Open Source Vs. Patenting

[AB Hammer]

@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.

[Joe Kelley]

++++++++++++
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.

[Joe Kelley]

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?

[AB Hammer]

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.

[utilitarian]

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).