salespeople with a well rehearsed pitch. Are they trying to get your product in front of industry, or do they need cash flow?
Marketing a new product is difficult and tedious, and most don't stand a chance from the outset. The vast majority of invention promoters can't stay in business with their royalty income, which is miniscule to non-existent, so they develop a reliable stream of cash flow by selling marketing "services" to unwary inventors. Pitching to the inventor that the promoter will do his or her "best" to get the product in front of industry in exchange for the up front fee, and then using a variation of that story when the product inevitably doesn't sell, is just part of the scam. The "services" are almost universally shoddy, worthless and doomed from the outset, and according to known statistics always result in a complete loss for those who purchase them. Think it through, people. Countless of your fellow inventors have been burned with these scams. Don't put this big hurt on yourself. Don't do it.
This blog is an ongoing project. It is currently organized into pages, navigable from the menu on the upper right. An abstract of each page follows.
From 2002 to 2003 I was contracted with MMG to receive their marketing "services". This is a chronological accounting of what actually took place during that one year period. This page is a rare insight into how a marketing company like MMG conducts "business". If Scott Norman blows some hot air in your direction, particularly about me personally, please spend a little time with this resource which tells you exactly what my paid experience was like with MMG. Whether you are considering doing business with MMG or have already done so, you need to read this page.
After the end of my contractual obligation with MMG, which represented a period of total non-performance on the part of Norman and MMG, I contacted a Kansas attorney. It was decided that I had a strong case against Norman and MMG and we filed suit under both the AIPA (federal) and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Early in the case Norman filed a motion to dismiss the federal charges under the AIPA, and I was stunned to discover that the law has a gaping loophole that excludes MMG's business "model" from its requirements. Scotty and his attorney knew of this and beamed themselves through it at warp speed. Norman was successful in getting this part of the case dismissed and I think you should know how that happened.
If you, as an inventor, are familiar with the American Inventor's Protection Act, and think that you have some protection under that Act while dealing with Scott Norman and MMG, think again.
Norman exploits a loophole in the Act which renders him immune from both its mandates and its intent. In fact, Norman has succeeded in turning the Act upside down so that it now protects HIM, the invention promoter, and not you, the inventor. Neat trick, huh? Do you really want to get involved with this guy?
I repeat: You should know from the outset that Scott Norman, acting through MMG, does not adhere to the tenets of the AIPA. In this case the Act protects Norman and not you.
Because of this unforgivable loophole in the law Norman does not have to report or disclose under the requirements of the Act. You cannot file a complaint against Norman or MMG at the USPTO complaint site and you cannot sue him under the Act. This is the exact opposite of what was intended. Critical information that should be available to you before you contract with MMG is not available. You have to rely on Scott Norman and his web site for information, and these are not credible sources. This alone is the only reason you need to have nothing to do with either Norman or MMG.
Most inventors are pretty good at what they do, which is to dream up new products and maybe bring them to some form of reality. They tend to be less sophisticated at the next stage of product development, which is marketing. For this they need help, and every year thousands of inventors seek professional marketing assistance in one form or another. And while there are many legitimate players in what can generally be referred to as the invention promotion industry, the field has become dominated by con artists skilled at creating the illusion of potential success where in fact there is none. Every year thousands of inventors pour millions of dollars into these black holes of fraud and deception, never seeing a dime of return on their investment. There are many legitimate websites warning inventors in detail of these dangers; to get an idea of the scope of the problem you might want to visit the Extreme Caution List at Ron Riley's InventorEd.org
What it comes down to is a matter of transparency. Prior to the passage of the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) in 1999 invention promotion firms were unregulated and not required to disclose in advance their actual success rate at earning a return on investment for their clients, which is virtually zero percent. Section 297 of the Act was designed to curb what was seen as this rampant fraud within the invention promotion industry by forcing transparency through open disclosure. While undoubtedly flawed, the AIPA is still the best and perhaps the only real legal protection afforded to inventors seeking to do business with invention promotion firms. Without it you are left with the Better Business Bureau and the Kansas Attorney General, and good luck with that. Stick with Buyer Beware, and don't make the mistakes I made.
This page covers the relevant sections of the AIPA and exposes the loophole that Norman uses to protect himself and MMG.
