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

A-Ads

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: 513948
  • *Total Topics: 15292
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: Open Source Vs. Patenting  (Read 149982 times)

Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #120 on: September 03, 2008, 06:54:36 PM »
++++++++
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.
+++++++++

WB Hammer,

At some point you may move to the topic. I know you can since you have demonstrated that ability amid all the person attacks that you call ?help?.

Suppose that the topic was ?How to edit for someone who has not asked for editing help?, and suppose that someone began to offer data on the relative power of Open Source economy compared to Patenting enforcement. Now suppose I agree that your first post had something to do with the topic since you offer editorial work despite my lack of demand for it. Now suppose that you continue to school me by pointing me to a topic on a forum somewhere on the network of forums so that I can exchange data with people who are interested in a topic where the title suggests and interest exists concerning the Open Source Vs. Patenting topic.

Now suppose that I fail to take your advice and move along to the topic where people have an interest in data concerning Open Source business practice or Patent pending enforcement and instead I stay in the forum where people offer editorial help despite any request or desire for that help. Suppose I spam that unwelcome self elected editorial help topic with things like this:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/421.html

Would your next step be to help me again and then promise to stop helping me forever?

I?m guessing that you might do something appropriate for once.

If any of the other readers here on this forum finds the link to be somewhat but not quite relevant to this forum and this topic I can offer more data that links the two in a more relevant manner than you may know.

I found that topic to be curiously informative despite my supposed understanding of the subject matter (which is on topic).

I am assuming, of course, that the words chosen for the topic was specifically meant to welcome data concerning the words chosen for the topic.

Perhaps the words chosen for the topic are merely a disguise for the real topic that exists here and now and here is where people can go to suffer unwelcome editorial ?help?.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #120 on: September 03, 2008, 06:54:36 PM »

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #121 on: September 04, 2008, 01:23:01 AM »
Thanks joe

 For posting the link for the video of David Blumes.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/421.html

 He was straight forward and very clear with straight language, no big words.

Offline utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #122 on: September 04, 2008, 03:45:42 AM »
I have an open source experiment for y'all

I invented a political/economic LAW and I call this law Joe's Law. I tried to get Wikipedia to publish it; however that effort failed.

The political/economic LAW is my discovery; the words describing the political/economic Law are my invention.

The reason why this open source experiment is being offered in this thread could become obvious to the reader as the reader works on the open source experiment.

Someone, or many people, suggest that open source won?t make someone rich and the alternative is to patent an invention so as to get rich as the patent enforces the elimination of competitors who re-produce the item that is under the patent enforcement mechanism.

Once the reader becomes familiar with the political/economic LAW (as it exists in reality) their notions of patent enforcement may change.

I see where you are going, but your view is overly simplistic.

While your basic premise of making more energy-creating devices makes sense, and I agree that with more energy overall, the cost of making more devices will also decrease, it does not stand to reason that because of this we should do away with patent protection.

You ignore incentive to invent.  If a person knows that he will have patent protection for his idea, he is more likely to invent.  Sure, the inventor without protection still stands to make some money, but significantly less than if he had a temporary monopoly.  So many people would not bother inventing revolutionary things without patent protection.

Also, your reverse example is wrong.  You claim that oil is produced into a state of scarcity, and producing more oil somehow is counterproductive.  This makes no sense.   Oil is also something that produces more energy than it takes to create it.  While oil is not an infinite resource, so long as oil is being produced, the cost energy is kept down by consistent oil production.  Try not producing oil for one day and watch what happens to the price of energy.  So producing oil is a good thing, while it lasts.

Also, not completely crucial, but your efficiency numbers on solar panels are way off.  Currently available solar panels take much longer than one year to pay off, when considering total cost of implementation.  It is common for people to amortize a solar panel installation over 10 years or more, with the monthly payments being comparable to their electric bill.  While I suppose any period of eventual break-even is good, you make the solar panel scenario overly rosy with those numbers.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #122 on: September 04, 2008, 03:45:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #123 on: September 04, 2008, 04:15:57 AM »
++++++++++
While your basic premise of making more energy-creating devices makes sense, and I agree that with more energy overall, the cost of making more devices will also decrease, it does not stand to reason that because of this we should do away with patent protection.
++++++++++

utilitarian,

I have already specifically agreed with the perception that patent enforcement has its place and use. Who wants to do away with patent protection? Who do you not agree with concerning that someone who thinks that ?we should do away with patent protection?

Why association me with that person who thinks that ?we should do away with patent protection? I do not thing that anyone can do away with patent protection. Who has enough power to do away with patent protection?

+++++++
You ignore incentive to invent.
+++++++

Who ignores incentive to invent? Please be specific. If someone ?ignore incentive to invent?, then let that someone speak up and be quoted as they ?ignore incentive to invent?.

