MHM wrote:alan wrote:MHM wrote:Welcome to the group, both of you guys.
@Alan - what's your invention?
Thanks for the welcome. Let me explain my invention, and ask a question.
I have a new key core design. Briefly, its strengths are very high security at low cost. I've already filed for a patent, and am in the process of building a prototype.
This lock is provably bump-proof. It is extremely pick resistance (perhaps even Bowley lock difficult). I do not believe any impressioning will be possible. It is highly resistant to force because of inherently robust parts, and is designed to be made easily drill resistant with a single anti-drill pin.
Please assume for a minute that all of the above is true: this is a bump-proof, virtually pick proof, robust deadbolt at roughly Home Depot Kwikset/Schlage/Yale prices. Would it be commercially advantageous to have such a lock which also has a pretty conventional looking inexpensive key that can be easily copied on conventional key cutters? That is, does it make sense to market a lock with superior security, but an easily and cheaply copied key?
Wow that's a really interesting question Alan.
First I'll answer as a businessman: No-one is going to sell a better product at a budget price, it doesn't make any kind of sense. A premium lock MUST be sold at a premium price...thus, if your system really is good then you (or more likely a major manufacturer under licence) would manufacture it for cheap, sell at the top end of the market, and reap the better margins. (There's not really a lot of margin in the low end security hardware stuff, which is why most of it is now made in China as cheaply and nastily as possible - I'm not suggesting that you should do that of course.)
Second, the key. If you want the product to be taken seriously by manufacturers, locksmiths, and consumers, then key control is mandatory. A high security lock with an easily copyable key...is not a high security lock. Manufacturers spend an awful lot of time and money adding complex features to keys for exactly this reason, and you'd need to do the same. From the locksmith's point of view it's a very good thing if he can cut a key for your system on his existing machine, BUT you would absolutely have to make sure that the blanks he cuts the key from are unique, patented, and ONLY available from you. This is why the major high security lock makers make a HUGE deal out of patenting their special key blanks, and then when the patent is close to expiry they add an extra feature to extend the patent and keep the system (and the profits) secure. If you think that this sounds like the pharmaceutical industry, you'd be correct.
I'd love to have a look at your new design once you have a working prototype...
Best wishes,
Michael.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful and informative reply, Michael. Much appreciated! I understand that the low manufacturing cost is primarily a profit advantage, and not a low cost volume advantage. I am more than happy to take such advantage!
An aside, but I LOVE your country. Spent three weeks exploring both islands a couple years ago and had a fabulous time. Do you ever get to Arizona? Now, back to the lock...
I actually started with a very patentable key, but then realized the patentable feature was counterproductive to security. That is, once I carefully studied the multitude of picking techniques on various lock picking sites like this, I realized the extra internal pins that would create the additional patentable feature on the key blank was both easily enough picked, and weakened the internals against other attacks. I do not see an easy way to add any other patentable device patent to the key blank, but I suspect I could pursue a design patent on the key as is. Design patents regarding how something looks are much weaker than device or process patents that protect functionality or purpose. I'm not sure I want to go back to the prior design to get a patent on the key blank, knowing that it creates a small decrease in lock security, although there is a tradeoff of usefulness that should keep it patentable. I suppose that could be an option to anyone wanting to license the design. This should be a great discussion I'll be having with my patent attorney soon.
The current key certainly does not look like a conventional key, but will not appear out of place on any kind of key ring, and it is similar enough to easily fit into a conventional key cutter. The bidding is quite unique, but well within the envelope of what a standard cutter can cut. The bidding is very easily noticed by a locksmith at arm's length, but will not likely be noticed by a layperson at all. I suspect the cut key is patentable (as a device) due to the unique bidding, but not the blank. I could easily be wrong about the patentability.
Note that having a blank does not make the lock less secure. Impressioning and bumping and other techniques that can make a blank useful to a lock picker simply will not help with this lock. Homemade blanks will not be particularly hard to make, as the key outline and keyway is not complex. The patentable blank idea only adds the need for a few cuts with a thin Dremel saw for a homemade blank. Since even a homemade blank would be a patent infringement, it could easily restrict all legally made blanks to what I or a patent licensee makes available. That is, it may be more like the pharmaceutical industry than desired. Like many drugs, these key blanks would be easy to duplicate, only not legally. I would think the bearings and magnets and off-axis machining and such on some of the more uniquely protected key blanks are also very important, more so than just being unique, patented and *legally* available only from me.
This lock has radically different kind of pins than anything else, but are fairly easily manufacturable, easily adopted to master keying, and easier for a locksmith to rekey than most other cores other than user-rekeyable designs like the Kwikset Smartkey.
I haven't, however, figured out how to do construction keying yet. I hope to figure it out, but a ball bearing technique is not going to do it. I'm thinking it will take a common de-construction key that will convert any construction core from the construction key to the owner key with a simple insertion and turn. Not quite as simple as being completely automatic with the first use of the owner key, but do you think this would be generally acceptable for the purpose?