Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



PLEASE READ THIS-MAJOR BREAK THRU FROM BILL MEHESS

Started by billmehess, August 12, 2011, 11:13:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

evolvingape

Quote from: Paul-R on August 15, 2011, 11:19:02 AM

If an inventor discloses the invention, then it cannot subsequently
be patented. (Unless, of course, the patent application pre-dates
the date of the disclosure).

Paul-R

Yes I agree. This is something I looked into extensively before releasing all of my own work. If an invention is fully disclosed in the public domain before a patent is applied for, it is classed as "prior art", and cannot subsequently be patented in that form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

http://inventors.about.com/od/definations/g/prior_art.htm

In my particular case I chose to open source all of my work in the public domain, including full design schematics and all theory, so that it would be classed as prior art. This served two purposes, firstly it allows anyone interested to build a prototype, and secondly it prevents anyone from patenting the device based on my work and then gaining control of it.

In order to protect my work and ensure it was in the hands of the people I had to relinquish complete control of it, and give it away. "Prior Art" was the only way I could see this working, not having a prototype to present to the patent office. However, I never intended to patent at all, right from the start. I refuse to play "their" games.

The thing about a US patent is... If a big corporation copies your device, mass produces it, and undercuts you in the market place... will you have the funds to mount a patent challenge lawsuit ? So they will go ahead and manufacture it anyway knowing if you challenge them you will bankrupt yourself and also create a huge amount of stress for yourself being tied up in court for years.

RM :)

P.S. The other possibility that I see is that having provided all of the information required to get a patent pending status from the patent office, you may find that a National Security Seal is slapped on it. You would then be prohibited from disclosing the invention publicly, and if you ignored them and did so, might find yourself being prosecuted and going to prison. I suppose that depends on whether you think the patent office is obligated to inform the government of potential threats to National Security... or not ?

Having announced an intention to fully publicly disclose the invention in 2 weeks time or so, between now and then is the window which they have to act if the above scenario is chosen to suppress the invention. Not trying to scare you, just offering my opinion on the possibilities.

RM :)

mscoffman

@All

I somewhat dis-agree with what is being stated. A patent is an opportunity
to find and sue someone who builds a non-theoretically derived version
of the manufactured device. Often at extreme costs to the patenter. So it
really needs to work as part of a corporate stratedgy towards “global”
dominance. For example; The Bell System. It doesn’t preclude someone
from  understanding  the theory of operation and redesigning it according
to potentially improved knowledge of competitive methods conditions
that follows from the development of the device itself.

And it give the opportunity for moneyed interests to purchase the design
and often shelve it, if they desire. Leaving only the rumor of the device
operation.

---

A better approach would allow one to get multiple eyes on the physical conditions
surrounding the device to prevent MIB’s from changing the characteristic of
substances and subcomponents that go into the device. This value is created,
and happens by allowing unassociated persons to have a reasonable personal
interest and share in the developmental success of the device.

In the words of one of the founders of Intel: “You succeed by making a device
that works, and then you pin it up for the world to see and paint a target around
it…then you surf the waves of success from increasing the utility derived from
devices functionality.”

Because of this I feel the simplified intent of the original inventor often fails
as these two different behaviors tend to be inverse complements of one another. 

:S:MarkSCoffman

billmehess


ramset

Bill
Last week I became a grandpa ,I made a conscious decision to be Happy,

This week I feel like another baby is about to be Born
Knowing How you feel about this ,and the skills inherent to you.
It allows me to make the same decision.

"Don't Worry" Be Happy............

We're in your corner Bill,Swing for the bleachers!!

Chet
Whats for yah ne're go bye yah
Thanks Grandma

evolvingape