Invention doesn?t usually occur as a result of disincentive. Why associate me with someone who ignores incentive to invent? What is the point of associating me with someone who ignores incentive to invent?

++++++++
If a person knows that he will have patent protection for his idea, he is more likely to invent.
++++++++

Who is this person that you speak of? I invented many things during my working career and at no time did I consider patent protection. I invented Joe?s Law and I have yet to consider patent protection. Who is the person that you speak of where the person you speak of is more likely to invent when he knows that he will have paten protection for his idea? Is that person you, or do you speak for someone else?

I can easily see how many people may be more likely to invent if they think that their idea will be enforced against use by someone without someone having to pay a fee, however ?Patent Protection? is hardly enforceable especially since many of the enforcers are criminals. Thinking that an idea can be excluded from use by force can easily encourage someone to invent if that someone invents because that someone wants to gain wealth by enforcing payment for use of the idea being invented.

Who is this someone who thinks that their idea will be ?protected? and therefore this specific someone is more likely to invent? Someone else may be not so disposed. Someone else may actually be less likely to invent if the mind is occupied by thoughts of wealth accumulation. 6 billion people do not act the same on this issue.

++++++++
Sure, the inventor without protection still stands to make some money, but significantly less than if he had a temporary monopoly.
++++++++

One the invention is invented there are many ways to market it. Patent enforcement is one business method. Open source is another business method. Some inventions, like a cure for cancer, could make someone very rich if such an invention could be an exclusive monopoly business where the inventor was the sole supplier.

++++++++++
So many people would not bother inventing revolutionary things without patent protection.
++++++++++

How many? List a number of inventions that you think would not have been invented without the profit incentive enforced by patent enforcement.

How about starting with fire?

++++++++++
You claim that oil is produced into a state of scarcity, and producing more oil somehow is counterproductive.
++++++++++

I do no such thing. Your misunderstanding is the source of the error that you glom onto me.

If oil is produced into a state of oversupply the price of oil will drop while purchasing power increases because oil reduces the costs of production.

Counting the costs of the Iraq war as a cost of increasing oil control does not enter into the political/economy of non-criminal human action. The Iraq war is a crime.

If you think that I wrote something suggesting that producing more oil will somehow be counterproductive then quote those words that you derive that misunderstanding.

The reverse of Joe?s Law with oil goes like this:

Oil produced into a state of scarcity increases the price of oil while purchasing power decreases because the lack of oil increases the cost of production (assuming that no other cheaper source of power in produced into a state of oversupply).

Are you still confused?

+++++++++
This makes no sense.
+++++++++

If my words were written wrong, then show me where you derive your misunderstanding concerning Joe?s Law. Quote the words that inspire you to misunderstand. I can correct any error in wording.

++++++++++
Also, not completely crucial, but your efficiency numbers on solar panels are way off.  Currently available solar panels take much longer than one year to pay off, when considering total cost of implementation.  It is common for people to amortize a solar panel installation over 10 years or more, with the monthly payments being comparable to their electric bill.  While I suppose any period of eventual break-even is good, you make the solar panel scenario overly rosy with those numbers.
+++++++++++

I can link sources. Would you like those links?


Offline utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #124 on: September 04, 2008, 04:44:59 AM »
utilitarian,

I have already specifically agreed with the perception that patent enforcement has its place and use. Who wants to do away with patent protection? Who do you not agree with concerning that someone who thinks that ?we should do away with patent protection?


OK, then I guess you do not oppose patents.  Good.

Your requests for specific examples of people who might be less motivated to invent give me the unfortunate impression that you are just being hardheaded.  I do not claim that no one will invent without maximum financial incentive.  I am just saying that the number of people sitting around and foregoing other activities, whether money-making or pleasurable, for the sake of inventing, is directly proportional with how well that inventing gig pays.  Reduce the payoff, and you will get fewer people doing it.  Just like with everything else in life.

Look, I think you are on the right track, but the reason why what you propose is not happening is because solar panels take way longer to pay off than one year, as is the case with wind, geothermal, and others.  I do not so much care for any sources you may link, because reality speaks much louder than Internet links.  If people could recoup the costs of solar panels and other renewable energy capturing devices that quickly, there would be alot more of them.  Believe me, there are many out there that sit all day and dream of better ways of making money off this stuff.  It's not like it has been overlooked.

Good luck with Joe's law, and it's good that you are inventing, but frankly I think that what Joe's law proposes will be reality just as soon as the economics of it work out.

Finally, yes, I am still confused by your reverse example.  I will quote:

"Oil produced into a state of scarcity increases the price of oil while purchasing power decreases because the lack of oil increases the cost of production (assuming that no other cheaper source of power in produced into a state of oversupply)."

I do not understand how producing oil increases the price of oil.  Producing oil can only contribute to lowering the price of oil (or have it rise less quickly).  Just simple supply and demand.