In October of 2007 Scott Norman became involved in a discussion at The Invent Blog. It is rare that one gets a chance to respond to the President of MMG in detail, and I take the opportunity to do so here.
Norman is an unabashed self promoter of little real credibility. He is given to wild exaggerations and substantial "misstatements". This is one of the more explosive pages on this site. You read it and you decide.
Scotty wanders off the reservation again. What are his handlers thinking?
If you have seen MMG's promotional literature or visited their web site you may have seen glowing references to the fact that "we", or Scott Norman, are proud and successful patent owner(s) who have seen the "windfall of royalties" that can be gleaned from patent ownership.
Ahem. You might want to read this page.
In April of 2004 I filed suit against Scott Norman and MMG. In August of 2006 Norman and I mutually agreed to Dismissal with Prejudice, meaning that the case would be over forever. Contrary to what Norman has been saying in public and in private there was no summary judgment in this case. A summary judgment can only be issued by a judge, and our case was settled by mutual consent through a mediator. Nor was the case ever found to be "baseless", since there was no entity to find it "baseless" and the evidence piling up against Norman was pretty overwhelming.
This page gives a general outline of the nature and outcome of that legal action, and probably offers a lesson learned to anyone who even thinks about getting involved in a lawsuit.
And further... Are Scott Norman and MMG making any royalty money, i.e., selling any products to industry?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither do you. There's only one guy who really knows, and he is not a credible source. Norman claims the income of "millions" of dollars in royalty income and uses these claims to bolster the image of his company and, one would assume, to attract more dollars for marketing contracts. Bear in mind that none of these claims are independently audited, that they are unverified and in the end probably unverifiable. Even if a product is "sold" that doesn't automatically result in income for the inventor, and often it never does. You should recognize this and treat these claims in the same way that you would any other unsubstantiated claim for any product, coming from any industry--with heavy doses of suspicion and skepticism.
Disclaimer
As stated above I honestly don't know what Scott Norman and MMG are doing today, in 2009. Norman may actually be selling something, and for the sake of those involved I hope he is. None of this changes the facts for you, the independent inventor. Those facts are simple: You want to stay far away from ANYONE who is demanding an up front fee to market your invention, and you must always demand full disclosure in advance under the mandates of the AIPA.
Personally, I can only state what happened through the period of my contractual arrangement and the lawsuit with MMG, ending in mid 2006. I base my observations and conclusions on that period alone. Norman seeks to project an image of hi-tech sophistication and great success, but he has always been an unabashed self promoter given to wild exaggerations and has a problem with facts and the truth. For Norman to have changed, the transformation would have had to be astounding, akin to getting true and lasting religion on Saturday night. No one who is familiar Norman the man or with the business practices MMG has engaged in in the past would buy this, particularly since the claims made today by MMG are unverifiable.
Almost certainly, the MMG business model remains one of touting a few marketing "successes", which are unverifiable as to income, as a way of attracting more clients to purchase its marketing contracts, which are worthless.
Unless and until Scott Norman and MG become verifiably transparent in accordance with the AIPA mandates, and this is extremely unlikely, you should probably take your business elsewhere.
Further...
As an inventor with a product to market you need to be very careful who you associate with and how you spend your money. A good place to start your investigations is Ron Riley’s site http://www.inventored.org/. Ron has dedicated a lot of personal time and financial resources to keeping a watch on the invention promotion industry and you should know that Millennium Marketing Group™, Ltd and Scott A. Norman both appear on his Extreme Caution list.
This site is dedicated to helping you increase your awareness of how www.patentmovers.com, Millennium Marketing Group™, Ltd and Scott Norman do business before you spend any money with them.
Just got the same letter from Millennium Marketing Group, LTD. Thank you let me know about these news. I shall be doing the right way.
Posted by: David | December 28, 2011 at 02:56 AM
Thank you..we received a letter today from them,any info on where to get sucessfull help on marketing your invention?
Posted by: J | November 19, 2011 at 08:33 PM
thank you we almost went there any suggestions
Posted by: david pobuda | September 22, 2011 at 06:01 PM
Simply you guys are my angels. just save me a lot of money and not to waste my time with these people. I got their letter today.
So the next step is this. How can we all get together to help inventor to be successful. I feel your pain.
