InventionHome® Product Developer Creates Remote-Controlled, Motorized Outdoor Umbrella Stand Dollie
Traditional umbrella stands can be difficult to reposition due to their weight and bulk, especially when filled with ballast material. Users commonly need to lift or drag these units to adjust shade position as the sun moves, often risking muscle strain or injury. In addition, frequent manual repositioning can disrupt comfort and routine, particularly in settings such as lounges or poolside areas.
The mobile, motorized platform is operated via handheld remote or smartphone app. It is constructed using weather-resistant materials such as aluminum, reinforced plastic, or vinyl, and the dollie is engineered to accommodate a variety of umbrella base shapes and sizes. A locking mechanism secures the umbrella during repositioning, and no user assembly is required. The unit arrives pre-configured and ready for immediate deployment. The remote-control system can be included in the manufacturing process of the actual umbrella stand; therefore, it can be purchased as an add on for any existing umbrella stand or manufacturers may want to build it in during the manufacturing process.
Key features and benefits of the invention include:
• Remote-Controlled Operation: allows users to reposition umbrella stands using a handheld remote or mobile app, minimizing physical effort.
• Reduced Risk of Injury: reduces the chance of strain or injury by eliminating the need to manually lift or push heavy umbrella bases.
• Universal Compatibility: platform size and design are optimized to accommodate most standard umbrella stands, with 1-inch clearance for fitting flexibility.
This solution is suited for homeowners, commercial pool facilities, resorts, and country clubs where outdoor shading needs change throughout the day. By integrating remote mobility into outdoor shading systems, the Outdoor Umbrella Stand Remote Control Dollie significantly enhances usability, safety, and comfort.
Julius filed his Utility Patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and is working closely with InventionHome, a leading invention licensing firm, to sell or license the patent rights to his Outdoor Umbrella Stand Remote Control Dollie. Ideal licensing candidates would be U.S. based product manufacturers or distributors looking to further develop and distribute this product innovation.
Companies interested in the Outdoor Umbrella Stand Remote Control Dollie can contact InventionHome at [email protected]. Inventors currently looking for assistance in patenting, marketing, or licensing their invention can request information from InventionHome at [email protected] or by calling 1-866-844-6512.
About InventionHome®
InventionHome® is a top-rated invention marketing and product licensing company dedicated to helping inventors successfully patent, prototype, and promote their new product ideas. From securing intellectual property to connecting with potential licensees, InventionHome® offers a streamlined path to commercialization. Learn more at https://www.inventionhome.com or email [email protected].
For expert guidance on every step of the invention process, visit our growing library of inventor resources and articles at https://articles.inventionhome.com.
InventionHome
InventionHome
+1 866-844-6512
[email protected]
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
From Refugee To CEO: 5 Hard-Earned Skills For Success
Hao Lam, entrepreneur, author, speaker, founder of Adaptively Education and Best in Class Education Center. Behind every business is a story, and mine started long before I ever opened an education center. When I escaped communist Vietnam and arrived in Canada as a refugee, I didn't speak the language and had very little to my name. What I did have was a fierce determination to rebuild. I put myself through school, moved to the United States, became a teacher and eventually built a national education franchise. The journey came with a lot of twists and turns and taught me more than just how to grow a business—it taught me how to lead one. Success isn't just about having the right idea at the right time. It's about developing the mindset, skills and habits that carry you through the uncertainty that comes with every stage of growth. Here are five hard-earned skills that shaped my journey from refugee to CEO—skills I often share with other entrepreneurs working to build a company grounded in purpose and growth. 1. Grit And Resilience: Keep Going, Especially When It's Hard I wish I could tell you there's a stress-free path to success. There isn't. You will be underestimated. You will frequently feel stretched thin. You'll need to find harmony between work and the other integral parts of your life. You'll face moments of self-doubt. Entrepreneurship, while a rewarding career path, is certainly not an easy one. What enables entrepreneurs to build something lasting is the ability to keep moving forward when things get uncomfortable or uncertain. Grit is about persistence, but resilience is about how you recover when something doesn't go as planned. I didn't get here because I avoided hard things—I got here because I faced them, got knocked down and kept showing up. Resilience is built every time you choose to keep going when quitting would be easier. 