Similarly, if you are looking a the cost-of-production angle, producing oil should decrease the cost of production of further oil.  (Producing oil has a lowering effect on cost of energy, thus making further oil exploration less expensive than if that original oil had not been produced.)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #124 on: September 04, 2008, 04:44:59 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #125 on: September 04, 2008, 01:08:44 PM »
@Joe Kelley

 I truly think I should have talk to you in question form.

 What can an inventor do, when the inventor has a very low income to protect his/her invention?
Borrowing  money due to a low income normally means whacked credit as well.

 Now how can they make money open sourcing? And who is out there to help that won't just take their invention and leave them high and dry?

Patenting is not as expensive as people think (unless you pay a lawyer), but you are going to need help for proper wording (exploring other patents will help in that as well)(maybe you can get your lawyer on a contingency fee but that will cost more in the long run). I have talked many times with the patent office and to file only takes about $500.00 up front. And then you are of course in patent pending status ( but you are going to have to save you spare cash for the pay off for the patent). There is another provisional patent, that is cheaper but it doesn't provide the same protection.

Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #126 on: September 04, 2008, 08:56:54 PM »
++++++++++++
Your requests for specific examples of people who might be less motivated to invent give me the unfortunate impression that you are just being hardheaded.
++++++++++++

unilitarian,

Your impression may be accurate. I am hard-headed concerning accurate data being better than ambiguous data. Do you desire ambiguity? I do not.

My personal experience includes inventions. In my line of work (when I was working in my line of work) many situations demanded invention, it was a daily thing. I could do what a lot of other workers did and stop working when faced with a demand for invention. In that way I could get paid for sitting, until a boss showed up to invent a way out of the situation that demanded invention.

I can be much more specific concerning my specific inspirations concerning invention.

If you have a specific example concerning your viewpoint on patent enforcement as being a means of increasing invention, then please consider discussing that specific example; otherwise the discussion isn?t specific ? rather, it is ambiguous.

Should I do the common thing and simply ?believe? that your viewpoint is true despite my own personal experience that suggests that your viewpoint is unsupported?

What is your next move after reading the above? Will you be flabbergasted, outraged, or otherwise rendered into a state of disbelief concerning someone who may challenge your expressed viewpoint that, by all means, should be a given; everyone (who is anyone) knows that you are right concerning this subject of invention and patent enforcement.

Do you consider it to be unreasonable for me to ask for specific information?

++++++++++
I do not claim that no one will invent without maximum financial incentive.
++++++++++

Yet, you did claim that I have my political/economic law backwards or false. Your words above suggest that someone has accused you of claiming something that you did not claim. Who is that someone who has accused you of claiming something that you did not claim? Where is this person who has suggested, by innuendo, or by any specific intent that you have claimed such a thing as you are defending now?

It was not me. If you think it was me, you are wrong. It was not me.

+++++++++++
I am just saying that the number of people sitting around and foregoing other activities, whether money-making or pleasurable, for the sake of inventing, is directly proportional with how well that inventing gig pays.  Reduce the payoff, and you will get fewer people doing it.  Just like with everything else in life.
+++++++++++

In my case the pay-off for invention includes the removal of waste. I, personally, cannot stand waste. Sitting around while a situation involves waste, such as my personal example above, drives me to invent a means by which the situation can be fixed. The pay off, for me, is to move ahead and get past difficulty. In my example above the typical thing done by many people is to sit and be paid for sitting. Some people are paid for sitting. Other people are paid for inventing. As far as my ?superiors? where concerned, I was paid for sitting. They didn?t like the fact that I didn?t need their inventing services. I was called many things during my career, such as, being honest to a fault, being ?a loose cannon?, and being stubborn or hard-headed.

I have my experience with invention. Other people have their experiences with invention. To say that more invention will occur because of patent enforcement is one thing. To prove it is another thing entirely. Currently the Open Source phenomenon is gaining power. Things are being invented by Open Source methods. Things are also being invented by Patent enforcement methods. Is this a horse race? Who is winning? What happens if you factor in the fact that many inventions are being suppressed and/or stolen by the current patent enforcement mechanism?

Now you have three competitors in the race to inspire the most inventions.

A.   Legitimate patent enforcement
B.   Criminal patent stealing under the guise of patent enforcement
C.   Open Source lack of enforcement

If you suppose that the number of inventions are increasing because of A more so than because of B, then I can entertain that supposition based upon data. Where is the data?

If you merely suppose that A does inspire an increase in invention and the number of that increase is unrelated to C, then I can certainly agree that some people will invent because their inventions can be forced into some type of monopoly issue.

I?ve already said as much, more than once.

++++++++++
I do not so much care for any sources you may link, because reality speaks much louder than Internet links.
++++++++++

You refuse to entertain any new data? How could I have suspected as much?

++++++++++
I do not understand how producing oil increases the price of oil.
++++++++++

The words you quoted specifically state how oil is produced into a state of scarcity. If you ignore the word ?scarcity? you can misunderstand the reverse of Joe?s Law.

