I have come up with the idea to start a company selling wireless equipment I build myself out of components available from Digikey. However, FCC certification costs about $5k ($3k for a transmitter, $2k for receiver). However, I don't know if my products will sell and don't want to invest $5k into government regulations. Is there a loophole in the law for small businesses as long as the devices being sold are in compliance? I believe they would pass certification easily, as the transmitter does not need to go very far and is under powered as a result.

Any explanatory help would be appreciated

2/12/2009 12:46:36 AM

this might do better in tech talk - let me know if you want me to move it

2/12/2009 9:10:07 AM

how much power

2/12/2009 9:15:11 AM

use wireless components that are already certified?

2/12/2009 9:19:40 AM

sounds like a neat idea. hope it works for ya

2/12/2009 9:28:47 AM

^^ I asked the distributor and they said that, yes, I would be fine if every component I used to build my product was already FCC certified. Regretfully, these are basic level components and therefore uncertifiable, as it is the total package that makes the noise (if I wanted to, this thing could easily fail certification). The datasheet from the parts manufacturer has a section on the FCC but only mentions the one way of achieving certification (the $5k).

OmarBadu, I guess you are right. Move it on to tech talk if you would, thants.

2/12/2009 11:54:01 AM

Out of curiosity, what would yo be building?

2/12/2009 1:40:14 PM

Quote :

"However, I don't know if my products will sell and don't want to invest $5k into government regulations."

From a business point of view you are doomed to fail if you are going to start off on two wrong feet.

1) you don't know if your product will sell or if there is a demand for it
2) you aren't willing to invest in your own business

2/12/2009 2:34:46 PM

there's a difference between not investing and trying to keep overhead low

2/12/2009 2:50:10 PM

well it seems that FCC compliance would be rather important to the business

2/12/2009 3:09:28 PM

^^yes, but this is not keeping overhead low. This certification is essential for an ROI to even be possible. Otherwise you just have wasted money on a product you can't sell.

[Edited on February 12, 2009 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ^]

2/12/2009 3:09:59 PM

Quote :

"well it seems that FCC compliance would be rather important to the business"

Hence the creation of this thread. If those are the rules of the game then so be it, I will comply or quit. However, I do not know if FCC compliance is important to the business. As this is a high priced item with very low volume, there is a possibility I can stamp "kit" on everything and not need FCC verification.

Quote :

"1) you don't know if your product will sell or if there is a demand for it 2) you aren't willing to invest in your own business"

1) I do, actually. But it depends on the FCC rules. I have enough buyers already lined up to turn a hefty profit, but not if I must pay $5k (which would put me in the hole if I found no further buyers) or go to jail. Hence the thread. I will proceed regardless, but pray not to start $5k in the hole if I do not absolutely have too.

Quote :

"Out of curiosity, what would yo be building?"

Like any small business planner I believe I have found a niche that has been erroneously missed by others. In other words, I believe I have found free money lying around and I wish to collect it. While I seriously doubt anyone here would bother copying my product, they could, so spreading that information has only downside to me before I have a finished product ready for sale (the hardware is designed, the PCB is almost finished, all that remains is software development). But when that day comes you will be the first (tenth) to know

[Edited on February 12, 2009 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/12/2009 3:21:04 PM

Quote :

"1) I do, actually. But it depends on the FCC rules. I have enough buyers already lined up to turn a hefty profit, but not if I must pay $5k (which would put me in the hole if I found no further buyers) or go to jail. Hence the thread. I will proceed regardless, but pray not to start $5k in the hole if I do not absolutely have too. "

Not to troll but...something doesn't add up...

You have buyers lined up to turn a hefty profit. But if you pay the $5,000 you'll be in the hole even with this 'hefty' profit. You also stated it is a high priced item. Something doesn't add up here... because from my perspective if its a high priced item with a 'hefty profit' then it sounds like selling one or two would already balance out the $5k. You have to accept the fact that small businesses generally don't turn a profit until after at least a year or two. It takes money to make money.

2/12/2009 3:44:36 PM

I'm pretty sure Lonesnark knows a ton more about this shit than you do.

2/12/2009 4:08:15 PM

Quote :

"so spreading that information has only downside to me before I have a finished product ready for sale (the hardware is designed, the PCB is almost finished, all that remains is software development)."

In that case, why dont you file for a patent? Even if you build it and don't patent it, someone else can still copy it.

i think its only around $100 to file a provisional patent

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/provapp.htm

2/12/2009 4:37:27 PM

PM me what you're building. I'm a meteorologist and I'm unlikely to have the technical skills to steal and exploit your ideas.

2/12/2009 5:03:54 PM

Quote :

"You have buyers lined up to turn a hefty profit. But if you pay the $5,000 you'll be in the hole even with this 'hefty' profit. You also stated it is a high priced item. Something doesn't add up here... because from my perspective if its a high priced item with a 'hefty profit' then it sounds like selling one or two would already balance out the $5k."

