Defense Intelligence Reference Document Maverick Inventor Versus Corporate Inventor

UNCLASSIFIED/ /P8R: 8ffHil.tzk Wi&i ~UIL¥
and calls on known or reasonably postulated primary energy sources. In contrast to
Type 1 and 2 inventors, who seem never to realize that a permanent magnet cannot be
an energy source in and of itself, for instance, the Type 3 inventor relies on the known
conservation laws. Type 3 (and 4) inventors generally realize the enormity of the
problems they face, whereas Types 1 and 2 have insulated themselves from this
realization.
As a result of his education, the Type 3 (and 4) inventor should know where to access
specific technical and scientific literature to aid in the process of researching their ideas.
The inventor may be associated with a local university or an emeritus professor and use
this expertise on an informal basis to compensate for a lack of funds. Primary funding
comes from personal or family finances or from small groups of like-minded aficionados
(Reference 25). Generally the Type 3 (and 4) inventors are older than Types 1 and 2.
They are also much better at explaining the scientific basis for their proposed invention
and thus can attract additional funding from venture capitalists, foundations, or
government granting agencies. This is a much more palatable approach in the eyes of
prospective investors, as there is the feeling that their investment is based on science
rather than on pure speculation and thus has a better chance of a positive return. In
some cases, the individual or venture investors' funds can be matched by government
grants if the idea is passed by a scientific review board. Most investors in Type 3 and 4
inventions are more sophisticated than those who invest in Types 1 and 2.
Type 3 inventors generally have a record of publications in peer-reviewed literature.
However, even with a greater degree of education, it is often the case that the inventor
makes mistakes in measurement or interpretations of data (Reference 26, 27),
especially when the initial results apparently confirm the inventor's hypothesis or
physical model (Reference 28). This is most often what leads to the demise of the
innovation. However, in these cases, the investors are not as angry or embarrassed as
Type 1 and 2 inventors, and so may continue to support the inventor for some time as
he tries to work out the problems in understanding the innovation more fully.
The very fact of their higher education makes the Type 3 inventor more easily able to
denigrate competing theories and experiments. This facet can be derived from or
evolve into a rather dogmatic belief that the Type 3 inventor's theory is the only correct
interpretation and the only one likely to succeed. This aspect must be taken into
account when assessing the inventor's potential to accept other explanations or
assistance when he eventually encounters difficulty with his theory or experiment.
Typically the scope of the claims is more modest compared with Types 1 and 2. Instead
of trumpeting that the invention will literally save the world, these inventors are more
realistic, suggesting how the invention might be one part of an overall solution.
What can be learned from the Type 3 inventor? Type 3 inventors' education and
familiarity with the scientific method puts them in an entirely different league from
Types 1 and 2. Access to their publications provides good insight into their capabilities.
They are more realistic in their goals and expectations. It is easier for investors and
other scientists to deal with Type 3 inventors, but Type 3 inventors are hungrier for
funding than Type 4 inventors, so caution is still required in interpreting their spiel. A
Type 3 inventor displaying a rigid and dogmatic approach should be avoided.
9
UNCLASSIFIED//F1illl. 1ilFFUiilAI! l!llilii 8111:¥