Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 508982
  • *Total Topics: 15176
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 6
  • *Total: 8

Author Topic: Open Source Vs. Patenting  (Read 140410 times)

Offline hypersoniq

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #105 on: September 02, 2008, 03:35:54 AM »
there has to be a way to profit from your invention... maybe one invention could pay for your lab to get out even better stuff... who knows?

IF you have a device, you create it so that it cannot easily be reverse-engineered... make casings so that opening them destroys the contents (a simple sticker warning against tampering should do the trick legally). Ever see the inside of old TI calculators? the black goop poured on the main microcontroller is just about impossible to even remove, let alone with a chip intact...

IF you have a basement lab, you need cameras hidden all over streaming video to a remote location so the goons get caught on tape, you also need to be able to wield deadly force...

THERE IS NO REASON AN INVENTOR SHOULD NOT BE PAID FOR SOLVING THIS PROBLEM.

start small, pull the big energy appliances off grid first, finally leading up to your home... sell power back to the grid for the next step...

it's no secret who runs the oil companies, threats can work both ways...

If you are not at least mentally prepared to play hardball then maybe this isn't the best game for you.
maybe we need our own goon squad. Just imagine the weapons that can be created with an OU device... then build them and be prepared to use them...

I'm against the idea of patents only because they are so corrupt, but I am NOT against the idea of profit... otherwise I may as well ditch all the test gear and get back in the lottery line. >:(

...tired of being a sheep...
...ready for a revolution...
...it's coming!...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #105 on: September 02, 2008, 03:35:54 AM »

Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #106 on: September 02, 2008, 09:32:24 AM »
z.monkey,

Who is too serious? Am I too serious because I ask a question and you avoid answering the question I ask?

You wrote this:

++++++++
Write your congressman, tell him he is fired...
++++++++

I ran for congress. I now know something about running for congress. I now know, first hand, something about the National government.

I recently handed the congressman of the National legal district where I live something legal. So far he has not responded to my legal notice.

You accuse me of being too serious. I will repeat my question to you specifically.

When did I become too serious? Was it something I wrote or something you read?

?The government? is the people. Some are serious about it. Others are dupes who think that ?the government? is an entity unto itself.

If it looks like a turd and if it smells like a turd is there really any reason to taste it?

How is that for the humor challenged?

++++++++++
THERE IS NO REASON AN INVENTOR SHOULD NOT BE PAID FOR SOLVING THIS PROBLEM.
++++++++++

Is that person going to also be called on as being too serious? What are the caps for?

If a person creates something that increases the productive power produced by our species the inventor will be paid in the long run because more power produced lowers the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the costs of producing everything.

Someone withholding the knowledge by which more power can be produced so as to profit from that scarcity of knowledge is no different than the oil company and monetary currency company profiteers who withhold the free flow of power so as to profit by that scarce supply of power. How about knowing something before spouting off your mouth concerning what you think someone is saying when in fact you miss the point entirely?

In today?s business world inventors can work the open source business model and in so doing the inventor gains positive feedback as an inventor. To suggest that a powerless inventor can somehow gain enough power to enforce a patent by which the inventor can fend off all criminal powers that are exerted in the effort to take credit, take patent ?rights?, and falsify any sense of reasonable justice is to ignore current reality.

Who, in this forum, has not studied some of the data available concerning the Stan Meyer?s example?

Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

As the monopolist legal criminals who currently control most of the forms of power that are available globally (and many people are starving to death because food is controlled globally), as those government criminals incrementally lose their power because more and more people are learning to make their own power (learning is a power), as that happens, their power over us diminishes while our power supply increases.

Our power supply is increasing rapidly because of new technologies like solar panels, electric cars, wind generators (have you seen the new jet types), free energy devices, water as fuel devices (even MIT professors now admit that hydrogen is an economical power storage medium).

Has anyone seen the algae as fuel vertical farming industry developing in closed green house environments where food can also be grown?

++++++++++
I'm against the idea of patents only because they are so corrupt, but I am NOT against the idea of profit... otherwise I may as well ditch all the test gear and get back in the lottery line.
++++++++++

The idea of profit at the expense of no one is an idea. The idea of profit at the expense of someone is not the same idea. Which idea is supported?

The capitalist pricing system is one type of pricing system. If you understand that the capitalist pricing system is based upon the idea of profiting at the expense of someone then you understand that fact.

Here is one example:

?every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.? Carl Menger (1840 -1921)

The capitalist pricing system is not the only pricing system possible.

I have a test for you to consider with an open mind (or a closed one, whichever you command).

What is ideal currency?

Here is an example of a Free Banking competitive currency (legal monetary power):

http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904

That is an example of reverse interest or ?depreciating currency?. Whenever I hear a capitalist trained dupe speak I listen for the inevitable confessions of their true ideals. The dupes proclaim the inevitability of positive interest charges. The dupes blame economic recession on ?artificially low interest rates?.

Above is an example of negative interest rates. He who controls the money (legal monetary power) controls all else, because dupes can be purchased.

The people can be purchased to perpetrate any act.

The people can be purchased to send their sons and daughter off to another nation to suffer and to torture, to end their own lives and to mass murder for profits that go to their masters who have purchased their allegiance to falsehood.

How about another joke?

Here is one from ole? Al.

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #107 on: September 02, 2008, 02:54:38 PM »

If a person creates something that increases the productive power produced by our species the inventor will be paid in the long run because more power produced lowers the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the costs of producing everything.

Someone withholding the knowledge by which more power can be produced so as to profit from that scarcity of knowledge is no different than the oil company and monetary currency company profiteers who withhold the free flow of power so as to profit by that scarce supply of power. How about knowing something before spouting off your mouth concerning what you think someone is saying when in fact you miss the point entirely?