You do not understand how producing oil into a state of scarcity will, in fact, increase the price of oil.

That is not the same thing as this:

++++++++++
I do not understand how producing oil increases the price of oil.
++++++++++

That is not this:

+++++++++
You do not understand how producing oil into a state of scarcity will, in fact, increase the price of oil.
+++++++++

I am going to link a link that you can ignore at will. My suggestion is to view the link and do so for no other reason than entertainment. The person in the link is a comedian and a very good one if your funny bone is activated by dry British humor. If not, ignore at will.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159

For anyone else but you, here is the link to the solar panel manufacturer who claims a one year pay off time.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/evergreen-solar-panels-460608

+++++++++++
According to Evergreen, the carbon footprint of these new panels is up to 50% smaller than those of competitors, and they have a quicker energy payback -- reportedly as fast as 12 months for installed panels. This last point is particularly exciting, since the amount of energy required to make solar panels has long been a bone of contention among critics of the technology.
++++++++++++

I usually send an inquiry to this type of claim and I have not received a return. Usually the companies on the front edge of this technology are seeking volume sales and they have no time for answering questions from me. Sometimes I get phone calls and extended conversations, but not often.

The point is that power produced (from any source) into a state of oversupply will decrease the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. The pay off times must be positive, not necessarily all at once. Over-unity is not the same thing as perpetual motion, if I understand the meaning of the term.

++++++++++
Producing oil can only contribute to lowering the price of oil (or have it rise less quickly).  Just simple supply and demand.
++++++++++

If you ignore the word ?scarcity? as in: ?produced into a state of scarcity?, then you will misunderstand the reverse of Joe?s Law. Your words above are words that understand a part of Joe?s Law.  The political part is the part you have not commented upon, perhaps you ignore that too? That is a question, or a guess, as to what you think and a discussion can be a way to exchange thoughts or a discussion can be a way to ignore thoughts, I suppose.

++++++++
Similarly, if you are looking a the cost-of-production angle, producing oil should decrease the cost of production of further oil.  (Producing oil has a lowering effect on cost of energy, thus making further oil exploration less expensive than if that original oil had not been produced.)
++++++++

That is the forward, and not the reverse, of the economic part of Joe?s Law. Again, you ignore the word: scarcity, when viewing the reverse of Joe?s Law. You have the forward part of Joe?s Law accurately understood; concerning the economic part of the relationship.

Joe?s Law integrates the political part of the power relationship in addition to the economic part, and if you ignore the factor of politics then misunderstanding is bound to result; in many cases. Some people understand Joe?s Law and I think the legal criminals are among that set.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #126 on: September 04, 2008, 08:56:54 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #127 on: September 04, 2008, 09:46:21 PM »
AB Hammer,

+++++++++
What can an inventor do, when the inventor has a very low income to protect his/her invention?
+++++++++

What is the inventor protecting his or her invention from? If the idea is to secure the credit of having invented the invention, then I think you have accurately identified one of the legitimate parts of Patent enforcement.

If you are discussing something other than an inventor protecting the credit for having invented a specific invention then you will have to be specific about that which you are discussing; otherwise that which you are discussing is ambiguous.

++++++++++
Borrowing  money due to a low income normally means whacked credit as well.
++++++++++

If your business plan will fail because someone else has employed your idea in a more productive manner, then your monetary creditors will have made a poor investment. If your monetary creditors are banking on U.S. Patent Enforcement as a means of profiting by creating a monopoly production run, then I think that your monetary creditors are banking on a lie.

The U.S. Patent Enforcement mechanism is most likely just another arm of organized legal crime whereby criminals commit crimes with impunity. Even if there are legitimate people offering some measure of legitimate patent enforcement for you and your monetary creditors the reach of those legitimate people and their power does not extend into other nations like China, for example.

In today?s Open Source network of interconnectivity the power to suppress data transfer is rapidly dwindling. What happens if someone near you is able to get a copy of your invention and that someone has his own idea to sell that idea to someone in China? Has your neighbor invented a new idea, can he patent that new idea whereby he takes a copy of your invention and he sells that copy to someone in China?

You may call your neighbor a thief. He stole your invention. You may think that your neighbor is stealing your idea. Other people may not think so.

That stealing, or not stealing, of a copy of your invention and selling a copy of your invention to someone in China is not the same thing as someone taking credit for inventing something that you have invented.

Which case are we discussing?

A.   Someone taking a copy of something you invented and selling that copy of something you invented to China.
B.   Someone claiming to have invented something that you have invented.
C.   Something not yet communicated specifically.

++++++++++
Now how can they make money open sourcing? And who is out there to help that won't just take their invention and leave them high and dry?
++++++++++

Open Sourcing can be viewed as an advertisement mechanism that brings the best inventors to the people who can produce the things that are invented and the connectivity includes bringing the best inventors to the best producers to the best marketing people.