2. Vision With Execution: Don't Just Dream—Deliver It's easy to get excited about the big picture. Entrepreneurs are full of ideas. But vision execution is where the real work begins. The entrepreneurs I admire most are the ones who can see where they're going and also put a plan in place to get there. They don't just talk about growth—they map it, test it, revise it and make it real. At my company, our growth wasn't accidental. It came from defining our 'why,' putting systems in place and ensuring our teams knew how to translate our vision into results, center by center and student by student, to achieve a collective win. If you're seeking sustainable growth, start with a clear vision and the operational discipline to carry it forward. 3. Connection-Centered Networking: Lead With Value, Grow With Others In the early days of growing my business, I made it a point to show up to conferences, local events and networking groups—anywhere I could learn and connect. But I wasn't there just to hand out business cards or gain a referral. I came to ask good questions, offer insight where I could and build relationships that mattered. The best networkers I know are subject matter experts who lead with generosity. They don't just ask, 'What can I get?' They ask, 'What can I offer?' When you build relationships based on trust and shared values, referrals happen naturally. Those same relationships often lead to mentorships and meaningful peer accountability. Opportunities open up because people know you're showing up with intention, not ego. 4. Humble Leadership: Lead By Listening One of the most underrated skills in entrepreneurship is humility. The moment someone assumes they know it all, growth stalls, especially when they become daunted by others who know more instead of learning from them. When I've been open to listening to other leaders, I've gained insights I might never have uncovered on my own. Some of the best ideas we've implemented at Best in Class came from team members, franchisees and parents who saw something I didn't. Being the CEO doesn't mean I'm always right; it means I'm always responsible for building a better company for those we serve. When we lead with vulnerability, invite honest feedback and create space for others to shine, we foster a culture of growth and success. This kind of leadership is foundational to a team that's engaged, resilient and rooted in shared values. 5. Accountability With Optimism: Know Where You're Headed, And Keep Believing It's Possible Entrepreneurship is full of detours and unknowns. But as I discussed in my previous article, if you're clear about your defined goals, you can course-correct without losing momentum. Setting SMART goals and reviewing them regularly—with mentors, my team and myself—has been instrumental in ensuring that my steps toward growth are intentional and never left to chance. At regular intervals, I ask myself, 'Am I moving toward the outcome I want or away from it?' But alongside structure, you need optimism. Optimism isn't blind positivity but a grounded belief that your work matters and that growth is possible, even in tough times like economic uncertainty or the kind of disruption we all experienced during the pandemic. An optimistic mindset doesn't just inspire, it sustains. It keeps you moving forward, even when everything else tells you to stop. Leadership Is Earned And Always In Progress I didn't set out to become a CEO; I set out to survive. But in the process, I discovered that the same inner drive that helped me rebuild my life could help me build something meaningful for others. Success doesn't happen overnight, and it doesn't happen alone. It comes from cultivating the right habits, owning your story and growing through every challenge you face. Whether you're launching your first venture or scaling your next one, focus on the skills that stand the test of time: grit, vision, connection, humility and accountability. These are more than traits—they're tools. And when you use them with intention, you'll create more than a business. You'll build a legacy. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
The End Of ‘Smelly' Arguments? Tax Court Targets Easement Abuses
United States Tax Court building in Washington DC Judge Ronald L. Buch has issued a warning to the syndicated conservation easement industry and their attorneys about the litigation that is piling up in the Tax Court. When I think of the Tax Court issuing sanctions, I usually think of stubborn pro se litigants like Brian Swanson. This May the Eleventh Circuit denied him relief from a $25,000 Tax Court frivolity penalty. You have to work your way up to that amount. Usually the Tax Court starts off with a warning. And that is what happened with Mr. Swanson, for whom I have a grudging admiration. Judge Buch's warning, on the other hand, is going out to some of the best represented taxpayers currently in the Tax Court dockets and the attorneys themselves, but let's look at the case that it came up in - Veribest Vesta, LLC. About Veribest Veribest owned 55 acres of land in Oglethorpe County, Georgia near the city of Elberton. The parcel was referred to as the old Grimes quarry site. Elberton is known as the Granite Capital of the World as it sits on a granite belt that is approximately 35 miles long, 6 miles wide and 2 to 3 miles deep. By my reckoning that would make for over 130,000 acres where you know that if you dig deep enough you will hit granite. As Judge Buch observes, in order to mine granite as a business you need access to acres