In today?s business world inventors can work the open source business model and in so doing the inventor gains positive feedback as an inventor. To suggest that a powerless inventor can somehow gain enough power to enforce a patent by which the inventor can fend off all criminal powers that are exerted in the effort to take credit, take patent ?rights?, and falsify any sense of reasonable justice is to ignore current reality.


Joe Kelley
  What you have said here tells me allot about your views. This also tells me why you lost the race. First you have to connect to the people. Therefor you have to be able to talk to them where they can understand what you are saying, (common talk to get your meaning out). Now for the problem of what you have said. It comes across like this. Inventors, why do you even try? Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.

 The true facts are, that the only way things will change is if people try. No matter how often we get crushed. For when we give up trying we can just put the slave collar around our necks and get our tags for who owns us. We no longer have the wrights to our own thoughts or our invention, and we no longer have the possibility of making anything of our lives. The true separation of the classes. I have talked to some of the people who have never had to work a day in their lives. They have a since of godhood and the poor are just children that should be told what to do. I also use to fix windshields for Sam Walton of Wal-Mart and was able to talk to him from time to time. He is/was (rest in peace) one of the finest men I ever met. He was in touch with the common people and new how to promote America. Wal-Mart was a good store as long as he and his brother Bud where alive. They cared about there workers then. But now my son is handicap with nothing, due to 200 lbs of can goods falling on him when he worked for them. When profit becomes more important than the people and our courts only work for the ones who can afford it? We have a real problems IMO.

 Open sourcing gives big business and open door to invention with no court cost. You have to know what to do to stop the garbage of the system. Yes this means you have to play their game of politics to get past it, to at least get your fair share.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2008, 03:22:22 PM by AB Hammer »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #107 on: September 02, 2008, 02:54:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #108 on: September 02, 2008, 04:48:29 PM »
+++++++++++
This also tells me why you lost the race. First you have to connect to the people.
+++++++++++

AB Hammer,

Who gave you the authority to dictate to me that which is real in my world? I drove to an office and filled out all the paperwork whereby my name appeared on a ballot. I won that race as far as I am concerned. The idea that someone can tell me how to perceive the event I made happen better than I can is an idea that comes from a mind washed with narcissism.

Suppose that you too ran for congress and now we two have something in common by which we can compare notes?

++++++++
Therefor you have to be able to talk to them where they can understand what you are saying, (common talk to get your meaning out).
++++++++

During my version of what occurred when I jumped through all the hoops to get my name on the ballot I did a radio show debate with the other candidates who were not set up to win the election. The people at the debate and everyone I talked to agreed with what I had to say but?

That was the interesting and enlightening part of my quest to learn more about the process of modern National government in the U.S.A. legal system. I agree with liberty but? I agree that involuntary taxation is criminal but? etc.

This topic happens to concern open source versus Patent Pending business but?

The but here is that I offered data and I get the typical and expected shoot the messenger systematic method of suppressing (making scarce) specifically unwelcome data.

You can agree with me but?

But; you think you have the power to assume control over my history. That is a telling sign of narcissism. Narcissism is a telling sign of brainwashing. Some people are born pathological, some are learnt.

+++++++++
Now for the problem of what you have said.
+++++++++

What I do is learnt from experience. I quote the data offered by the person when I am going to comment upon that person?s comments. That way there is less room for misidentification concerning who wrote exactly what and what exactly did they write. That way the confusion factor is minimized rather than the confusion factor being expanded on purpose for some reason.

Usually the reason for someone writing those words quoted are reasons that include a narcissistic person pretending to know something that they do not know and then injecting false data in place of their misunderstanding of the words they comment upon.

These words:

+++++++++
Now for the problem of what you have said.
+++++++++

What I have written is published verbatim. You can quote what I have written. You can even suggest that your version of what I have written is more accurate than my version of what I have written. I am very interested in hearing what anyone has to say about my version of what I have written. I have heard many versions of interpretations of what I have written and so far the lions share of those re-written versions of what I have written are false.

Here goes.

+++++++
It comes across like this.
+++++++

I see that as an excuse. You are now going to excuse your misinterpretation of my words by suggesting that my words just naturally ?come across? in a certain way to everyone generally or universally. My words are written accurately. Your complaint concerning how my words ?come across? could involve a dissection of the actual words written by me so as to accurately identify why my words ?come across? in the way my words ?come across?. I look for this accurate communication of why my words ?come across? the way that you see my words coming across so we both can see why my words ?come across? to you in the way my words ?come across? to you.

Let?s see.

Here goes.

++++++++
Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.
++++++++

Here is where I accurately identify you words as your words. Here is where I accurately distance myself from your version of my words as they came across to you. Here is where I caution any reader in the error of forming a belief in your version being my version. I did not write those words above.

These words:

++++++++
Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.
++++++++

Those are the words written by someone who is not me. Those words are intending to be attached to me. I am supposed to be the person who made the person ?come across? with that viewpoint. I do not have that viewpoint. Those are not my words. I reject those words. They are none my words; so why would someone suggest that I am somehow connected to those words?

Will I find out why someone would attach me with words I did not write?

Here goes. I?ll read the next paragraph that follows words I wrote. So far the words that follow the words I wrote do not manage to represent the words I wrote, at all. I am able to judge if the words that follow the words I wrote represent the words I wrote because I wrote the words I wrote. I am therefore the author and the authority concerning the words I wrote. If anyone has an questions concerning the meaning of the words I wrote they could ask someone other than the person who wrote the words I wrote.