If someone steals your idea and claims that your idea is his idea, then he will be expected to reproduce. The best inventors don?t simply invent one invention.

A good way to illustrate how Open Source Phenomenon works is to look at a company like Skype.

Skype gives their basic invention away. Skype covers their costs by offering a more complicated invention. An inventor who invents better than anyone else can afford to give away a few inventions and thereby establish something called Positive Feedback.

Another way to look at this is to see invention as something like being a Rock Star. A Rock Star invents songs. Someone else may steal that song and try to sell it. Who gets paid to perform the next new song?

I am answering more questions than the specific questions that you are asking because your specific questions are too general as far as I can see.

I read the rest of your response to me and I see that you are no longer responding to me. I do not consider myself to be in a position to invent a greater invention than Joe?s Law. I think my invention is huge. Someone will take credit for it and that is OK by me. I want my invention to gain the most currency soonest because that will make me wealthy beyond measure even if no one ever pats me on the back.

Many inventors may think that their inventions are worth more than someone or anyone else judges. The proof may be to have your invention stolen. Who, for example, has the record on being the inventor with the most inventions stolen?

Who has given away the most inventions?

Which inventions produce the most power and what happens when power flows like water?

Will everyone suffer from that unfortunate state of affairs?

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #128 on: September 04, 2008, 11:38:26 PM »
Greetings Joe

 You paint a very dim picture for the poor inventor. That is probably why Bessler destroyed what he did for there was no way to protect his invention of perpetual motion, from the corrupt people of position of his time. They even tried to put him in jail to force him to give the secret. They tried to tax it so he destroyed the running wheel.

 Is this what we expect today? When the government no longer serve the people. What does the Constitution have to say about that?

 A patent is only protection where it is patented and where treaties are in place. What we would have to have is a US patent and a World patent. Don't even consider China for they have there own special patents in the place of intellectual patents designed to steel anything they can. IMO since I don't have an example at hand. But for example a US patent can stop China from importing to the US. It is bad that China only recognizes there own.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #128 on: September 04, 2008, 11:38:26 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #129 on: September 05, 2008, 05:03:56 PM »
unilitarian,

Your impression may be accurate. I am hard-headed concerning accurate data being better than ambiguous data. Do you desire ambiguity? I do not.

My personal experience includes inventions. In my line of work (when I was working in my line of work) many situations demanded invention, it was a daily thing. I could do what a lot of other workers did and stop working when faced with a demand for invention. In that way I could get paid for sitting, until a boss showed up to invent a way out of the situation that demanded invention.

I can be much more specific concerning my specific inspirations concerning invention.

If you have a specific example concerning your viewpoint on patent enforcement as being a means of increasing invention, then please consider discussing that specific example; otherwise the discussion isn?t specific ? rather, it is ambiguous.

Should I do the common thing and simply ?believe? that your viewpoint is true despite my own personal experience that suggests that your viewpoint is unsupported?

It is pretty clear that your behavior would not change in light of disappearance of patents.  That's great, but you cannot go solely off that.  Bear in mind as a proponent of a new "law", the burden is on you to support it, not on anyone else to disprove it.  Until you can establish you are correct, your law is only a law in your own mind, not anyone else's.  And I do believe that some people, like you, would still invent in the absence of the temporarily monopoly protection afforded by patents.  I just do not believe as many people would.  I see evidence of this every day in the business world, as people tend to gravitate to higher paying activities.

Your quote from Evergreen is about what I expected.  A press release quoting the manufacturer.  Furthermore, the 1 year claimed return is on energy to create vs. energy captured.  It is not even a breakeven point on the monetary investment, which is likely to be longer.  I actually have followed solar energy research casually, and I have seen these types of press releases every 3 months or so, where some great new type of solar panel is allegedly in production.  Unfortunately, when it comes down to actually being able to purchase something like this that lives up to the claims, it is impossible to do so.  If you are able to get your money back on solar panels after 12 months, please let us know.

Finally, I do not think I understand what you mean by "producing into a state of scarcity".  Or rather, I do not understand the significance of producing into a state of scarcity versus producing into a state of abundance.  Let's say oil is scarce, which it arguably is.  Producing oil in a scenario where oil is scarce will still have a diminishing effect on the price of oil (either lowering the price of oil or reducing the rate at which it is rising).




Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #130 on: September 05, 2008, 06:06:56 PM »
++++++++++
You paint a very dim picture for the poor inventor.
+++++++++++

AB Hammer,

I did no such thing. I did not paint a very dim picture for the poor inventor. If you read what I wrote and your opinion is that I paint a very dim picture for the poor inventor, then I?d like to know exactly what I wrote that you think is a very dim picture for the poor inventor.