Any Idea? I been successful with one of my patent 6 years ago by taking it to the market myself but now I have not be able to find or feel comfortable with all the mails I got regarding my new patent. I am so sorry our world have come to this. I wish to make a lot more money and find way to help you guy in the future.
I am Chi Galatea Huynh at www.galateause.com
thank you so much for all of your post.
Happy day
chi
Posted by: Chu Galatea Huynh | June 30, 2011 at 06:35 PM
Leland, be aware of those people you liked. I was considering doing business with one of the gentlemen, Kenny Durham, who claim to be an old partner of MMG but never was if you contact them and do your research like any good inventor should. He runs Innovators Warehouse and doesn't disclose his past information other than to pretend like they are just another competitive company and pretending to be the good guy giving "warnings" slamming them.
At the end of the day not everyone is always going to be 100% happy and it is good there are sites out there like this to inform inventors on what to be cautious of and if nothing else to spark questions from both sides. Someone else has posted a link to the new court case with the ripoff report if you google the new company I mentioned. To make matters worse the past employee went on bragging about how he did breach his contract and thinks this makes him look better? It led me to this very site. When it all comes down to it he thinks he is simply being sued for a non compete and wants people to disclose their own ideas to him? I don't think so.
Posted by: Kathryn Deline | February 22, 2011 at 09:03 AM
I just got a letter from Millennium and have numerous unopened letters from Kessler. My patent is 6 months old, and they say it is "Imperitive that you pursue commercialization of your intellectual property immidiately." I am Canaidan, already have 2 copy cats on my US patent here in Canada. The one copy cat was my manufacturer, the other, a close colleague. These were people I did business with, confided in. Now this millenium marketing group is after me. My product is already on the market, I know these guys have not done their research because they would see companies that are already producing my parts that are covered by my Patents. So that alone was my flag, Red Flag. Thanks fellow inventors for going public. I have been told many times that my greatest weakness in business is that I trust too much. Is this a common "trademark" of inventors and does someone have our "numbers." Thanks guys, the old saying united we stand (not alone) holds true.
Posted by: Joe Froese | January 30, 2011 at 12:10 PM
Congratulations! You have so much useful information, write more.
Posted by: RamonGustav | August 31, 2010 at 06:46 PM
If you don't want to feel and look like a fool.Then never go with any of these kind of company's They only want to get your money with the least amount of effort..I did it and I never felt so stupid to trust a person like Scoot Norman.. This guy should be in Prison...
At this time the people I delt with in the first place are not even working for MMG any more.....(I think they got tired of lieing to people) SAVE YOUR MONEY....................
Posted by: Leland Henderson | June 09, 2010 at 03:45 PM
Have a great invention proven and tested,full patents in many countries.Need seccessfull marketer
not scammers;cheap to manufacture world wide application
Any true help much appreciated
Posted by: Grahame Tylor | March 31, 2010 at 03:10 AM
09/09/2009 NEW CASE FILED; RS BICKFORD & COMPANY INC VS MILLENNIUM MARKETING GROUP LTD SCOTT NORMAN STEPHANIE NORMAN; FILING FEE 67.00 , SHERIFF SERVICE 5.00; PAID BY MCDOWELL RICE SMITH & BUCHANAN, Receipted Amount: $72.00 , Check No: 21360, Receipt NO: 09034603
http://www.jococourts.org/index.aspx
Type in Scott's name and click search.
Posted by: Public Record | March 31, 2010 at 01:28 AM
p.s. Here is the link to the complaint filed with the BBB:
http://67.53.161.126/complaint//view/99250049/c/ezntpm
Posted by: Louis Davenport | January 11, 2010 at 04:55 PM
Happy New Year!
I'm trying to remain optimistic despite being the latest to fall victim to Millennium's smooth talk and dream-weaving. Everyone told me not to do it... I did it. The desire to fulfill a dream is just so strong. I have a year's worth of information to share with anyone interested. In the mean time I'll just paste the BBB complaint I've filed.
opnevadl@gmail.com
p.s. Mr Blum, you dodged a bullet!