Who is the authority concerning the data offered by Stan Meyers?

Does the reader understand the above question in the context of this forum ?discussion??

Does the person who rewrites my words understand my words well enough to usurp my authority concerning the meaning of the words I write?

I?ll read the next sentence in the next paragraph to see if this person continues the typical narcissistic response to the words I write.

+++++++++
The true facts are, that the only way things will change is if people try.
+++++++++

Who and what is that sentence intended to address? Have I been discarded at this time? Is this now a new paragraph constructed with a specific purpose in mind and is that purpose to state the obvious on purpose for some reason?

Perhaps the next sentence will offer a clue.

+++++++++
No matter how often we get crushed.
+++++++++

Who is ?we?? Who is being crushed? As far as my viewpoint is concerned the average person is being brainwashed. One method of brainwashing is called conditioned response. If the victim of brainwashing hears the word ?terrorist? for example the brainwashed person will identify 911, rag-heads, Osama bin Obama, and the victim will feel crushed and impotent.

See how my words are my words and the comments following my words are not my words ? specifically? Another form of brainwashing is accomplished with ambiguity. Black is grey. White is grey. Black is white.

See? Those are my words.

Moving on.

++++++++++
For when we give up trying we can just put the slave collar around our necks and get our tags for who owns us.
++++++++++

What happened to how my words ?come across?? When did the comments turn into statements of the obvious?

I?m going to repeat the words I wrote that appear above the words AB-Hammer wrote so as to bring some context back into this supposed ?discussion? of Open Source Vs. Patent ?Rights? and note that Sid Meyers went the route of Patent ?Rights?.

Should I patent the words I write so as to remove the factor of ?coming across??

++++++++
If a person creates something that increases the productive power produced by our species the inventor will be paid in the long run because more power produced lowers the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the costs of producing everything.

Someone withholding the knowledge by which more power can be produced so as to profit from that scarcity of knowledge is no different than the oil company and monetary currency company profiteers who withhold the free flow of power so as to profit by that scarce supply of power. How about knowing something before spouting off your mouth concerning what you think someone is saying when in fact you miss the point entirely?

In today?s business world inventors can work the open source business model and in so doing the inventor gains positive feedback as an inventor. To suggest that a powerless inventor can somehow gain enough power to enforce a patent by which the inventor can fend off all criminal powers that are exerted in the effort to take credit, take patent ?rights?, and falsify any sense of reasonable justice is to ignore current reality.
+++++++++++

Compare that to this:

++++++++
Inventors, why do you even try? Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.
++++++++

If the reader (other than AB Hammer) has ?come across? with the same opposite meaning of what I wrote, then the reader may rest easy with that misinterpretation since you have company in AB Hammer. The fact is that my words are not those words for a reason. My words are chosen by me to convey specific meaning that is specifically not the meaning offered by the coming across AB Hammer. If my words intended to convey the meaning offered by AB Hammer I would have chosen the specific words chosen by AB Hammer. I did not choose AB Hammer?s words. I chose my words.

Compare this:

+++++++++
To suggest that a powerless inventor can somehow gain enough power to enforce a patent by which the inventor can fend off all criminal powers that are exerted in the effort to take credit, take patent ?rights?, and falsify any sense of reasonable justice is to ignore current reality.
+++++++++

To this:

++++++++
Inventors, why do you even try? Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.
++++++++

I offered the Stan Meyers example. Suppose that Stan Meyers rejected the whole idea of Patent ?Rights? and went about manufacturing twenty water powered cars for the local market? Suppose Stan Meyer filmed the whole business on Youtube while his business venture played out in time and space. How much less time and energy would have been spent toward an increase in the number of water powered cars running on the roads on this planet compared to what Stan Meyers did ? in fact?

Well?suppose someone questions the facts concerning Stan Meyers? water powered car?

Has the data been destroyed? How many water powered cars are running around and available for reverse engineering? Who is in power to stop people from reverse engineering the Stan Meyers water powered car?

Are those my words or should I wait for my critic to ?come across? with my words for me?

I?ll read more of the response to me to find out if the subject returns to the topic, returns to the quote of words written by me or if the rest of the comments appear to me to be nothingness.

++++++++++
When profit becomes more important than the people and our courts only work for the ones who can afford it?
++++++++++

Profit at the expense of no one is not the same thing as profit at the expense of someone.

Does anyone notice the significance of accurately discriminating between black and white, night and day, true and false, right and wrong?

+++++++++
Yes this means you have to play their game of politics to get past it, to at least get your fair share.
+++++++++

Government at the expense of no one is not the same thing as government at the expense of someone ? specifically.

Patent rights may require an enforcement mechanism other than one that resembles honor. You get what you pay for?

If you can?t beat em?; join em??

Am I too serious again? If so; where did I cross that line?

Offline z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #109 on: September 02, 2008, 05:31:19 PM »
Howdy Joe Kelley, AB Hammer,

It was definitely something you wrote.  The sequence goes like this.

I responded to the Joe's Law theory in a acknowledging manner...

AB responded next saying that Joe sounded like a southern lawyer.

Then I wrote some satirical legalese to be funny.

Then Joe (missing the point) attacked me.

You know I do know something of the patent process.  I am an inventor.  I have tried to patent ideas and you know what happens?  The lawyers wind up with all the money.  The deck is stacked by the legal system against the inventors.  It is literally impossible to get a patent unless you have your own team of lawyers and millions of dollars to throw at the endeavor.  If you are a single individual or a small company then you might as well forget trying to get a patent.  In my own business I decided to forget trying to get a patent.  Instead we use copyrights.  We design and manufacture the products and then market them with a patent pending label on them to prevent people from trying to reverse engineer our products, but ultimately they could if they wanted to.  Here is where our advantage is, we are continually improving the product to stay ahead of the curve.  When the other guy finishes reverse engineering our current product we are releasing a new improved product that is better than the knock off.