like that. You also need an experienced crew with a capable leader, capital to acquire the necessary equipment and to operate the business, and a market into which to sell the granite. A man carrying a block of granite as he prepares the blocks for hand tooling at a granite quarry in ... More Elberton, Georgia, circa 1950. So central to the economy of Elberton is granite that the city is known as the 'Granite Capital of the World'. (Photo by Herbert C. Lanks/Keystone View Company/FPG/) When Veribest donated a conservation easement on the old Grimes quarry site, all it had of the several requirements was the site. Since there is not a lot of buying and selling of easements, they are generally valued by taking the value of the land before the easement and subtracting from it the value of the land as encumbered by the easement. The argument is usually about the before value. Veribest valued the land at over $20,000,000 which after subtracting an after value of $100,000 yielded a charitable contribution of $20,310,000. According to Judge Buch locals understand quarry properties to be worth around $2,000 per acre. Contemporaneous sales records in the surrounding region reflect a range of values from $1,999 to $2,840 per acre. The old Grimes quarry according to evidence at trial was subpar, having been quarried and abandoned. Two years before the donation it had changed hands for $1,818 per acre. Nonetheless the IRS expert went wild and crazy and came in with a $3,000 per acre value, which Judge Buch views as a concession. All that made for a donation value of $111,000. The difference between that and the $20,310,000 claimed by Veribest is according to Judge Buch "a vast difference. It is vast enough to qualify for the gross valuation misstatement penalty. I guess "vast" is a few steps up from "gross" even though it sounds a little classier. The Valuation At trial, Veribest presented two experts. One argued for a before valuation somewhere between $23 and $33.5 million and the other came up with $15,460,000. These were based on the present value of the cash flow from a hypothetical mining operation. As a backup, one of the appraisers computed a valuation based on hypothetical royalty income which came in at $12,170,000. The IRS before valuation based on comparable sales was $165,000. Judge Buch went with the IRS. This result follows along with the recent Tax Court decisions in similar cases. The thinking is that a mining operation on the land is not inherent in the value of the land and that that is not how real estate changes hands. The principle is reinforced in this case by the fact that there had been quarrying going on and it was abandoned because the granite coming out was not of very high Warning This case is from the 2018 tax year so there is an actual assessment against the partnership of an "imputed underpayment" of $7,514,000 and valuation penalty of $3,005,880. This was based on a total disallowance of the charitable contribution. The result of the decision will pare that back very slightly. Assuming, as is likely, that the partnership will not be able to pay, the underpayment will get pushed out to the partners, but we really don't have experience with how well that is going to work out in practice. 2018 is the first year that these new rules are in effect. What really stands out about this case is the warning that Judge Buch issued. He pointed out that Code Section 6673(a)(1) which allows for a penalty of up to $25,000 where it appears that Tax Court proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay, the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless or the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue administrative remedies. Frankly with the numbers floating around in this case and others $25,000 doesn't seem like much a concern. But there is more. Code Section 6673(a)(2) provides that when it appears to the Tax Court that an attorney has multiplied the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously that such attorney may be required to personally pay the excess costs,expenses and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct. Judge Buch states that valuing a property at more than 100 times its actual value is patently frivolous. The value was arrived at not by valuing the property but by valuing a hypothetical business to be situated on the property. Judge Buch quotes from some recent cases. "It is not credible to posit that a buyer would pay -for the easement property alone- the entire NPV of a hypothetical business on the property." He notes that the Tax Court has written that valuing land based on the going concern value of a business operating on the land "defies economic logic and common sense." He also has older appellate opinions that support the same notion. The Fourth Circuit when faced with a situation where the deduction was eight times what was paid a year earlier does not pass any reasonable smell test. And now he is facing a situation where 200 times was claimed. Judge Buch then notes all the time and aggravation involved in the two week trial. He notes that True North Resources, the partnership representative in the case, has ten other cases before the Tax Court and provides warning that 'continuing to pursue similarly incredible, nonsensical, and quite frankly, smelly arguments may result in sanctions on petitioner or its counsel'. Other Tax Court Action The case of Paul-Adams