Open Source Vs. Patenting

[ashtweth_nihilisti]

Then it is settled, Open source wins, and its proven by CASE files!

[AB Hammer]

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.

[Joe Kelley]

++++++++++
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?

[AB Hammer]

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

[AB Hammer]

@ 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.