Joe, I think that you are the one that has been duped.  You think that you as a common man can actually change the course of our government.  Ever since the Constitutional Common Law Government of the United States was hijacked and held in suppression by the Federal Corporate United States Government there is no chance that the common man can make any difference.  The US.Gov is a Federal Corporation which only allows the Elitist Party (Illuminati) Members play in their doll house.  Commoners are looked down upon as if they are chattel (human cattle) and the chattel disgust the Elitists.  There is no chance that a common dog like myself could make one whit of difference in their doll house.  They are a corporate entity in and of themselves and the only reason they have any interest in the commoners is to fleece them of their resources (money).  However, This is OK with me.  They have developed a body of Bad Karma which is so great that it is going to cause their doll house to implode in a very spectacular manner, something that I am looking forward to.  There is no power on Earth which is free from Karma.

I am done with this thread.  I find it repugnant to be badgered by someone which has to, at all costs, dominate a conversation.  Joe, you disgust me.  I am not going to respond to this thread any longer.

Blessed Be...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #109 on: September 02, 2008, 05:31:19 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #110 on: September 02, 2008, 06:02:31 PM »
WOW LOL

 Joe Kelley, You sound like you are still running for office. IMO
I didn't expect this kind of explosion, and after what you said, I have no need to say anymore. I was only referring to how you sounded to me. IMO

Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #111 on: September 02, 2008, 06:51:16 PM »
z.monkey,

++++++++
It was definitely something you wrote.
++++++++

In other words: You define the meaning of my words while I do not define the meaning of my words.

You assume no accountability concerning any possible misinterpretation concerning what you read as if all the power of error is anything other than your responsibility.

If something I wrote could constitute an attack upon you (unwarranted attack because you were merely being funny), then you could quote such an unwarranted attack, yet you choose to leave that supposed attack as an ambiguous supposed attack.

Suppose that you are completely innocent of any error or any wrongdoing whatsoever as you appear to suggest with your word choices. Suppose that your understanding of the meaning of the words I choose is more accurate than the meaning I meant with the words I chose? What does that say about your power of discernment?

You know my thoughts better than I know my thoughts?

++++++++
The lawyers wind up with all the money.
++++++++

You could have responded to me with your version of my thoughts and then you could respond to AB Hammer with this patent experience that you are now sharing with this forum membership. What does your experience have to do with me, other than confirming what I already have described with the meaning of the words I intended by my word choices?

Example:

+++++++++
To suggest that a powerless inventor can somehow gain enough power to enforce a patent by which the inventor can fend off all criminal powers that are exerted in the effort to take credit, take patent ?rights?, and falsify any sense of reasonable justice is to ignore current reality.
+++++++++

The current reality suggests that Open Source Vs. Patenting involves costs associated with Patenting whereby the power to enforce patent ?rights? may turn out to be a power that steals patent ?rights?.

Are you or is anyone here on this forum unfamiliar with the Stan Meyers example?

+++++++++
We design and manufacture the products and then market them with a patent pending label on them to prevent people from trying to reverse engineer our products, but ultimately they could if they wanted to.
+++++++++

Why ?try? to do something that cannot be done or something that is counter-productive or something that wastes time and energy that could otherwise be employed in a more productive manner? I ask this specific question because the whole idea is ludicrous to me. I would like to know the thinking behind the idea from someone whose words suggest that they support this idea where the idea is to restrict the flow of data that empowers people in their own efforts to create more power.

In essence, it seems to me, the idea suggests that knowledge is worth the effort to make it scarce on purpose. The contortions of logic employed in the creation of the idea includes such things as the notion that no one would ever work unless their work made them relatively more wealthy compared to other people (specifically the people who are not allowed to employ the knowledge that is made scarce on purpose).

Consider, if you care to, the invention of fire. How holds the patent? To me the idea is ridiculous. It is an excuse to justify the employment of punishment. If you can?t out produce your competition, it seems to me, you are in the wrong business. The Patent idea is an offshoot of the monopoly idea. The idea is to punish the competition.

Who has the patent on the punishment idea?

Am I still too serious?

++++++++++
You think that you as a common man can actually change the course of our government.
++++++++++

You have the power to think. You do not have the power to know my thought better than I know my thoughts. Your word choices prove this fact.

What do you think is ?our? government?

I govern. I am my government. I have the power to change the course of my government.

My government includes my relationship with my family. I do not have the exclusive power to change the course of my family government which is ?our? government to me.

If your choice of the word ?government? is meant (by you) to mean the Limited Liability Corporate Nation State Extortion Racket, then say so, rather than confusing that criminal cabal with our government.

I do not confuse our government with the crime ring. I don?t think in terms that are duplicitous on purpose ? for profit (at the expense of the intended victims).

Am I continuing to write like a southern lawyer? If so I?d like to compare my words with the words written by a southern lawyer.

+++++++++
I find it repugnant to be badgered by someone which has to, at all costs, dominate a conversation.  Joe, you disgust me.  I am not going to respond to this thread any longer.
+++++++++

If that is true it will be true. If it is not, then true colors will be confessed by action.

I call that tactic The Parthian Arrow exit. After blaming me for a failure to understand my words (as being too serious) the employer of the Parthian Arrow defines the exchange of data as his complete innocence and my complete error before exiting. The Parthian Shot is meant to injure the intended target while the shooter retreats.