-----
Millennium Marketing portrays itself as a company that has scoured and researched the myriad newly patented products to come up with a select few patents which they deem have a reasonable chance of being successfully marketed by their company. They contact the patent owner expressing a specific interest in the patented product and indicate their desire to help deliver the product to the market. They don’t disguise their willingness to invest over $7000 of their own finances because they believe the product has significant potential to be licensed and they will receive the return on their investment through negotiated contracts with potential licensees. The implication is that they will produce a customized “Media Kit” which they will then specifically and personally promote to potential clients found using a search through their proprietary database. They will then pursue these potential clients promoting the product and ultimately negotiating a contract for the patent owner to consider. They quote a 2008-2009 success rate of 8-10% with revenues in the millions of dollars.
In addition to the $10,000 in legal fees, I have paid Millennium $8,000 for these services already and terminated my $15,000 agreement with them after slowly coming to the realization that the above description is likely quite far from reality. After 1 year of looking into Millennium’s practices, my new perception is that they are a small company who take advantage of the ignorance that most American inventors have about patenting and marketing new inventions. At the same time they encourage the inventor with ideas of grandeur and smoothly convince them that, “If MMG can’t secure a placement, no one can!”. My perception is that, in reality, Millennium mass mails inventors of newly patented products. Their pretense at “evaluating the potential of the product” and then “approving” it through their selective process is a farce. The “Media Kit” that they develop is a template populated almost exclusively with material and information supplied by the inventor, who’s job it is to review and correct it. The information supplied by Millennium for the “Media Kit” is misleading at best and may be entirely factitious. The trade shows attended are comprised of vendors trying to sell other such products, not the companies interested in purchasing and marketing them. The list of clients from their proprietary database is mostly inappropriate (demonstrated by a quick web search indicating clients that have nothing to do with such a product, and then written correspondence from these clients indicating the same). The media kit may be mass e-mailed out to secretaries and underlings, but is almost certainly not connected to anyone who would know anything about the product. Millenniums very scant details of the expenses they are incurring are laudable. It must be that there have been at least 3 occasions where contracts have actually been made; but my guess is that this was related more to the inventor and their product that the fortunate stumbling of Millennium. Millennium talks a good talk, but as others have warned, they don’t walk the long walk. And in the end, Millennium says, “We did everything that could be expected; produced a media kit, promoted your product at trade shows, researched and personally contacted targeted companies, and ultimately no one is interested in your product.” It is my belief that Millennium not only neglects to fulfill their product obligation technically and legally, they certainly miss the implied intent of their service they are promoting.
Posted by: Louis Davenport | January 06, 2010 at 08:31 PM
HI GEORGE,
I WAS 2 MINUTES AWAY FROM FORWARDING A PATENT PENDING PRODUCT TO MILLENIUM WHEN I READ YOUR ABOVE BLOG. NATURALLY I WILL NOTIFY HIM OF MY RELUCTANCE TO PROCEED WITH MILLENIUM. THANKS FOR YOUR EFFORTS TO INFORM THE WORLD OF INVENTORS THAT HE EXISTS IN THAT FORM.
IF HAVE HAD A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE WITH ANOTHER SUCH PROMOTER WHO AFTER TWO YEARS PRODUCED NOTHING. NOT EVEN A RETURN PHONE CALL. THIS WAS A DIFFERENT PRODUCT. EACH OF OUR PRODUCTS ARE EXTREMELY VIABLE AND WITH A PROPER PROMOTER WILL BE SUCCESSFUL.
CAN YOU RECOMMEND ANY?
WALTER E.BLUM
DESDEV@VERIZON. NET
Posted by: WALTER E.BLUM | January 01, 2010 at 01:54 PM
John: Once you have given your money to Scott Norman it is extremely difficult to get it back. One of the main points of this blog is to get people to think three times before giving money to Norman or ANY invention promoter, and to never, ever pay for any service before it has been rendered.
You do, however, have a few options. First, simply contact Norman in writing or verbally and ask for your money back. He has been known to refund money when the hassle factor looms too large. You MUST do this in conjunction with filing a detailed complaint at the Better Business Bureau http://www.kansascity.bbb.org/.
Next, you can hire an attorney to review your case and read this blog. Have the attorney write Norman a letter. Unfortunately your legal options are limited because you can't sue Norman under the AIPA, which would be a slam dunk. Anything else will yield nothing other than a very expensive moral victory, and believe me, Norman knows all of this, has his (your) money well hidden and won't care.