Quarry Trust LLC is scheduled for trial this week. Judge Emin Toro has ordered that the parties be prepared to discuss their views on Veribest and Rock Cliff Reserve, another syndicated conservation easement decision that did not go well for the taxpayers. There is an intriguing footnote Rock Cliff Reserve: "Mr. Collins understood the valuation method for a conservation easement (the value of the land before the easement minus the value of the land after the easement) but repeatedly balked on the stand at admitting that the value of a conservation easement could not exceed the value of a fee simple interest in the land." Is The Industry Based On Nonsense? When I first heard about the idea of buying land and then selling it to people who would take deduction for donated conservation easements, I thought it was one of the stupidest ideas I had ever heard. That's because I believed that an easement could not be worth more than the fee simple interest in the land and that the market for unimproved land, while imperfect, is not full of a lot of stupid people. Although the notion that an easement can be worth more than the land was floating around, I had not seen it being argued in court until recently. Jones Day made the argument in Beaverdam Creek Holdings. Judge Goeke was not impressed. Jones Day is representing Paul-Adams Quarry Trust. It is difficult to give the Jones Day argument justice without going longer than I care to here. Basically the idea is that only sales between fully knowledgeable and capable parties count as comparable sales. So when the syndicator buys land from a farmer for $1,000 per acre, it is possible that the land can really be worth $100,000 per acre. Here is an article in Bloomberg Tax written by Jones Day people that explains it more fully. Reaction Lew Taishoff has a piece titled Judge Buch Says It All Here where he quotes more extensively than I do. Jack Townsend has a passionate piece - Tax Court Rejects a ******** Tax Shelter False Valuation Claim with Warning of Sanctions for Taxpayers, their Counsel, and Expert Witness Proffering the ******* (7/16/25; 7/18/25). I bowdlerized his title based on my understanding of the standards of this platform. The ******* represent Townsend's characterization of abusive tax shelters. The poetic reference is to bovine excrement. Kirsten A. Parillo has Tax Court Warns of Frivolous Argument Penalties in Easement Cases behind the Tax Notes paywall. In that piece she quotes Frank Agostino, who represents taxpayers - 'Having an expert testify that in his or her professional opinion DCF produces the most accurate value is within the province of the expert. The trial attorney has an obligation to represent the taxpayer zealously. It should be a rare case where damages under section 6673 are appropriate. Those cases are resolved by summary judgement.' I followed up with Mr. Agostino and he wrote me the following: "The Veribest Vesta decision is a stark warning for attorneys and taxpayers who rely on non-cash charitable contribution deductions, especially in the context of conservation easements. The Tax Court made clear that even a 'qualified appraisal' by a credentialed expert will not protect taxpayers from severe penalties if the Tax Court judge concludes that underlying assumptions are speculative or unsupported by the facts. For practitioners, the message is clear: formal compliance with appraisal requirements is not enough if the Tax Court judge concludes that the facts do not support the claimed value. As the legal landscape evolves, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions on administrative penalties, there may be growing calls to expand taxpayer and tax practitioner access to jury trials in valuation penalty based cases to ensure procedural fairness and maintain trust in the tax system." I also heard from Steve Small, an authority on private land protection, who has probably done more than anyone to expose abusive conservation easements in the interest of preserving the legitimate use of the technique. "The rule for valuing federal income tax charitable contribution donations has been the same for decades, in both easement cases and any other valuation of charitable gift cases: willing buyer, willing seller, comparable sales in the relevant marketplace. The price you recently paid for the property is the best evidence of fair market value. There are no other acceptable methods. In very limited circumstances a DCF can be ok but only in situations that are not based on fanciful assumptions. A 'correct' value determined by a 'correct' DCF should be substantially close to a value determination by comparable sales. The problem is that counsel for well bankrolled syndicators have been trying to convince people that the rule is something different. It's not. They keep blowing smoke, with claims and arguments that are nothing more than red herrings. They are bluffing, the wizard is still behind the curtain, all of these efforts are a totally valid attempt, under the American judicial system, to convince the IRS and the courts that the rule is something different – it is not something different. They are simply representing what they believe to be the best interests of their clients, that's all. But enough is enough. The courts are FINALLY starting to say 'what part of 'willing buyer willing seller based on comparable sales in the relevant marketplace' don't you understand?'"
