EPTIntellectual Property
Let's just use the wiki summary for this:
Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.
Understand that IP is money. IP is everything, for R&D. Lawyers make a living out of protecting IP, and lawyers make a living out of finding loopholes in other peoples' IP.
Misunderstanding 1: that IP = Copyright/Patent
Many seem to believe that if something is truly IP-worthy, then we'll see a copyright/patent. Actually, c/p are extremely risky and are usually a last resort. We can even call the application for c/p needing a "c/p timing." When you apply for a c/p you're by nature revealing to the world the backbone of your technology. You also need to hire a lawyer to try their best to bulletproof the c/p, and to create a vague-as-possible c/p without allowing holes. This is tough. This is also often a futile endeavor, although depending on the technology involved sometimes can be truly bulletproof (as is often the case in the medical world).
By comparison if you don't apply for a c/p, but truly have an innovative technology, not only do you keep your competitors in the dark (preventing the rise of "similarities" that can take away market share) you extend the life of your 25 year copyright/patent, because when you see that "c/p timing" you can THEN apply and THEN start the life cycle. Obviously by doing this you run the risk of someone sniping the c/p, which is why you end up needing to be pretty freaking paranoid, and so most places don't really wait that long, but this is why you'll usually not see something happen immediately. Plus, it takes a while for lawyers to draft it.
Many seem to believe that if something is truly IP-worthy, then we'll see a copyright/patent. Actually, c/p are extremely risky and are usually a last resort. We can even call the application for c/p needing a "c/p timing." When you apply for a c/p you're by nature revealing to the world the backbone of your technology. You also need to hire a lawyer to try their best to bulletproof the c/p, and to create a vague-as-possible c/p without allowing holes. This is tough. This is also often a futile endeavor, although depending on the technology involved sometimes can be truly bulletproof (as is often the case in the medical world).
By comparison if you don't apply for a c/p, but truly have an innovative technology, not only do you keep your competitors in the dark (preventing the rise of "similarities" that can take away market share) you extend the life of your 25 year copyright/patent, because when you see that "c/p timing" you can THEN apply and THEN start the life cycle. Obviously by doing this you run the risk of someone sniping the c/p, which is why you end up needing to be pretty freaking paranoid, and so most places don't really wait that long, but this is why you'll usually not see something happen immediately. Plus, it takes a while for lawyers to draft it.
Misunderstanding 2: IP is public
Early-stage IP is extremely private, for obvious reasons (see the above). In fact, even after C/P procedures a lot of IP remains private, because companies/innovators do everything possible in the C/P procedure to keep it vague (prevent competitors from getting valuable info + allow for future changes). Furthermore a lot of processes are multi-step, and so if you lock down step 1 you don't have to lock down step 2 3 and 4. This is how medical drugs are often protected - these things are EXTREMELY methodical in production, and so they'll generally patent the original concept, then go through the FDA, who only has to publish the results of test/trials. That means when the drug comes out most people don't know much about what's going on, beyond the initial scientific discovery. There is absolutely no obligation by anyone to make a lot of this information public.
Early-stage IP is extremely private, for obvious reasons (see the above). In fact, even after C/P procedures a lot of IP remains private, because companies/innovators do everything possible in the C/P procedure to keep it vague (prevent competitors from getting valuable info + allow for future changes). Furthermore a lot of processes are multi-step, and so if you lock down step 1 you don't have to lock down step 2 3 and 4. This is how medical drugs are often protected - these things are EXTREMELY methodical in production, and so they'll generally patent the original concept, then go through the FDA, who only has to publish the results of test/trials. That means when the drug comes out most people don't know much about what's going on, beyond the initial scientific discovery. There is absolutely no obligation by anyone to make a lot of this information public.
Misunderstanding 3: Academia and IP is always related
This is something that cropped up in that energy source one as well as many others of similar nature. People seem to cling to this notion that if something hasn't been published in a scientific journal then it must not be true. Here's a newsflash for you people: many innovative researchers (whom are confident they can be innovative) will AVOID Academia, and by relation scientific journals. The reason is simple: any discovery made by a scientist under an academic institution is essentially ceded to the institution. This is why these institutions hire scientists (and have the "keep publishing journals" quote), and why these institutions spend tons of money hiring, funding, and maintaining these research facilities. For most scientists the pay, the lack of hassle (budget etc.), and the unlikelihood of coming upon a money-making discovery means academia and journal articles (ie. prestige) is enough. For institutions, there is probability by numbers involved, and they usually are in the black via prestige (more discoveries = more prestige = more applicants to the institution = more money) as well as by selling the technology discovered to industry, a good example in the medical field being stuff like HGH being discovered by some university, then being sold to a pharmaceutical company.