Inventors have an ability now that has never been available before in human history. An inventor can now access the entire Global market through the networked media. If an inventor can gain positive feedback because the inventor invents marketable ideas the inventor can prosper as never before because of this instant access to billions of people.

Can you read that paragraph and retain your opinion that I paint a very dim picture for the poor inventor?

Does your word choice intend to suggest that there are non-poor inventors who do not invent poor inventions? If so, then I can agree that compared to the non-poor inventor the poor inventor is going to have a hard time marketing his inability to invent because he is a poor inventor.

++++++++++
That is probably why Bessler destroyed what he did for there was no way to protect his invention of perpetual motion, from the corrupt people of position of his time. They even tried to put him in jail to force him to give the secret. They tried to tax it so he destroyed the running wheel.
++++++++++

I?m going to link another link to show anyone how a link can aid in the effort to accurately communicate something. The above is vague. The above is to me a misleading paragraph due to its ambiguity. The above is not specific enough to do me any good. I could do my own search to gain more accurate data concerning this perpetual motion invention.

Here is a link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5684495902617203266&q=Joseph+Newman&total=149&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=0

Is that a poor inventor?

I lost the link I wanted to send and now I?m reviewing that link.

++++++++
What does the Constitution have to say about that?
++++++++

Before I end this response and get back to that link I linked, I am going to comment on The Constitution.

My comment is based upon many diverse sources of data not limited to these three books:

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutional-Convention/dp/1410203638/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220627933&sr=1-1

That is a first hand account of the dirty deed (also known as The Dirty Compromise) from someone inside the Secret Proceedings and Debates of the closed door Constitutional Convention.

You won?t find the actual words spoken by the principle actors who sold out liberty for slavery in that book because that book described the parliamentary type group meeting where the deal makers negotiated their treasonous acts after the deal was already struck.

The deal was struck between southern slave traders who wanted the north to enforce their slave trade laws and on the other side if the Dirty Compromise was the northern currency monopolists who wanted the south to enforce their currency monopoly.

The North and South were then destined to fight a war because of that Dirty Compromise because the South got the poop end of the stick. Open human slavery would not be enforceable in the long run. Slavery by stealth is still going on today with the currency monopoly business model ? closed source.

http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812218701/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220628408&sr=1-1

That is a description of the revolutionary war as the revolutionary war continued after the British were defeated and driven out of the colonies as those colonies became separate States held together under a voluntary republic described within the text of The Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation created a republic fashioned after the Swiss model government. The Swiss model government is a type of government that does not participate in wars, history proves this out.

Under the articles of confederation the separate State of Massachusetts suppressed the continued revolutionary war during skirmishes that were later called Shays?s Rebellion which were named after a revolutionary war soldier named Daniel Shays who helped defend the rule of law, liberty, and fight against taxation without representation.

The actors on the side of the State of Massachusetts suppressed the rebellion against the misrepresented whiskey tax by going against The Articles of Confederation. In other words the governors of Massachusetts broke the law of The Republic.

Massachusetts was working their end of the currency monopoly so as to finance invasions of Canada and in so doing they created more debt as merchants loaned (with interest) the goods to conduct those invasions of Canada. The governors of Massachusetts borrowed on the ability of the people to pay taxes in gold.

Gold became very scarce due to Gresham?s Law where legal paper debt money drove out the Gold. Gresham?s Law is easy to understand when considering how foreign traders will not accept paper debt money for their import goods. The gold leaves The State that prints debt money. It did. When the governors of Massachusetts dictated payment of taxes in Gold the soldiers figured out that the old bosses where replaced by the new bosses.

That is easy to see because the lack of gold inspired the creation of whiskey as currency. Whiskey was the money used by the people in the colonies who were not in the cities where people traded legal debt money and what remained of the gold supply. The soldiers had no gold to pay the whiskey tax. It was a ludicrous dictate. The soldiers continued the revolutionary war in Massachusetts under the Articles of Confederation and the governors of Massachusetts broke the law and suppressed that rebellion.

All the other state governors knew it. Everyone knew that the rebels were merely continuing the revolutionary war.

So?how can the powers that be figure out a way to enforce their paper debt note currency monopoly extortion racket?

They went to George Washington who promised to retire and never become a politician and they told George that if you didn?t fight against the rebellion that George would lose all his land holdings that he bought from soldiers for pennies on the dollar because George was paid with gold and the soldiers were paid with worthless paper debt notes (and land). That was before whiskey was invented as monetary currency ? or re-discovered if you will.

http://www.amazon.com/Whiskey-Rebellion-Frontier-Epilogue-Revolution/dp/0195051912/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220629499&sr=1-1

That exposes the whole hoax to ?fix? The Articles of Confederation so as to make it legal to suppress a rebellion. George Washington drove out the mighty British army with a voluntary army of volunteers under The Articles of Confederation and then after the ?Fix? was printed (The Constitution) George Washington conscripted an involuntary Army (as big as the voluntary one) to suppress another flare up of the ongoing Whiskey Rebellion. Pennsylvania was picked for tactical reason so as to teach the rebels a lesson throughout the formerly separate States that were now a Limited Liability Corporate Nation State Dept Money Currency Extortion Racket i.e. The Constitution.