Of course it is my entire fault, and if you truly do not read these words then you can rest easy knowing that you shot your Parthian Arrow and dream about how accurately that shot managed to injure your target. Way to go, dude.

I am not being too serious to me. The power relationship is beginning to accelerate in favor of honest, honorable, and productive people because more people are figuring out how to produce more power and less people are endeavoring to make power scarce on purpose ? for profit.

Karma may have something to do with the increase in power wielded by honest, honorable, and productive people.

I get a kick out of people who profess to honor copyright ideas. I usually ask them if they have every downloaded or ?shared? a program for free. If the answer is honest and the answer is no then that will be the first one in my experience. Usually the answer is ambiguous on purpose. Well?that?s different.

AB, Hammer,

++++++++++
I have no need to say anymore.
++++++++++

Then why do that which you say you have no need to do? Why not remain silent? What is the point of saying one thing and then doing the opposite?

IMO you confess your infection of brainwashing.

If no one here understands the significance of the relationship of total power available and total power exerted by criminals (with their patent enforcement mechanism) and what I describe as a political/economic law, then no one does understand that relationship. Why does the narcissist brain assume that their inability to understand something is automatically the fault of the person who offers that understanding?

If (or truly when) power is produced into a state of oversupply the powers that be will have relatively more power, however so will their intended victims. Currently the victims don?t even have the power to understand how power works in political economy.

I call that a pathetic situation. You can remain silent if you honor your own words.

Clearly the open source business model is gaining power over the patent punishment mechanism, because more power is on-line these days.






Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #111 on: September 02, 2008, 06:51:16 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #112 on: September 02, 2008, 08:16:22 PM »
Joe Kelley


You stated
+++++
IMO you confess your infection of brainwashing.
+++++

I am not the over educated person using all the big words, that only few truly understand to try to show how intelligent one is.


+++
after what you said, I have no need to say anymore.
+++
This is what I said.
 But you had to say even more anyway. IMO  You are trying to play the last word game like in a child's argument. FORCING ME TO RESPOND BY ATTACKING MY HONOR (BAD FORM!!) I don't like that game, but I guess it works in politics.

You stated
++++
Why does the narcissist brain assume that their inability to understand something is automatically the fault of the person who offers that understanding?
++++

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
( 'Narcissism' describes the trait of excessive self-love, based on self-image or ego. )

IMO this only describe you.

Myself, I work for a living as a handicap blacksmith. No silver spoons here to be found. But it is funny how a small time(?) blacksmith can roue up a striving big time politician. LOL




Now: Joe, lets get back to topic.

You stated
++++
Clearly the open source business model is gaining power over the patent punishment mechanism, because more power is on-line these days.
++++

 I agree with this to a point, but I would change it to.

Clearly the open source business model is gaining popularity due to the FEAR of the patent punishment mechanism, because more power SEEMS to be on-line these days. Yes you can get your name out very quickly but when everybody is making claims the credibility is seriously injured without the media or allot of people to back you up.


Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #113 on: September 02, 2008, 09:40:25 PM »
+++++++++++
I am not the over educated person using all the big words, that only few truly understand to try to show how intelligent one is.
+++++++++++

AB Hammer,

Will you ever get to the point? How about discussing the topic? Why must you and so many other people resort to personal attacks as a default means of exchange?

What happened to your not needing to say anything more?

Why must you say one thing and do the opposite?

Could it be that you are suffering from conditioned response pathological conditioning or where you born without a conscience ? and what does any of this personal stuff have to do with the topic and/or what I offer on the topic?

+++++++++
I am not the over educated person using all the big words, that only few truly understand to try to show how intelligent one is.
+++++++++

That is called diversion and it could be projection and/or transference. Words convey meaning; if you misunderstand the meaning, it makes sense to me that you will then feel hurt and a knee jerk reaction is to strike out at the person who is offering you words that convey meaning. You can call those words big words. You can accuse and convict me of trying ?to show how intelligent one is? while my end is altogether a different perspective.

From my end I addressed the topic with an accurate answer. You find reason to accuse me of whatever fault you can imagine and I suppose your imagination is filled with personal experience; hence the obvious link to projection and/or transference.

+++++++++
You are trying to play the last word game like in a child's argument. FORCING ME TO RESPOND BY ATTACKING MY HONOR (BAD FORM!!) I don't like that game, but I guess it works in politics.
+++++++++

I wonder if anyone else can see the duplicity here. I am called on and criticized for too much seriousness while Mr. Caps here accusing me of forcing him with words that he cannot grasp.

If you cannot grasp words, then be silent or ask questions until such time as you grasp the meaning and understanding contained in the words written or continue with your present method of discussion.

What about the topic? When I reply my intention is to discuss the topic, hence my questions concerning the topic and where the topic went. Did the topic disappear in your mind? The topic did not disappear in my mind.

Open Source phenomenon indicates a transfer of power from the old business methods to the new business methods. Out with the old and in with the new. There will always be a place for new knowledge that must be kept secret so the old methods will always be valuable. The new methods are merely gaining more power relative to the old methods.

See how that paragraph addresses the topic?

+++++++
IMO this only describe you.
+++++++

That may be true. If it were true, then I would not even consider it to be possible. That is the thing about narcissists who develop (or are born with) that pathology. They never question their own motives. They are always right, by default.

I am eager to read where you find me to be guilty of some error or even merely accountable for some error. Let me know if you find such error, I?ll be glad to entertain the validity of your claim, hence my asking for quotes from a southern lawyer.

I can quote one if you have none.

I?ll quote Patrick Henry, he is my favorite.

