do not talk to dada #2 above should not prevent #1, meaning don't wait for it to be proven to start the patent process.
WS&C- I understand you can't explain how it's done from a technical perspective. However, what kind of datasets have you tested this with? Or does it not matter? I've worked with storage systems for years, and I just don't see how that works. Programmers are always different beasts from infrastructure architects.
I once had a brilliant idea about making this cologne for men that smelled like the ocean. But this dumbass called Calvin Klein stole my idea and is now making big bucks off of my idea.
sorry to be negative nancy, but i think your method wont work i'm assuming u are talking about lossless compression ( meaning when you compress and then decompress you get an exact copy of the original ) , in computer science there is a theoretical limit to how much data can be compressed -> you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_coding_theorem this theory is pretty well known and agreed upon by computer scientists the algorithim used by zip already comes really really really close to the theoretical limit , so even an optimal solution will not be orders of magnitude better than winzip
If you have told a soul, I would be running down to the patent office as fast as you can. If it is a feasible idea, hire a marketing/business guru if you want to get rich.
yea but in the 30's and 40's with period technology/materials it was widely accepted that aircraft could not fly faster than the speed of sound, thus the term "sound barrier". besides you said yourself, "well known theory" not "law" and we all know scholars, philosophers, scientists, etc... have never ever been wrong signed, flat earth society i say go for it if you truely believe it's possible. if anything you'll learn something during the process. life is a journey not a destination...
yea of course its possible the theory is wrong, btw its a theory like evolution is a theory, pretty well understood it would be pretty funny if some guy on a rockets message board defeated the scientific community i say give it a try though, you can email me the real idea if you want and I'll give you my thoughts, I promise i wont steal the idea, and if it is feasible I will try to develop it for you for free
I agree with yaoluv that it is pretty well understood and agreed upon that what you propose is not feasable. I've worked on compression algorithms for commercial products working with math professors from UT and Ohio St, we came close to pkzip but couildn't beat it. you are talking about order of magnitude (*many* orders of magnitude) better compression than what anyone has ever done before. that said, like yaoluv, I would be more than happy to work on such a project for free. if it happens, anyone who works on that project would become rich based on publicity alone.
- Talk to a patent lawyer. - Raise friends and family capital to pursue product development, build out team, etc. - Go find an angel network to provide capital. http://www.houstonangelnetwork.org/ - Further develop product/team - Find VC money i think you know what needs to be done. Your 2 biggest hurdles right now are money and personal risk.
Thank you all for your responses! DaDakota I don't know your email address. And, though I know you've been a long-time member of this bbs, I'd still be hesitant to describe my idea to someone I really don't know (especially someone who has already done work in entrepreneurship). But I am willing to discuss it a little. yaoluv Skepticism is a good thing. In a sense, it shapes dreams into reality. Thank you for posting that link to Shannon's source coding theorem. After reading it and understanding much (but not all) of it, I can see how this theorem would apply to the compression technology that's used by winzip and other LZW-based technologies. My idea is NOT based on previous compression technologies like LZW, and Shannon's theorem would not apply to my methodology. I can think of almost no mathematical limit to my theory. It's a complete re-write of compression methodology and it compresses in a completely different manner. Mr Boo Yeah, but patent attorneys don't work for free. In this thread a patent attorney link exists to a patent attorney who would charge about $6,000 for what I'd need. I can't put that money into it, and even if I borrowed the money to do so, if my idea never came to fruition, or if my theory just didn't work, that money would be wasted. I can't afford to waste that money myself, and I don't want to have to pay someone else back for wasting their money. I feel that 4-5 part-time programmers (who are good at low-level code) could get the programming part done. But I also need at least 5 advanced mathematicians (the more I have, the faster and better I can make my application). doboyz Thanks for the link! I will read through the technologies listed and see if someone has already come up with my idea. coma I have only tested it (successfully) on very minute data sets. In order to test it on larger datasets, I will need the help of at least one advanced mathematician. heypartner I appreciate your skepticism. I want to throw rocks in my theory as much as possible in order to determine that it is/isn't feasible. If my idea takes off and I need labor, I'll contact you. Thanks! JayZ750 - $$$$ - $$$$ - I'm afraid to - $$$$ - I'm afraid to And I can't sacrifice my current job, insurance and money to do any of the above. Another note about my idea.... By the way... my compression theory is for 100% LOSSLESS compression guaranteed (and no CRC is necessary). It does NOT follow in the footsteps of jpeg or mpeg where quality decreases as compression increases.
I hate to burst your bubble, but even if you've found the magic bullet for data compression, you're not going to get rich off of it. Software patents are a cutthroat business, and companies like IBM and Microsoft will shut you down with their warchest of patents and armies of attorneys. Besides that, the minute people get hold of your work, very smart people will figure out how to reverse engineer it without infringing on your patent. People don't get rich off ideas, they get rich by stealing the ideas of others and finding cheap ways to get other people to make those ideas come true, all while protecting their "ownership" of the resulting product. Your best bet is to find a nice open source developer to share your idea with, so that nobody can make any money off of it. If you don't have the skills to code it yourself, your idea ain't worth very much alone. Given the amount of theoretical work done in this field, unless you have a PhD in math or CS with a ton of post-doc work in the field, you're probably not knowledgeable enough to know the one thing that makes your idea impossible.
That's exactly what I'm afraid of! Then I will need to speak to a brilliant and trustworthy mathematician to determine if it is possible. Knowledge is not power. Knowledge is potential. Action on knowledge is power.
That's why I said personal risk is one of your biggest hurdles here. Look, even if you were my best friend, everything you touch turns to gold, etc., etc., I'm not going to invest any money with someone who isn't putting himself on the line. If you can't afford to sink even $6,000-$10,000 in this, you can't afford to turn it into reality. You have nothing at this point. It's just an idea...as close to worthless as possible. Try to keep as much an economic stake as possible in the idea and hand it off to someone else.
