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: 508965
  • *Total Topics: 15176
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: Open Source Vs. Patenting  (Read 140347 times)

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #150 on: September 14, 2008, 11:14:07 PM »
@Thedane

You can have the same effect if you expose it from your patent pending status and have even more protection. And that will still give you royalties. ;)

 Big business loves open sourcing for they can manufacture it and not give you a dime. Also don't depend on the Nobel prize, for when is the last time someone received the Nobel science prize that didn't have at least a masters degree. What about those of us who are high school bums? At least that is what they may think. The world of education seams to have double standards and large barriers to break through. Some highly educated don't take kindly being shown up by someone who has never been to collage.

 PS you can't beat big business, but you can lean how to work with them. And you can still show it for the do it yourself builders. Most people will purchase not build so it can work for everyone. ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #150 on: September 14, 2008, 11:14:07 PM »

Offline magnetmotorman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #151 on: November 05, 2008, 02:11:58 AM »
Excuse my too bad English.
You're forgetting something very important. There is LAW.
In countries like Spain or Argentina, the law specifies clearly that it does not protect inventors, but REGISTRANTS. So, there is no way to prevent patenting of our work. Industry "open sourcing" does not exist at all, to the law in almost countries. And if other guy patents your work, forget it (the owner under the law, may and will pursue anyone who tries to produce it). No matters who invented. This is the hard truth.

Greetings...

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #152 on: November 05, 2008, 02:19:01 AM »
>So, there is no way to prevent patenting of our work

GO and try and get a patent on LINUX. Go watch them laugh at you. The same is for the case of free energy  technology when released in the public domain.
This is LAW also

Ash

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #152 on: November 05, 2008, 02:19:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline magnetmotorman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #153 on: November 05, 2008, 05:18:57 PM »
>So, there is no way to prevent patenting of our work

GO and try and get a patent on LINUX. Go watch them laugh at you. The same is for the case of free energy  technology when released in the public domain.
This is LAW also

Ash
You can't do the same in countries like Spain or Argentine. In this last case, the law protects the inventor if has made public his work, for at least one year before. No more... In other words: you have maximum one year for start the process of registration; if you don't started, any other has right over that work, no matter who invented, but is just matter that it is an invention, that is all.
   
On the other hand, about GNU/Linux (my OS, talking about that...), there is a significant legal difference betwen industrial patents and software licenses (and other kinds of authoring). For the rest, again, the law protects registrants and not inventors, in the case of industrial inventions.

Greetings...

Offline magnetmotorman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #154 on: November 06, 2008, 06:58:07 AM »
P.S. of my previous message: I mean, you actually can do public your invention, but if passed one year you have not patented, other guy can do it, even if his process was initiated during that year. It means: in this case, the invention IS actually of public domain, AND patentable.

No industrial "open sourcing". At the moment...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #154 on: November 06, 2008, 06:58:07 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline magnetmotorman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #155 on: November 08, 2008, 08:11:19 AM »
P.S. 2: May be, a lawyer can enlighten us, about all this. Anyone there? Any successful precedent case? Here is a legal figure named "amparo", that could be useful. We must investigate.

Offline magnetmotorman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #156 on: November 14, 2008, 03:43:16 AM »
I was reading this page:
http://www.eagle-research.com/nopatent/patfree.html

I am excited about that. But I have some fears...

What if some big corporation get patents all around a world and start a persecution against us? against little producers?

How to fight, to defend us?

I wait some answers.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #156 on: November 14, 2008, 03:43:16 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline FreeEnergy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1928
    • HackersClub.NET
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #157 on: November 15, 2008, 04:51:26 AM »
hmm subject/topic should of been:

Open Source Vs. Patenting Vs. Copyright


too late now.

Offline brian334

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #158 on: April 22, 2009, 12:20:27 AM »
The reality is companies will not have anything to do
with a invention that is not patented or patent pending.
The potential legal liabilities are to high.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #158 on: April 22, 2009, 12:20:27 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #159 on: April 22, 2009, 12:36:02 AM »
Brian this is why I don't know why these inventors even waste their time on patents. This is like patenting a cure for cancer (which there are many) and hoping some company will have a dig at it. This is even a mute example as the cure is probably a very specific chemical combination while a gravity wheel for example is something that can be altered to avoid the patent license.Some user named Pirate something had the best solution if you went after money. Forget about patents. Just make use of your head start and try to sell as much as possible as you can while you can until others pick up and start competing with you. I personally hate competition as it's something very evil. But that's the only solution if you are money hungry.