+++++++++
Myself, I work for a living as a handicap blacksmith. No silver spoons here to be found. But it is funny how a small time(?) blacksmith can roue up a striving big time politician. LOL
++++++++++

Your imagination conjures up boogey men. That is called a Straw-Man argument. You create something weak and then you defeat that weak creation that you make up in your mind. I am a career laborer in the construction industry who ran for congress while working 70 hours a week and while my wife was severely injured by post partum depression after our second child was born. I earned whatever I have learned about officialdom (dumb) despite my official education.

Your supposed ?rou? up? in your mind is merely more of the same conditioned responses that I?ve dealt with for many years; over and over and over again. I can spot these tactics because these tactics proliferate modern data transfer that passes (poorly) as discussion. I see this type of exchange as nothing more than the same old tired argumentation that dodges the actual topic, for some reason.

I ask for the reason when I ask: What is the point?

What is the point of creating this imaginary person who you defeat or rile or whatever you have cooked up in your mind? Can you not see that I have my own brain and I have my own life and I do not need you to define me nor can I accept your version of me since I am me and I have to live with me. You merely respond to the words I write.

Your version of me and your version of this data exchange is not my version, it cannot be, and it can be no more the same as mine than my version can be yours.

++++++++
Now: Joe, lets get back to topic.
++++++++

That is a novel idea.

++++++++
 I agree with this to a point, but I would change it to.
++++++++

I honestly want to read the revision.

+++++++++
Clearly the open source business model is gaining popularity due to the FEAR of the patent punishment mechanism, because more power SEEMS to be on-line these days. Yes you can get your name out very quickly but when everybody is making claims the credibility is seriously injured without the media or allot of people to back you up.
+++++++++

I?m going to take apart the revision because I see the opposite happening. I can offer many examples of the open source phenomenon as it actually exists as I offer data that opposes your data.

I do not argue. If the data (not the person) appears to be wrong, in my view, then I offer opposing data.

First sentence:

++++++
Clearly the open source business model is gaining popularity due to the FEAR of the patent punishment mechanism, because more power SEEMS to be on-line these days.
++++++

More power is on-line these days and that can be proven. Solar panels and windmills are going up on houses in city neighborhoods and rural areas. I see this increase in power hooking up to the grid occurring right now. One neighbor of mine drives around with his self made electric motorcycle. The information required to power up in these ways is open source information. It isn?t a matter of false perception in these ways. When I wrote on-line I meant any connection or medium of connectivity whereby people are connected on a line with another or many other people.

Electric generation is now an emerging open source business model whereby the old collective producers are fighting to regain their power to monopolize that closed source. The open source phenomenon has won half of the battle so far. A home producer can sell overproduction to the grid up to the total electric usage per time. I think it works on a month to month basis. In other words: The open source home producer can produce twice as much as the home producer uses during the day and that credit can offset the entire monthly electric usage bill.

The other half of the battle is not won, yet. If a home producer produces in excess of his home consumption there will be no check arriving from the electric company. If a home producer is to circumvent that monopoly he will have to run a cable to his neighbor to sell excess electricity to his neighbor off the grid (the half open/half closed source).

Consider the opportunities that are possible when the battle is fully won and the source is fully open. You may be the first in your neighborhood to begin producing electricity for sale until such time as everyone has a home electric generating system. How would that work for you? You make electricity from free sources (including the sun) and you sell electricity to your neighbor because the collective (closed source) producers have to pay their own coal bills so they have to charge a high price for power (relatively high).

That is one of many examples of the open source phenomenon that is not simply limited to one thing and only one thing.

Here is your sentence again (the first sentence of a welcome revision concerning data I offered):

++++++
Clearly the open source business model is gaining popularity due to the FEAR of the patent punishment mechanism, because more power SEEMS to be on-line these days.
++++++

I can say that songs often convey wisdom.

Man hears what he wants to hear and disregard the rest (Paul Simon and The Boxer).

Next sentence:

+++++++++
Yes you can get your name out very quickly but when everybody is making claims the credibility is seriously injured without the media or allot of people to back you up.
+++++++++

If you are describing a particular manifestation of the open source phenomenon then your data could be supported with an illustration or an example so as to convey more precisely that which you intend to convey.

If you make a free energy producing product and that product reduces your electric bill, then why not make two and make more power?

Let me know if my revision of your revision is agreeable and please consider offering a quote from a southern lawyer if you are going to equate me with one so as to support your viewpoint with accurate data.

Here is my revision of your revision:

Power produced into a state of oversupply will reduce the cost of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2008, 10:15:01 PM by Joe Kelley »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #113 on: September 02, 2008, 09:40:25 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #114 on: September 03, 2008, 12:59:31 AM »
Joe Kelley

I resort to insults ?? LMAO

I try to suggest to you that you need to write in simper language so that most can understand. And when I said you sound like a southern lawyer, it was an observation. I have had allot of friends in law so I know what one sounds like.  Then you start saying thing against what I consider sanity, so since I defended it and then myself, and you say I am resorting to insults?? You are the one not getting the point. You are dictating not discussing. Then you use as much talk with big words to show your intelligence. I am not impressed, and neither are others, or you would have more people posting.

 When people use allot of words that most people don't understand, those people start to sound like $#!+ salesmen with mouths full of samples. Remember this when talking to the public, and you will have more people paying attention. ;)
 
 So far you have had no supporters show up on this string. So this should tell you something.Go back and rewrite in a simpler language and see if you get a response.