For others, whom are confident that they can happen upon a money-making discovery, entrepreneurial endeavors simply make more sense.
These folk are the backbone of Small Business Enterprises, are often the front line of most discoveries that become commercial, and usually are involved in a private business. This means there is 1) no incentive nor obligation to shoot for prestige (scientific journals) and 2) actually an obligation for secrecy (no journals). In fact, it's absolutely stupid to publish a scientific article about your discovery, because you're releasing details to the public and shooting yourself in the foot. This of course also means that it's often much harder to verify the scientific backing of their findings (via lack of academic back-up and lack of journals), and it is also incredibly difficult to find out the true IP behind their finding. That doesn't make what they've done necessarily fake, as many people seem to conclude. This simply leads to the proceeding steps in business.
This is something that cropped up in that energy source one as well as many others of similar nature. People seem to cling to this notion that if something hasn't been published in a scientific journal then it must not be true. Here's a newsflash for you people: many innovative researchers (whom are confident they can be innovative) will AVOID Academia, and by relation scientific journals. The reason is simple: any discovery made by a scientist under an academic institution is essentially ceded to the institution. This is why these institutions hire scientists (and have the "keep publishing journals" quote), and why these institutions spend tons of money hiring, funding, and maintaining these research facilities. For most scientists the pay, the lack of hassle (budget etc.), and the unlikelihood of coming upon a money-making discovery means academia and journal articles (ie. prestige) is enough. For institutions, there is probability by numbers involved, and they usually are in the black via prestige (more discoveries = more prestige = more applicants to the institution = more money) as well as by selling the technology discovered to industry, a good example in the medical field being stuff like HGH being discovered by some university, then being sold to a pharmaceutical company.
For others, whom are confident that they can happen upon a money-making discovery, entrepreneurial endeavors simply make more sense.
These folk are the backbone of Small Business Enterprises, are often the front line of most discoveries that become commercial, and usually are involved in a private business. This means there is 1) no incentive nor obligation to shoot for prestige (scientific journals) and 2) actually an obligation for secrecy (no journals). In fact, it's absolutely stupid to publish a scientific article about your discovery, because you're releasing details to the public and shooting yourself in the foot. This of course also means that it's often much harder to verify the scientific backing of their findings (via lack of academic back-up and lack of journals), and it is also incredibly difficult to find out the true IP behind their finding. That doesn't make what they've done necessarily fake, as many people seem to conclude. This simply leads to the proceeding steps in business.
Funding, and the start of a business proposition
A small business usually starts with a concept, or IP. Without a concept, there would be nothing worth funding. Something that the world already knows or has isn't a good business venture, for obvious reasons.
Key point: Journal articles still often make for good business
This may seem like it contradicts Point 3 earlier, but it doesn't. A journal article will often detail a scientific concept, but that doesn't mean the concept if industrially prepared. It is thus perfectly reasonable for a business to be created based on the scientific concept. The likelihood of a SMALL business created by a totally unrelated party and being based on a scientific article, however, is extremely small due to the licensing fee required in purchasing the concept from the institution. This is why you'll usually see more established companies buying licenses. For many sectors this is also one of the primary starting points of R&D for big companies.
This may seem like it contradicts Point 3 earlier, but it doesn't. A journal article will often detail a scientific concept, but that doesn't mean the concept if industrially prepared. It is thus perfectly reasonable for a business to be created based on the scientific concept. The likelihood of a SMALL business created by a totally unrelated party and being based on a scientific article, however, is extremely small due to the licensing fee required in purchasing the concept from the institution. This is why you'll usually see more established companies buying licenses. For many sectors this is also one of the primary starting points of R&D for big companies.
The first "step" is then to find funding. There're a lot of ways to get this done, but it's not easy. Contrary to popular belief, investors aren't stupid. It's their money, after all. For an entrepreneur this means they need to sell their idea, have something they can show that can prove that their thing works, something they can show that proves their thing is different from others. At this juncture, though, there usually isn't much to show, so there's a level of faith here. Also, despite me saying investors aren't stupid they aren't always the most knowledgeable either. You'll thus often see funding then from connections (people whom know you), trust based on references, history of work, et cetera. Essentially, if you're a no-name who's randomly come up with some ingenius idea, you're probably not getting funding. This is why you see a lot of so-called inventors speak of how they had to rip through their bank accounts to create their (failed) product - because they couldn't secure basic funding because they're no-names and/or they have absolutely nothing to show. By the point that someone is able to secure starting funding, the likelihood of something being an absolute farce goes down a decent bit. Whether the concept works, whether it's actually worth anything, et cetera is a different story, but based on that first step it's fair to say that people determined there's something "worth gambling on."