Finally, you can file a detailed complaint with the Kansas Attorney General, http://www.ksag.org/content/page/id/39, citing the relevant portions of this blog. If the AG finally comes to comprehend what Norman is actually doing they may take action. This could be quite important, and then again it may yield nothing.
It is also important for you to post your experiences online. I will post your story here, and it should be posted at the Inventblog, where a discussion about Norman and MMG has been initiated. Make sure Norman knows you are going to do this. He despises publicity and certainly doesn't want more negative comments than he now has. Click on my name above under "Who Am I" above to email me if you want. Good luck.
Posted by: Walt Bujaryn | August 05, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I have given Scott Norman $4500.00 of my money. He has perpetrated a fraud on me. How can I get my money back?
Posted by: John F. Maselter | August 05, 2009 at 11:15 AM
John Brodowski's comment about his experience with MMG is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, MMG is apparently now charging $7500 for "services" that carried a price tag of $6000 during my experience with them. Second, MMG is offering these "services" without making it clear -- remember MMG does not disclose under AIPA -- that, based upon a ratio of contracts sold to income returned to the inventor, a purchaser of one of its "contracts" stands almost no chance of recovering his or her investment.
Bear in mind that MMG will NOT provide a detailed and documented accounting of how your $7500 will be or has been spent. Figure that around 20% of that money goes to the salesman who is pursuing you. Beyond that there are no time cards, no verifiable documentation of who performed what service, no tracking of postage, printing, nothing. You have to take Scott Norman's word for everything, and this is a very, very bad idea.
Norman's assertion that MMG had expended a "great deal of work" on John's behalf is similar to statements he made to me which were completely false. MMG never, repeat, never, performed any useful work on my behalf before, during or after my contractual obligation with them. All they did was take my money and make it disappear. Unless Norman can document for you IN WRITING any useful work performed on your behalf you can assume that all those "efforts" MMG is expending toward you are simply to relieve you of your money.
My advice remains the same: Do not have anything whatsoever to do with Scott Norman or MMG, and, above all, NEVER sign a document that associates you with, or obligates you in any way, to Scott Norman.
Posted by: Walt Bujaryn | January 28, 2009 at 08:42 AM
Shortly after my patent was granted by US PTO, I have received a letter from Millenium.
Being curious, I have agreed to fill out their questioner.
After submitting the questioner to the Millenium I have received "Patent Marketing Agreement".
One of the paragraphs in that agreement is titled Expense and requires the sum of $7,500 to cover
Milleniums` expenses associated with the marketing efforts on my behave.
After reading the "Agreement", I have immediately notified Millenium that I am not interested.
Since my rejection of that Agreement, I have received several telephone calls and additional copy of
the Agreement.
I was told by Scott Norman in one of those telephone calls that Millenium expanded a great deal of
work on my behave and therefore I should sign the Agreement.
I have never authorize anyone to perform any work on my behave, never signed any kind of authorization
to do so.
Milleniums persistence is an unabashed harassment which borders on extortion.
Posted by: John Brodowski | January 25, 2009 at 04:02 PM
Can you tell me about reputable licensing people.
Posted by: vincent cicero | January 06, 2009 at 08:17 AM
Can you tell me about reputable licensing people.
Posted by: vincent cicero | January 06, 2009 at 08:16 AM
A lot of this information is regarding the scam part of the licensing business. Is there information on Reputable people to deal with.
Posted by: vincent cicero | January 06, 2009 at 08:11 AM
I have quite a stack of unopened correspondence from MMG & others, indluding IP&R and Kessler and others. If you have a patent awarded, they routinely mail you the same letters everyone else gets. Sometimes they follow up with a sales call. I save the letters, so when a client gets excited about how someone wants to sell their product, I can usually pull a letter out of that file, tell him what is in it, and have him open the envelope.
My advice is to do it yourself. Or, next best, contact a member of teh Licensing Society of Canada and the United States. I know one member, Don Kelley, who is also a patent agent and can be located through the listing of registered patent practioners at the www.uspto.gov site.
Hope that helps.
Best wishes to all the fellow inventors.
Posted by: George H. Morgan, Professional Engineer, Patent Agent | September 16, 2008 at 07:52 AM