The facts are, and several people know this is true here. That I am a handicap blacksmith, and you acted  like it is some form of delusion. >:(

 Here is an old story for you. "Look at yourself from other people's eyes, to see the true you." ;)

This is the last help I will offer you. Good luck

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #115 on: September 03, 2008, 01:04:17 AM »
Then it is settled, Open source wins, and its proven by CASE files! ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #115 on: September 03, 2008, 01:04:17 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #116 on: September 03, 2008, 02:41:51 AM »
Not so fast ashtweth_nihilisti

We will just have to see when someone gets a working device of free energy. What happens if patented and what happens when open sourced. Now the misconception of patenting is people wait for the patent office to clear it. But once it is in patent pending status, it is time for all hands on deck and shout it from the mountains and the media. But while showing it the do it yourself people will build there own, and it will have the same effect as an open source except for manufacturing without the proper contract to the inventor/patent holder. Of course the inventor can sell his patent and just get royalties, which would be a great idea as well. This way the do it yourself people will be happy, the Corporate will be happy, and the inventor will be happy. Public support will get this patent through due to overwhelming pressure.

@Joe Kelley
Your revision is well written but it still leave the person open sourcing with their pants down, if the want to get anything out of it. For they will have to sell something  to make a buck. A book or plans but you will have to beet the writers out there who want to make a buck from your information and all and all they will overwhelmed the inventor unless some one of wealth supports them to keep their name in the limelight of the public eye. I have seen such thing in my years in the music business of songwriters and I have known several people who wrote the songs and never got a single word of credit. Experience is the best teacher of life.

Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #117 on: September 03, 2008, 02:05:53 PM »
++++++++++
This is the last help I will offer you. Good luck
++++++++++

AB Hammer,

That is not help. If you were to help you would discuss the topic. You can offer data concerning the topic as proven by you already.

You blame me for defending against your guilt by association campaign where you associate me with ambiguous ?southern lawyers? and then you play the victim when I call you on that off-topic personal attack you started on me. That personal attack you started on me is nothing but a personal attack that you started on me no matter how contorted your sugar coating of it becomes. Now you say you are ?helping? me.

Please stop helping me with your personal attacks.

Now you call me a dictator.

Here are your words:

+++++++++++
That I am a handicap blacksmith, and you acted  like it is some form of delusion.
+++++++++++

That is an example of someone dictating someone else?s thoughts. You misunderstand what I write and you admit as much. Due to your inability or lack of interest you fail to understand simple language and then you blame me for your failure. Then you assume the authority to dictate the meaning of the very words that you admit to failing to understand. That is duplicitous.

If you do not understand the ?big words?, then you can employ a dictionary just like every other human being who learns the meaning of words that they do not understand; or you can ask someone who will offer you the definition.

When you can understand the words I write, then you can offer an accurate interpretation of the words I write.

Since you do not quote the words I write when you demonize the words I write you confess your tactic of obfuscation. You play the part of someone stupid and then you play the part of someone smart. Which is it now?

+++++++++++
That I am a handicap blacksmith, and you acted  like it is some form of delusion.
+++++++++++

I don?t act. Your delusions concerning me include this present delusion of me, quoted above.

I did not act like your vocation is a form of delusion. I did not act like your vocation while handicapped (if that is what you mean) is a form of delusion. You misinterpret what I wrote, again.

You dictate my actions and my thoughts as if you commanded that power while you prove that you do not command that power.

+++++++++++
Here is an old story for you. "Look at yourself from other people's eyes, to see the true you."
+++++++++++

I am not ambiguous. You paint an ambiguous picture of me as being someone who sounds like a southern lawyer. I offer a southern lawyer. Do I sound like Patrick Henry?

If you fail to be precise or if you continue to be ambiguous when ?helping? me, then your help is to describe me as someone who is ambiguous. I know that I am not ambiguous. I am precise.

Which southern lawyer do I sound like?

That is an example of a precise question.

If I look through your eyes, so far, I see me as a cloud of misunderstanding. That is no help to me other than another example of the futility of duplicity. I can add that to the pile.

The pile is huge and it stinks to high heaven.

Promise me that you won?t help me any more, please. Your help looks to me like thinly veiled personal attacks by someone who refuses to discuss the topic for some strange reason that you won?t confess ever.

+++++++++++
@Joe Kelley
Your revision is well written but it still leave the person open sourcing with their pants down, if the want to get anything out of it. For they will have to sell something  to make a buck. A book or plans but you will have to beet the writers out there who want to make a buck from your information and all and all they will overwhelmed the inventor unless some one of wealth supports them to keep their name in the limelight of the public eye. I have seen such thing in my years in the music business of songwriters and I have known several people who wrote the songs and never got a single word of credit. Experience is the best teacher of life.
+++++++++++

Which WB Hammer is that from? If the insulting WB Hammer can please stop ?helping? me the other WB Hammer may spend more time and energy discussing the topic?

I think my version or revision has been misunderstood while I read the comments that are addressed thusly:

+++++++++++
@Joe Kelley
Your revision is well written but it still leave the person open sourcing with their pants down, if the want to get anything out of it.
+++++++++++

My revision is specific to political economy and my revision is not specific to someone who has a plan by which they get something for nothing. My revision is not specific to someone who plans on getting anything out of something that is not earned.

If someone has invented something and that someone wants to get something out of that invention then my revision suggests making that something or making two; because there can never be too much of a good thing.

If one of the inventions can produce some thing (get anything out of it), then two can get twice as much out of two examples of the invention; so make two.