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What a Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern deal could unlock
Union Pacific (UNP) is exploring a $60 billion deal to acquire Norfolk Southern (NSC), aiming to create a transcontinental rail network. Ken Hoexter, BofA Securities transportation analyst, explains what's driving the talks and discusses how regulators may respond. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Catalysts here. There could be a mega merger in the railroad world, Union Pacific confirming it's in talks to acquire rival Norfolk Southern in a deal that could be worth over $60 billion. Following the confirmation, Ken Hexter of B of A Securities Transportation Analyst raised his price objective for Union Pacific stock to $271, up from $262 and he is joining us now. Ken, it's good to see you. Hey, good morning, Julie. So why would it make sense to bring these two railroads together? What, when you're talking about two railroads, right? What kind of synergies are you talking about especially since I don't think it would mean fewer rail lines, right? No, in this case, it doesn't, right? In in historical mergers, we've seen that, you know, back in the '80s, '90s, we saw a lot of overlapping mergers where there was Burlington Northern Santa Fe or UPS P. You actually saw them go in and then actually rip out network. This would be an end-to-end merger, so you're getting transcontinental, which you don't have in the United States. You have two in Canada, but we don't go from coast to coast in the US. This would be about connectivity, and that's, you know, efficiency. So when you ask what's the benefit, it's for customers, right? You can get, you don't have to spend a day, day and a half sitting in a yard as you transition from UP to an eastern carrier, you can get a good solid flow through. And why if it, I mean that's, that makes it sound logical, right? Has it just not happened before now for regulatory reasons or are there other, have there been other historical obstacles? Well, there's nothing magical about the Mississippi River in terms of how historical mergers occurred, but it is just, you know, what you saw a lot of initially was overlapping ones. Even, you know, Norfolk Southern and CSX split Conrail up in the late '90s. So you were looking at things where you had overlapping and you could come to investors and say, "We're doing this and we're just ripping our costs." This one is is about growing, you know, how do you win business from the trucks? You have better service and you continue to grow. So you're right, the regulators have been hesitant before about allowing mergers. There was a proposal in 2000 to merge Burlington Northern and Canadian National, one of the national Canadian railroads. And that's what launched the merger moratorium. So the STB said, "Wait a minute, we've just gone through a lot of mergers. Let's think about this." And part of that was, you had to, it has to be for the public good, public interest, and you have to increase competition through the mergers. So that's what you have to walk away with. Well, now, is it just railroad competition or are we increasing competition from the trucking? That's what this administration probably looks at when they look at this merger, and you're probably looking at how do you make the railroads more competitive for industrialization and everything else that this administration wants to drive on a domestic basis. So do you think, so I mean how likely do you think then if they, you know, there's obviously a couple of ifs here. If the two actually agree on a deal, then do you think that there would be that regulatory approval? Well, look, I think there's been a lot of opportunities where Jim Vena, the CEO of Union Pacific has floated this. He did an article in mid-May where was discussed amongst the industry. We had the chairman of the STB at our conference in mid-May. We've had Jim Vena at our conference on conference calls. So there's been a lot of talking about this before, you know, we got to this point where they've now confirmed that they are in discussions. And I think that's interesting because you haven't heard a loud voice come over the top and say absolutely not. It's never going to happen. And I think that's why you have each of these progressive steps about discussions continuing because, you know, it's getting the market ready. But you know, look, we'll certainly have time where regulators, government agencies, shippers, unions all will have their voices heard through the STB process to see exactly what you're saying. What's going to be the outcome? Will it even be allowed to go through? Will there be things that they're going to have to give up, whether it's line sales or overlapping access to the network, something called open access for others to compete? So it'll be interesting to see where on the spectrum this comes out. But so far the discussions are progressing. They noted that they're in advanced talks and we'll see where it goes from here.