On the other hand if you want to go full open source and have no direct plans to sell the machine youselve. Your best bet for some money to buy bread is making a clean, simple straight forward website with all the info, theory and plans of the device. Put a donation link and see people's good will at play. I know quite a lot of websites that have donation links open for certain causes and get in 2 000 USD or more in donations each month. So I speak of experience unlike some closed minded people.

This is also the option I would go for.

Offline d3adp00l

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #160 on: April 23, 2009, 08:55:02 AM »
a lawyer would be a good idea here. But I doubt if there is any who would ever be interested in helping out people with no real regard for themselves first.

So in spain it would seem that the best thing to do would be to do this. Post all data and info of the device, put on there a notice that you are pursuing a patent, but if anyone would like to build the device for their own use they are more than welcome. If anyone is interested in building the device for business they must contact you and get permission. From there you have 1 year to get the patent, and then you can continue an outsource type license setup, with people who ask for permission and agree to the idealogy of the agreement. Don't take money in exchange for the use, as that would entitle the person giving you money a vested interest in the device. Stipulate that if they are in the business of making the device and selling it for a profit then they must pay you royalties, and they are restricted on the profit and markup percentages they can use. You can determine what is fair and reasonable profit and markup.  but if they are not in a business model, then they are exept from royalities.

Since no corporation will agree with the spirit of such terms then you can reject their license application.

This would keep the prices from getting out of control, would prefer smaller businesses over huge corporations (who see a limit on profitablity as evil), and allows for the device to proliferate in such a way that only peoples ability to make the device will limit.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #160 on: April 23, 2009, 08:55:02 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #161 on: April 23, 2009, 02:04:27 PM »
a lawyer would be a good idea here. But I doubt if there is any who would ever be interested in helping out people with no real regard for themselves first.

So in spain it would seem that the best thing to do would be to do this. Post all data and info of the device, put on there a notice that you are pursuing a patent, but if anyone would like to build the device for their own use they are more than welcome. If anyone is interested in building the device for business they must contact you and get permission. From there you have 1 year to get the patent, and then you can continue an outsource type license setup, with people who ask for permission and agree to the idealogy of the agreement. Don't take money in exchange for the use, as that would entitle the person giving you money a vested interest in the device. Stipulate that if they are in the business of making the device and selling it for a profit then they must pay you royalties, and they are restricted on the profit and markup percentages they can use. You can determine what is fair and reasonable profit and markup.  but if they are not in a business model, then they are exept from royalities.

Since no corporation will agree with the spirit of such terms then you can reject their license application.

This would keep the prices from getting out of control, would prefer smaller businesses over huge corporations (who see a limit on profitablity as evil), and allows for the device to proliferate in such a way that only peoples ability to make the device will limit.

That is what a patent is for. For if you post before you get protection. You have just open sourced it. Public Domain! no possibility of controlling your interest with corporate. They take what they want, create different variations and patent them and you can just pound sand and prey that the people remember you where first. While those who took it get the Nobel prize, and recognition for saving the earth.  :'(

In this world, if you don't have something to fight with? You are unarmed and nothing. Just look at how many inventors you can name. Then look how many inventions exist. Only one in a million will ever be truly remembered.  :'(

Offline cameron sydenham

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #162 on: April 23, 2009, 06:50:00 PM »
ab, this argument sounds like a proponent of patenting??


Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #163 on: April 23, 2009, 08:41:11 PM »
Ash knows what he is talking about here ;)

Patenting could get you:

> Having the Patent Request "secretized"... Then it's "game over".

> Finding out that what you want to Patent has ALREADY been Patented and secretized, so you are not allowed to do anything with it commercially, or even talk about it. You get nothing... And don''t let the screen door hit you on the way out.

> Getting constant attacks by legal predators for "Prior Arts" and Patent Infringements.

> Having to worry that every Investor you find is not really a "shill" planted on you, out to sink you any way they can legally (.. Be sure to stay away from Agreements with investors that state a time frame "dead-line" for them to receive money back.. This appears to be their favorite trick: With endless roadblocks to delay). Remember the government or "MIB" may not be the only ones "out to get you" (if this is the case): Even competitors can play dirty and often do.