Point for Skepticism
At this point if you want to be a true skeptic, there are some clues you can (try to) get. Whom are the investors (usually you can't find this though)? Just as how you'll usually weigh a professional, world reknown poker player's hand if they do decide to gamble on it, you'll usually weigh a professional, world reknown investor for a concept they've gambled on. This is a point that'll remain true for the rest of the business procedure, so keep it in mind, but this is the first point you can start scouring for this. For example, if the person behind the concept is really going forward and is good (or is working with someone who is good) with management, then they'll create a legal private business, and so sometimes you can get stuff from their website about stuff like Board of Directors, etc. These things generally clue you into collaborators, investors (Board of Stockholders), et cetera.
At this point if you want to be a true skeptic, there are some clues you can (try to) get. Whom are the investors (usually you can't find this though)? Just as how you'll usually weigh a professional, world reknown poker player's hand if they do decide to gamble on it, you'll usually weigh a professional, world reknown investor for a concept they've gambled on. This is a point that'll remain true for the rest of the business procedure, so keep it in mind, but this is the first point you can start scouring for this. For example, if the person behind the concept is really going forward and is good (or is working with someone who is good) with management, then they'll create a legal private business, and so sometimes you can get stuff from their website about stuff like Board of Directors, etc. These things generally clue you into collaborators, investors (Board of Stockholders), et cetera.
Incidentally these investments are usually not very big. If a senior scientist with a PhD's average salary is like 140k (can't be arsed to find numbers) then a senior scientist with a PhD who's creating a small business might only accrue a salary of like 50k from an investment. Tight budgets and all. Financially, unless the concept is really a money-maker then going rambo simply does not make sense. This means scamming an investor is really not a good life decision, because not only do you wreck your reputation and essentially blacklist yourself from future workplaces, you're not even making much money. That doesn't mean such scamming doesn't exist (people can find ways to flub/cheat/etc. anywhere), but it's also somewhat naive to believe that every unbelievable concept is simply a scam. Something in there is creating solid evidence - the question is whether what's TRULY creating the evidence is marketable. It's why you'll often see even brilliant scientists come up with what's a world-shattering finding... only to later (and with more funded research) realize that the finding is simply backed by known mechanisms, only in a new environment. Unfortunately in most cases the only way to find this out is via more research, which costs money, and, well, you get the gist.
To that end, yes, be skeptical until things really "work out." Because until something is absolutely hammered out, there is absolutely no guarantee it'll work out. But saying "I'll believe it when it happens" is the most obvious thing in the world. You'll also find that most defenses of these things (ie. that Nobel Laureate guy that was defending the energy source research on that other forum) aren't so much for it working, but for the possibility of it working, at the current level of research. They are advocating further research and firing back at people who generalize it as a scam, without understanding that the steps the research has gone through to reach the point it has automatically give it some level of credibility. Here's a newsflash: if you hear about it, then chances are it's got some level of hope. This doesn't guarantee success, but it's a hell of a lot further along than you may realize.
Post initial funding/venture capital
Initial funding from an investor (or in rare cases multiple investors) often covers bare minimum for a very short (relatively) amount of time. A concept might get you 100k for a single year, which'll pay for like a really low salary for one person, a place to conduct research, equipment, etc.). After that, the initial investor will seek further findings, and the researcher will also usually need to find more sources of funding to expedite the R&D process. This is why a small business that has been working on one concept for a decent amount of time is relatively trustworthy in terms of "hope." Further investors are usually much more demanding.
For example, if you're looking for a second round of investment, then you're definitely going to have to show signs of progress, definite proof that the concept is real and doable, et cetera. After all, with a year under your belt you've got to have substance.
Venture capital
If you're looking for venture capital (and this is why something backed by venture capital has a significant amount of OOMPH and you'll find a lot of these things become news), you've got even more to go through because venture capital firms are strict as fuck. You've got to show like a full-blown business and research plan detailing why your thing works, how it's different from competitors, compare it to your competitors, et cetera. If your concept is being backed by a venture capital firm, you've essentially made it big, because it means someone genuinely believes that your concept has "hope." And from a spectator standpoint, if a concept is backed by a venture capital firm, it means it's gone through essentially a peer review, because these firms usually hire professionals to go through the data,, go through the concept and verify that it's worth backing. Bear in mind that venture capital firms generally have "specializations" for this reason. Of course, as with all things, for skeptic purposes look up who the firm is. While the majority of firms have history and are extremely solid in terms of how much background check they do, there will always be smaller firms that're new/looser etc. that aren't as reputable. That doesn't mean they're not, and could simply mean that they're just not established enough, but you again can't just generalize.