I can link and quote The Constitution right where it make suppressions of rebellions legal if you wish.

 +++++++
What we would have to have is a US patent and a World patent.
+++++++

Are you one of those New World Order Global propagandists? Patent enforcement is one of many excuses for creating a one world government.  If it isn?t voluntary then it is criminal. Do you contend otherwise?

+++++++++
Don't even consider China for they have there own special patents in the place of intellectual patents designed to steel anything they can.
+++++++++

China is where the bad guys are because they steal patents compared to us the good guys who go around the world torturing and mass murdering for oil?

I think we live in different worlds.

I?m in the reality based one.

What was the last country invaded by the Chinese?

Do you know if South Ossetia is the last country invaded by U.S. military advisors, or is Pakistan the last one? Who is counting?

Do you know that legal criminal A,B,C, and D (Bush, Cheney, Killer McCain, and Osama Obama) all promise to continue invading at will (torturing and mass murdering).

Iran and Pakistan are on the list.

So?how bad is China? We need a world government to get ?them? in line with moral values like Patent enforcement?

Are you serious? Have you thought this through?

++++++++
It is bad that China only recognizes there own.
++++++++

Perhaps they trust in the fact that the U.S. National government lies, tortures, and mass murders on purpose for profit and therefore can?t be trusted to honor anything at all?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #130 on: September 05, 2008, 06:06:56 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #131 on: September 05, 2008, 07:23:31 PM »
++++++++
Bear in mind as a proponent of a new "law", the burden is on you to support it, not on anyone else to disprove it.
++++++++

utilitarian,

You obviously misunderstand my viewpoint. Joe?s Law is merely a way of describing physical and psychological reality. The relationship is what it is, I merely describe it.

If you, I, or anyone thinks that my description is inaccurate the fact that the relationship exists doesn?t change. I see no need to support or disprove the relationship described by Joe?s Law. It exists even if I don?t see it; conversely it won?t vanish if I ignore it.

+++++++++
I see evidence of this every day in the business world, as people tend to gravitate to higher paying activities.
+++++++++

The business world includes open source phenomenon and patent enforcement as competitors for market share. If the company I worked for is an example of American type ?business world? gravitation to higher payment activities then I can safely say that the gravitation is short lived, borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul, living on borrowed time, and cutting off the business world's nose to spite the business world's face; therefore the push to get that behind and move onto newer, more far reaching, investment oriented business practices like those being invented in the open source phenomenon will increase income and reduce costs.

++++++++
Furthermore, the 1 year claimed return is on energy to create vs. energy captured.  It is not even a breakeven point on the monetary investment, which is likely to be longer.
++++++++

One of us misunderstands the words published at that site; however the principle remains the same while the time factor changes.

Over-unity can be seen clearly as a cost/benefit ratio that can increase or decrease.

If cost is greater than benefit there is no over-unity. That is under-unity and that is unsustainable.

If the cost is 1 year of power (money, energy, or electric power) and the benefit is 25 total years of power production (money, energy, or electric power), then the ratio is 1/24 cost/benefits and it is obviously over-unity.

I may have the over-unity concept misunderstood, perhaps over-unity is meant to describe a perpetual motion machine whereby power is generated out of nothing (or out of something unknown - exactly)?

The trend in Solar Panels (and just about everything mass produced) is a lowering of cost and an increase in benefit (while demand for the benefit exists).

The current state of the Solar Panel industry is such that suppliers are offering consumers a one time call up to allow them to install Solar Panels on consumer's homes in order to reduce their yearly electric bill. You call them up. You get Solar Panels. You pay less electricity per month. You pay nothing. You pay the new electric supplier less money per month.

Out with the old; in with the new.

Solar Panels may not yet be available to the individual consumer where the entire cost of the panel is paid in full during the first year of use and the same solar panel will produce the cost of one more solar panel each year for 25 years, yet. What is to stop solar panels from reaching that ratio of cost to benefit?

One answer is another invention that offers more benefit for less cost. If that happens then the higher cost and lower benefit stuff is no longer purchased from the same shelf as the lower cost and higer benefit stuff.

Did anyone look at the link to Joseph Newman?s work?

I didn?t dive in yet. I?m replying to this forum discussion first.

++++++++++
Unfortunately, when it comes down to actually being able to purchase something like this that lives up to the claims, it is impossible to do so.  If you are able to get your money back on solar panels after 12 months, please let us know.
++++++++++

When I am in a position to buy, I?ll know more. My plan is to end up with Solar Panels and an electric car or two. Right now my income is nill due to an ear disease, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and an allograph for one ankle. I don?t think my family can afford the fix on the other ankle since the Currency Monopoly Extortion Racket began its cycle downward in America. I don?t think the bottom will be hit for another 2 years. I may be in a better position to buy in a few years. I may not.