> Once you get the Patent, no one will touch it, no manufacturing agreements can be made that don't just shelve it. In essence you are "black-balled"... Forcing you to manufacture it yourself, if you can get the money up to do so. Then the suppliers start black-balling you....

These problems are what could await you when you go the Patent route with an "alternative energy" device. These are not new styles of "Juicers" or "Water Softeners" we are talking about here, this is a very serious game with Trillions at stake. Why is it so strange to consider that the rules are different? And why, when literally THOUSANDS before have tried and failed, do YOU think you can succeed where they could not?

Going the Open Source route will gain you:

> "Free R&D"... IF you can convince those who would replicate it of the worth. But here's a clue: If you cannot convince the people here or at Panacea first that it is a valid concept; forget getting anywhere with it in the commercial world, lol. The skepticism level is fairly high here, despite what some may think. Its not that you have to convince every nay-sayer, just those here who really know what they are doing (...those who actually "do" stuff ). But even still, we are "push-overs" compared to copper-top engineers who worship The Laws of Thermodynamics lol. And the device's features and performance may well be considerably improved by those replicating it, possibly saving you years of further development.

> "Immunity" from the above Patenting problems of secretization and legal troubles. It can't be "secretized" if it's OS. And they cant sue you over phony infringements unless you try to directly commercialize it.

>  Increased safety from suppressions... Should they exist, it is much harder to suppress an Open Sourced device (then the only real means they have is using paid dis-info shills to knock it down in forums like this, lol). They don't want "martyrs" and they don't want proof of suppressions that people like me can point to, to prove our points much more effectively in the wider world, lol.

> Greatly improved credibility from multiple replications. THIS is what matters here: CREDIBILITY. Without it, you will get nowhere... The bar for this is much higher in this game. The key is MULTIPLE replications all over the world that makes it much harder to attack and falsely debunk. Independent verifications are literally GOLD. Without them, you are nothing but hot air, with them, you can then tackle the NEXT difficult hurdle:

> Public Awareness. The Open Source community will help with that: the key to getting around the gates of the corporate-owned mainstream media is local news outlets, Internet, and gaining scientific and academic verification at local levels first, then going for higher levels. When there are 20, 50, 100 working devices out there; and they know this... It is much harder to knee-jerk deny and crap on something... Because they then risk looking like shills of the system. Eventually it is "forced" into the mainstream by threat of exposing them of being "suppressors" if they refuse to. Just like with LENR last month: It was other countries' advances that FORCED the US government and mainstream media to grudgingly acknowledge that LENR was real (..or otherwise they would soon be looking like either morons or suppressing liars)... This will be our model for further successes, too.     

> GETTING PAID: Remember, such a device will have literally thousands of parallel applications... So many, that it will be impossible to lock them all up with Patents anyway. So do this: Open Source the main idea, then save a couple choice parallel applications for Patenting yourself once the technology hits the mainstream. This way you still get paid directly for sales (although there are also many ways to cash-in going strictly OS), and still get the Open Source benefits that got you there in the first place ;) 

The key imo is this: Do you have a working free energy device, that can do useful work: If so, are you ready for several years of difficulty, and having your reputation attacked and smeared? Are you willing to go the extra mile to see the planet benefit from the device, to see your name go down in History? If the answer to the is last 2 is "no": Then try to Patent it and hope for the corporate "buy-out" offer (but if it's already been secretized because it was previously submitted by another Inventor, then usually you will get nothing but a Court Order to keep silent).

If you answer "Yes": Then there is only one road to success with these devices until things change greatly.... Open Source.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 12:34:30 AM by jibbguy »

Offline d3adp00l

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
Re: Open Source Vs. Patenting
« Reply #164 on: April 23, 2009, 09:42:50 PM »
agreed jib, OS with patent seems to be the best way. That is the way linux works (in a way) purely OS means that a corp will replicate get a patent, falsify docs to say that they had it first and will destroy you in court. But if you start the process, and then OS it, with an explaination of your use agreement, then you may just stand a chance.

Ignoring their game is not an answer, but trying to play their game by their rules is not the answer either.

Next to add to your list of things to be ready to accept, here is the other, be ready to have to produce it yourself to earn money from it. If you try to sell the idea you will lose the idea. You have to be ready to make money by actually DOING SOMETHING, getting money for free is a farse.

 

OneLink