If you're looking for venture capital (and this is why something backed by venture capital has a significant amount of OOMPH and you'll find a lot of these things become news), you've got even more to go through because venture capital firms are strict as fuck. You've got to show like a full-blown business and research plan detailing why your thing works, how it's different from competitors, compare it to your competitors, et cetera. If your concept is being backed by a venture capital firm, you've essentially made it big, because it means someone genuinely believes that your concept has "hope." And from a spectator standpoint, if a concept is backed by a venture capital firm, it means it's gone through essentially a peer review, because these firms usually hire professionals to go through the data,, go through the concept and verify that it's worth backing. Bear in mind that venture capital firms generally have "specializations" for this reason. Of course, as with all things, for skeptic purposes look up who the firm is. While the majority of firms have history and are extremely solid in terms of how much background check they do, there will always be smaller firms that're new/looser etc. that aren't as reputable. That doesn't mean they're not, and could simply mean that they're just not established enough, but you again can't just generalize.
Grants
Tend to carry some weight with them too. I'd warn that you need to figure out who's giving the grant though. I'm not as knowledgeable about other countries, but for instance most government grants in the US are notorious for how competitive they are. Even then, you want to look at who's giving the grant, for skepticism purposes. A few years ago there were grants given out due to the Federal Stimulus Plan. As one of my bosses and I chortled, some doctor (doctor!) was given grant money for "G-Spot Enhancement". Seriously? Seriously. That said, if you can verify the grant was provided by a strong organization (ie. NIH, DoD, etc.) then you can definitely be sure there's some strong backing for the concept.
Tend to carry some weight with them too. I'd warn that you need to figure out who's giving the grant though. I'm not as knowledgeable about other countries, but for instance most government grants in the US are notorious for how competitive they are. Even then, you want to look at who's giving the grant, for skepticism purposes. A few years ago there were grants given out due to the Federal Stimulus Plan. As one of my bosses and I chortled, some doctor (doctor!) was given grant money for "G-Spot Enhancement". Seriously? Seriously. That said, if you can verify the grant was provided by a strong organization (ie. NIH, DoD, etc.) then you can definitely be sure there's some strong backing for the concept.
Not coincidentally this is also (especially in later iterations of requesting funding) when small companies end up being bought out by big corporations, whom want to skimp on R&D costs by taking a time-tested concept. They'll then incorporate the small company into their R&D, and since the licensing fee is essentially included in the purchasing agreement, don't have to pay a licensing fee/royalties/etc. if the concept does hit the market. For a small business such a transaction often makes a lot of sense because it alleviates financial worries, generally guarantees a stable research environment, and also allows for fast-tracked regulation.
Going public
Is a whole other beast. I can't speak for the thought-process behind doing this, but I'm leaving this section here so that people can really get a feel for how different a private company and a public company is, and how gigantic the step is going from the former to the latter. When you apply to become a public company you need to go through banks, so that someone will back you. You need to provide business plans, detailed budgets, all of your legal documents, everything. You need to make absolutely everything public (except for IP). You need an established Board of Directors, you need an established management system, you need to show your organizational structure, et cetera. You don't need to be a huge company to be public (there's no minimum IIRC, so you can really be public with like 10 people) but it's a huge freaking pain the rear. That's why if you look around online you'll find essays by smart people sharing their opinions on whether it's worth it to go public, when it's worth it, et cetera. The point I'm getting at is that most companies are not going to be public, and being public or private should have no real bearing on how "reputable" you deem a company and its concept to be. There are plenty, plenty of public companies that have nothing more than a concept, far from reaching commercial levels, many with concepts that are doomed to fail.
Conclusion
Is that there really is none, but I'm hoping that this helps people understand some of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes for a lot of these concepts. It's one thing to chortle at some of the bizarre individual "I've discovered Kryptonite!" findings of people backed by nothing except their own bank accounts. It's another thing to not give any respect whatsoever to concepts/endeavors by people/companies that have really gone through a process, weathered a storm, and have reached a point where news outlets are picking up on their progress. Again, this doesn't guarantee success, and the only way you'll know if there's success is if they reach that "endpoint." But a lot of complaints/arguments put forth can be answered by just having a better understanding of the industry and how things work, and are often extremely, really stupidly frivolous.
Happy skepticism
P.S. I'm not really a superduper expert so if people want to correct/add stuff please do :[ I'm really only going by what I've experienced in my line of work.