Sorry, the confusion is explained by differing definitions of 'hefty' and 'high priced'. In my definition, both are substantially lower than $5k. My hefty profit was less than $5k after serving my current bank of customers, which would be great for just a month of less than part-time work with the possibility of selling more items later, but would suck if I find myself owing that plus thousands more to various regulatory hurdles. Does stamping it with "use at your own risk" actually help me?

I could discover tomorrow that my design infringes on existing patents; is afoul of FCC regs; is afoul of consumer protection laws; or something else. I am going to have to charge and pay sales taxes on these things. But there, at least, I know the law; the FCC is a complete mystery, hence the thread.

Quote :

"In that case, why dont you file for a patent? Even if you build it and don't patent it, someone else can still copy it."

It has been suggested. However, if anything this product is already patented. The issue is not how novel the idea is, it is that the current suppliers are operating with prohibitively high price points. This all started when a friend of mine complained how expensive a piece of wireless equipment costs and I responded that I could make a better product for substantially less. That was two weeks ago. Imagine my shock when I discover three months from now that the reason their price is so high is due to patent protections...

No, my means of protection is going to be trade secrets. I am using microprocessors with burnable fuses to prevent copying the software and I am going to sand off the serial numbers of the various ICs. From there, my only protection will be the apathy of others.

2/12/2009 5:16:44 PM

Sounds like wireless usb to me.

2/12/2009 5:20:15 PM

^^Two things.

Check section 15.103 for possible exemptions. The other option is selling your device as a kit. If you can sell it incomplete, requiring the buyer to purchase final components elsewhere (and these components are the wave radiators) and install them themselves, you should also be exempt.

Second thing. If you are building this :thing: based off of a known, commercial device, and simply undercutting the pricepoint with exactly the same functionality, you are going to have lawsuits on your hands if you ever make a real go at this.

It's one thing to build an interoperable device. That is fine and dandy legal, patent or not.

It's another to know the implementation of a device and copy it, then sell it avoiding licensing of the design.

2/12/2009 6:08:16 PM

"Digital devices that have a power consumption not exceeding 6 nW."
What on earth consumes so little power? A wrist watch?

2/13/2009 12:26:28 PM

sounds like this idea is steeped in failure.



not only are you trying to rip off a design, you're trying to bypass the organization that will ultimately tell you whether or not you can sell this ripped off design. they wont care that it's ripped off, as they're not patent enforcement agents, but still.


I guess you're trying to save that 5k for legal fees.

2/13/2009 9:26:11 PM

this will only work if you are interested in making one

2/13/2009 10:14:16 PM

Quote :

"not only are you trying to rip off a design"

I have never seen their design. I had no need to do so. What this device does is ungodly simple. I feel like it should be the first project in ECE301. However, the people that want this device are non-engineers, so they don't know how simple it is to build. I know of a non-engineer that managed to build one. His sucks, sure, he is doing electronically work that really should be done with a processor, but the point is that this should not be patentable in any way, it is just cobbling together objects from allelectronics.com.

Quote :

"you're trying to bypass the organization that will ultimately tell you whether or not you can sell this"

If the law says I should then why wouldn't I? The question of this thread was "Is this illegal?" I will do whatever it takes to stay within the law, but I am not going to waste the FCCs time and my money just because you get indignant.

That said, I would like to thank those that offered helpful advice
For example, Noen. I had thought of selling it as a Kit, it was good to hear someone else make a similar suggestion. As for the list of exemptions, I am exempt from many statutes because it doesn't draw AC power, does not connect electrically to other equipment, and does not connect to the cable network, but most statutes gave no proviso, just a statement. Best I can figure out, all small handheld electronic devices must be FCC certified, whether they use radiowaves or not. It seems there was no distinction made between intentional emitters and unintentional emitters. I found that odd.

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 12:50 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/14/2009 12:40:27 AM

Quote :

"this should not be patentable in any way"

just about anything is patentable

2/14/2009 6:13:20 PM

^^There's a big difference between intentional emitters and unintentional emitters. There's also a big difference based on emissions range. If it's under 30ft and within certain rf ranges, you should only need a statement of validation (very very oversimplified, but that's the gist).

Basically you can submit a statement of validation that says "my device emits X, which falls under the requirements for full certification" and then you are basically fine, unless a 3rd party decides to test your statement and finds it erronious.

That'll still probably cost you a few hundred bucks, but it should be considerably cheaper, and may let you sell it as a product rather than a kit.

Honestly you should contact one of the test labs and just talk to them. From my admittedly limited experience, they have always been pretty helpful. At worst you can get some quotes to find out what it will really cost you, at best you may find legal ways around full FCC testing compliance.

2/14/2009 7:02:26 PM

bump

6/23/2009 1:48:49 AM

Whatever happened to this? Do you have a shipping product or did you give up or what?

6/23/2009 7:25:36 AM

if you register a company in another country then you should be exempt from having to make your product fcc compliant, like other cheap chinese things.

6/23/2009 9:15:07 AM