My revision goes like this:

Power produced into a state of oversupply will decrease the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Here is the comment addressed to me again:

+++++++++++
@Joe Kelley
Your revision is well written but it still leave the person open sourcing with their pants down, if the want to get anything out of it.
+++++++++++

What does that mean? What, specifically, does that mean? That does not specifically concern what I wrote. That above concerns something specific to something someone else is thinking. What is meant by the words: ?get anything out of it??

Does that mean that someone is hoping to get rich quick, to strike it rich, to become wealthy, to make a million bucks, to profit handsomely, to buy short and sell high, to retire early, to gain financial security, what, what exactly is meant by ?get anything out of it??

What is meant by ?but it still leave the person open sourcing with their pants down?? What is it? Is ?it? my revision? Does my revision leave someone with their pants down?

This is my revision:

Power produced into a state of oversupply lowers the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

An open source producer of a power producing product can make more power. How is that not getting something out of it?

An open source producer of a power producing product can make two power producing products and then make twice as much power. How is that not getting something out of it?

An opens source producer of a power producing product can get everyone to make two more and then two more power producing products and power will then flow like water. If power flows like water, then the price of power will reduce to almost nothing while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production, so?how is that not getting something out of it?

What is this specific thing that is not being gotten out of it?

+++++++++++
For they will have to sell something  to make a buck.
+++++++++++

Who is: ?They?? Who is ?They?, specifically? Is ?They? the inventor? Is ?They? the inventor and the producers? Is ?They? the inventor who is the producer? Is ?They? the inventor and the producers and the sellers? Is ?They? the inventor, the producer, and the seller all rolled up into one person?

Why not employ an illustration of something invented so as to remove some of the ambiguity concerning who ?They? are?

Example:

For the solar panel inventor will have to sell something to make a buck.

Here is a problem concerning that specific example of an illustration of how ?They? get something out of it:

Today?s solar panel design may become obsolete by the time production is facilitated and the product is on the shelf. Sitting on a product that is perishable (relatively speaking) is counter-productive and that is a problem.

++++++++++
A book or plans but you will have to beet the writers out there who want to make a buck from your information and all and all they will overwhelmed the inventor unless some one of wealth supports them to keep their name in the limelight of the public eye.
++++++++++

Does that above actually refer to my revision or does that above describe something foreign to my revision.

Here is my revision again:

Power produced into a state of oversupply will decrease the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

How does ?writers? who are ?out there? and who ?want to make a buck from your information? overwhelm an inventor? How does that happen ?unless some one of wealth supports them??

How does that relate to my revision? I can offer:

Purchasing power increases.

That part of my revision is the political part. The quote from AB Hammer (the non-aggressive version) appears to suggest a political angle concerning the topic.

Here:

++++++++++
A book or plans but you will have to beet the writers out there who want to make a buck from your information and all and all they will overwhelmed the inventor unless some one of wealth supports them to keep their name in the limelight of the public eye.
++++++++++

Again; an example or illustration of exactly what has been invented could remove some of the ambiguity associated with that offering above.

I?ll use solar panels again.

A book or plans of a new solar panel, but you will have to beet [sic] the writers (news magazine article writers) who want to make a buck (.5 cents per word?) from your information (being paid to write about the information?) and all and all they will overwhelmed the inventor (confuse the inventor with writing?) unless some one of wealth (stock holders?) supports them to keep their name in the limelight of public eye (damage control?).

No help there. Adding a example of the invention that is invented by the inventor doesn?t help uncover the mystery of the comment that follows my name.

This:

+++++++++
@Joe Kelley
Your revision is well written?
+++++++++

Language is a tool. You help me sharpen my language tool.

What about the topic?

If someone invented a very low cost product that produces great supplies of electrical power, then such an invention will threaten every producer who currently makes a buck selling higher cost and lower output power producing products.

Example:

Who makes a buck these days selling horse carriages or steam locomotives?

Who makes a buck these days selling whale oil fuel?

Who makes a buck these days selling postage stamps?

Who makes a buck these days selling electricity made by coal burning electric plants?

Who makes a buck these days selling petroleum?

Who makes a buck these days selling uranium?

People who fear open source proliferation are people who stand to lose a buck because the competition provides higher quality stuff at a lower cost.

Why is it so hard to drop old and outdated stuff while new stuff gains power? To me the open source phenomenon is already dominating business because it is more powerful and less costly compared to the more costly and less powerful Patenting competition.

The reason why people resist the change to open source from Patenting is ignorance, fear, and greed. I still maintain a perception that Patenting has specific and legitimate reasons for being enforced; however those reasons are political in nature.

Any business that is free from politics will thrive under open source business practice compared to the more costly and less powerful Patenting process. Who pays the price of enforcing a patent?

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #118 on: September 03, 2008, 05:10:44 PM »
Well joe

 I work for a living and don't have the time to play your game of 500 questions. The Hurricane is gone and it is time to get back to work. I also see that you are well versed in,

( If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with bull$#!+.)

 which means that no matter what I say, you will keep writing books to try to prove your point by overwhelming amounts of words. In the real world just confuses the issues.

Good buy

PS  You have no idea what I have already done. LOL

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #119 on: September 03, 2008, 05:25:25 PM »
@ Joe Kelley

 You defiantly speak like a southern lawyer. And as usual no one out side the courts and those in collage can understand it.

Thanks z.monkey for some clarification.

PS my wife is studying for para legal. And we have allot of fun with the way things have to be written for legal purposes. It is almost like two languages. So as a party of the second part, I render the floor. LOL

Hay joe

This is my original post to you. I was only trying to help the people reading this string to be able to understand what you are saying. Simply to talk to the masses, you have to adapt to them, they do not have to adapt to you.  That is the point you have missed completely. All the rest between you and I is just trivial.

 

OneLink