When I buy I can offer more accurate data.

++++++++++
Finally, I do not think I understand what you mean by "producing into a state of scarcity".
++++++++++

I can illustrate what I mean precisely. Producing something into a state of scarcity is a method by which the producer restricts the output on purpose so as to maximize profits based upon an ideal relationship between supply and demand.

If the producer adds too much supply (not enough restriction) the demand lowers and so does the price. If the producer restricts the supply too much (not enough supply) the natives get restless or they invent and adapt by finding new supplies that cost less and produce more.

The power or ability to produce something into a state of scarcity is a power that must be exclusive or monopolized by cartel or some other arrangement between competitors who vie for market share.

If someone has the power to supply more and does supply more than the agreed upon restriction among the cartel members, the obvious result is more supply, less demand, and a lowering of price. The other obvious result is either an increase in market share for the supplier who doesn?t abide by the cartel agreement or the other members of the cartel must lower their price in order to maintain their market share.

Do you really not understand how or why someone would produce something into a state of scarcity? Have I not described this phenomenon precisely?

Do you contend that I have to prove that someone would supply something into a state of scarcity in order for it to exist?

Do you argue that oil is scarce?

+++++++++
Or rather, I do not understand the significance of producing into a state of scarcity versus producing into a state of abundance.  Let's say oil is scarce, which it arguably is.  Producing oil in a scenario where oil is scarce will still have a diminishing effect on the price of oil (either lowering the price of oil or reducing the rate at which it is rising).
++++++++++

I don?t argue. If oil is scarce then it is scarce. I?ve seen much evidence that supports the conclusion that oil remains to be an abundant supply in Alaska, Africa, Russia, South America, and the Middle East. New oceans of the stuff have been discovered since I first looked into the supposed ?Peak Oil? phenomenon.

Even if the evidence supporting an abundant supply of oil is false or inaccurate the relationship seems very clear to me while your words are not clear to me.

These words:

+++++++++
Producing oil in a scenario where oil is scarce will still have a diminishing effect on the price of oil (either lowering the price of oil or reducing the rate at which it is rising).
++++++++++

Your words suggest that producing oil in a scenario where oil is scarce will have a diminishing effect on the price of oil.

You don?t mention demand. How can you conclude anything concerning the price when you offer no measure of demand?

Even if demand was static while oil is scarce there is no mention in your words to measure cost. If oil is scarce and harder to find, harder to drill, deeper, or otherwise more difficult to get to the market with a price tag on it, on the shelf in a barrel, or at the pump, then the cost will go up. How can the price go down (deminish) if the cost goes up?

How can the price go down if the cost goes up while the demand goes up?

Your words are too ambiguous to mean anything to me; can you elaborate and explain how a scarce supply of oil will have a diminishing effect on price?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 07:53:06 PM by Joe Kelley »

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #132 on: September 05, 2008, 07:55:30 PM »
Joe Kelley

 Answer this.
What protection is there for open sourcing?

What protection for patenting?

This is in line of the string. Here that is all that is important.


Offline Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #133 on: September 06, 2008, 05:23:15 AM »
AB Hammer,

I am not a mind reader. When you ask for that which protects I am unable to know what it is that you suggest is attacking or injuring Open Source or anything.

What is the protection or defense aimed at?

What is threatening?

What is it that is being protected against?

What is it that is the cause, need, or demand for protection?

Example:

A rubber is a protection device employed to protect the egg from the sperm.

What is the sperm in this case where a rubber is needed for protection against it?

Is the rubber used to protect against aids?

Is it aids or sperm?

What exactly is it that concerns you to a point whereby you see the need for protection?



Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #134 on: September 06, 2008, 01:50:51 PM »
AB Hammer,

I am not a mind reader. When you ask for that which protects I am unable to know what it is that you suggest is attacking or injuring Open Source or anything.

What is the protection or defense aimed at?

What is threatening?

What is it that is being protected against?

What is it that is the cause, need, or demand for protection?

Example:

A rubber is a protection device employed to protect the egg from the sperm.

What is the sperm in this case where a rubber is needed for protection against it?

Is the rubber used to protect against aids?

Is it aids or sperm?

What exactly is it that concerns you to a point whereby you see the need for protection?




LOL

I see why you use long winded talk and big words. For without it, it show us that you know nothing. But it is now obvious that you are over compensating for what you don't have as well.

Not being able to answer a straight question with a straight answer without over complicating it, to avoid what you don't know, or don't want to say. For like in a court of law can cause you to loose your case.

Like I said before.

(Dazzle them with brilliance or baffle them with bull$#!+) And I am stepping out of this string because it is getting to deep.

 

OneLink