Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: FreeEnergy on December 12, 2009, 01:06:02 PM

Title: Why NOT Open Source?
Post by: FreeEnergy on December 12, 2009, 01:06:02 PM
This is for those of you who think open sourcing free energy/over unity technologies is a bad idea.
I have noticed that some (quite a few) people think that open sourced inventions (discoveries) will be taken from the individual by those that can afford to own "their" idea. Well why should that even matter? If the information is spread to as many as possible especially open sourced minded communities the idea will not only live on but it will evolve at very high speeds (like Linux, FreeBSD, UNIX, and others). So what's the problem?
Title: Re: Why NOT Open Source?
Post by: forest on December 12, 2009, 05:04:48 PM
The problem is that the inventor might still be poor and even would have no money to buy his own invention from market.Except this one I have no objections, but imagine a normal man , for example poor farmer discovering something extraordinary - for example a method to cure all diseases, and them being unable to continue research and even to buy improved version of device because it is costly.
Title: Re: Why NOT Open Source?
Post by: jadaro2600 on December 13, 2009, 01:39:16 AM
Due and undue burden.  If poverty prevents a person from attaining something, it sounds as if that person doesn't have a right to it.

The is a perilous point of view.  As if to say that the haves want and deserve, while the have-nots want and are not afforded the luxury of the right to it.

Someone who cannot pay for the development of their ideas is in a precarious situation.

It's almost as those lawsuits go..  money outweighs justice when enough legalese is involved that a just case is brought forth and no justice is served because the amount of paperwork and motion filed cause the cost of the defense to be so high that any awards would be less than the cost of the case.

This is crap, utterly and totally, and you had best hoped that it's a criminal defense afforded to you by the state - and at the same time that state isn't being influenced by the offense ( which is not likely ).

I could go on and on about how crude things are in the legal system, but I believe a have-not with an idea has a certain potential easily overcome with tact and careful planning.

Unfortunately, there are have-nots which simply have not!

edit: I misread some of the comments..
Title: Re: Why NOT Open Source?
Post by: jadaro2600 on December 13, 2009, 01:44:26 AM
This is for those of you who think open sourcing free energy/over unity technologies is a bad idea.
I have noticed that some (quite a few) people think that open sourced inventions (discoveries) will be taken from the individual by those that can afford to own "their" idea. Well why should that even matter? If the information is spread to as many as possible especially open sourced minded communities the idea will not only live on but it will evolve at very high speeds (like Linux, FreeBSD, UNIX, and others). So what's the problem?

The problem with open source is the same as the problem with finding a job - every employer wants you to have 2 years or more of experience,...  if you've never had a job, you don't get one.

Just as well, in open source, you have the code, anyone can look at it, and anyone can steal the routines.  This is the perfect example of software patents being unpatentable ideas.  There are thousands of way to implement a routine in source code, and hundreds of languages to do it in, .. the only valid protection of code is through the use of industrial espionage, and copyright, trade secret violations, etc.

Patents do not solve this problem - AND IT"S JUST AS WELL TOO, you file a patent and YOU DIVULGE the method.

KEEP IT a TRADE SECRET...

DAMNIT!
Title: Re: Why NOT Open Source?
Post by: jratcliff on December 17, 2009, 12:13:07 AM
Let's be honest.  If you have a free-energy solution you have a moral imperative to make it free to the entire world. 

It's really no more complicated than that.

John