Open Source Vs. Patenting

[hypersoniq]

there has to be a way to profit from your invention... maybe one invention could pay for your lab to get out even better stuff... who knows?

IF you have a device, you create it so that it cannot easily be reverse-engineered... make casings so that opening them destroys the contents (a simple sticker warning against tampering should do the trick legally). Ever see the inside of old TI calculators? the black goop poured on the main microcontroller is just about impossible to even remove, let alone with a chip intact...

IF you have a basement lab, you need cameras hidden all over streaming video to a remote location so the goons get caught on tape, you also need to be able to wield deadly force...

THERE IS NO REASON AN INVENTOR SHOULD NOT BE PAID FOR SOLVING THIS PROBLEM.

start small, pull the big energy appliances off grid first, finally leading up to your home... sell power back to the grid for the next step...

it's no secret who runs the oil companies, threats can work both ways...

If you are not at least mentally prepared to play hardball then maybe this isn't the best game for you.
maybe we need our own goon squad. Just imagine the weapons that can be created with an OU device... then build them and be prepared to use them...

I'm against the idea of patents only because they are so corrupt, but I am NOT against the idea of profit... otherwise I may as well ditch all the test gear and get back in the lottery line.

...tired of being a sheep...
...ready for a revolution...
...it's coming!...

[Joe Kelley]

z.monkey,

Who is too serious? Am I too serious because I ask a question and you avoid answering the question I ask?

You wrote this:

++++++++
Write your congressman, tell him he is fired...
++++++++

I ran for congress. I now know something about running for congress. I now know, first hand, something about the National government.

I recently handed the congressman of the National legal district where I live something legal. So far he has not responded to my legal notice.

You accuse me of being too serious. I will repeat my question to you specifically.

When did I become too serious? Was it something I wrote or something you read?

?The government? is the people. Some are serious about it. Others are dupes who think that ?the government? is an entity unto itself.

If it looks like a turd and if it smells like a turd is there really any reason to taste it?

How is that for the humor challenged?

++++++++++
THERE IS NO REASON AN INVENTOR SHOULD NOT BE PAID FOR SOLVING THIS PROBLEM.
++++++++++

Is that person going to also be called on as being too serious? What are the caps for?

If a person creates something that increases the productive power produced by our species the inventor will be paid in the long run because more power produced lowers the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the costs of producing everything.

Someone withholding the knowledge by which more power can be produced so as to profit from that scarcity of knowledge is no different than the oil company and monetary currency company profiteers who withhold the free flow of power so as to profit by that scarce supply of power. How about knowing something before spouting off your mouth concerning what you think someone is saying when in fact you miss the point entirely?

In today?s business world inventors can work the open source business model and in so doing the inventor gains positive feedback as an inventor. To suggest that a powerless inventor can somehow gain enough power to enforce a patent by which the inventor can fend off all criminal powers that are exerted in the effort to take credit, take patent ?rights?, and falsify any sense of reasonable justice is to ignore current reality.

Who, in this forum, has not studied some of the data available concerning the Stan Meyer?s example?

Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

As the monopolist legal criminals who currently control most of the forms of power that are available globally (and many people are starving to death because food is controlled globally), as those government criminals incrementally lose their power because more and more people are learning to make their own power (learning is a power), as that happens, their power over us diminishes while our power supply increases.

Our power supply is increasing rapidly because of new technologies like solar panels, electric cars, wind generators (have you seen the new jet types), free energy devices, water as fuel devices (even MIT professors now admit that hydrogen is an economical power storage medium).

Has anyone seen the algae as fuel vertical farming industry developing in closed green house environments where food can also be grown?

++++++++++
I'm against the idea of patents only because they are so corrupt, but I am NOT against the idea of profit... otherwise I may as well ditch all the test gear and get back in the lottery line.
++++++++++

The idea of profit at the expense of no one is an idea. The idea of profit at the expense of someone is not the same idea. Which idea is supported?

The capitalist pricing system is one type of pricing system. If you understand that the capitalist pricing system is based upon the idea of profiting at the expense of someone then you understand that fact.

Here is one example:

?every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.? Carl Menger (1840 -1921)

The capitalist pricing system is not the only pricing system possible.

I have a test for you to consider with an open mind (or a closed one, whichever you command).

What is ideal currency?

Here is an example of a Free Banking competitive currency (legal monetary power):

http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904

That is an example of reverse interest or ?depreciating currency?. Whenever I hear a capitalist trained dupe speak I listen for the inevitable confessions of their true ideals. The dupes proclaim the inevitability of positive interest charges. The dupes blame economic recession on ?artificially low interest rates?.

Above is an example of negative interest rates. He who controls the money (legal monetary power) controls all else, because dupes can be purchased.

The people can be purchased to perpetrate any act.

The people can be purchased to send their sons and daughter off to another nation to suffer and to torture, to end their own lives and to mass murder for profits that go to their masters who have purchased their allegiance to falsehood.

How about another joke?

Here is one from ole? Al.

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

[AB Hammer]

If a person creates something that increases the productive power produced by our species the inventor will be paid in the long run because more power produced lowers the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the costs of producing everything.

Someone withholding the knowledge by which more power can be produced so as to profit from that scarcity of knowledge is no different than the oil company and monetary currency company profiteers who withhold the free flow of power so as to profit by that scarce supply of power. How about knowing something before spouting off your mouth concerning what you think someone is saying when in fact you miss the point entirely?

In today?s business world inventors can work the open source business model and in so doing the inventor gains positive feedback as an inventor. To suggest that a powerless inventor can somehow gain enough power to enforce a patent by which the inventor can fend off all criminal powers that are exerted in the effort to take credit, take patent ?rights?, and falsify any sense of reasonable justice is to ignore current reality.

Joe Kelley
  What you have said here tells me allot about your views. This also tells me why you lost the race. First you have to connect to the people. Therefor you have to be able to talk to them where they can understand what you are saying, (common talk to get your meaning out). Now for the problem of what you have said. It comes across like this. Inventors, why do you even try? Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.

The true facts are, that the only way things will change is if people try. No matter how often we get crushed. For when we give up trying we can just put the slave collar around our necks and get our tags for who owns us. We no longer have the wrights to our own thoughts or our invention, and we no longer have the possibility of making anything of our lives. The true separation of the classes. I have talked to some of the people who have never had to work a day in their lives. They have a since of godhood and the poor are just children that should be told what to do. I also use to fix windshields for Sam Walton of Wal-Mart and was able to talk to him from time to time. He is/was (rest in peace) one of the finest men I ever met. He was in touch with the common people and new how to promote America. Wal-Mart was a good store as long as he and his brother Bud where alive. They cared about there workers then. But now my son is handicap with nothing, due to 200 lbs of can goods falling on him when he worked for them. When profit becomes more important than the people and our courts only work for the ones who can afford it? We have a real problems IMO.

Open sourcing gives big business and open door to invention with no court cost. You have to know what to do to stop the garbage of the system. Yes this means you have to play their game of politics to get past it, to at least get your fair share.

[Joe Kelley]

+++++++++++
This also tells me why you lost the race. First you have to connect to the people.
+++++++++++

AB Hammer,

Who gave you the authority to dictate to me that which is real in my world? I drove to an office and filled out all the paperwork whereby my name appeared on a ballot. I won that race as far as I am concerned. The idea that someone can tell me how to perceive the event I made happen better than I can is an idea that comes from a mind washed with narcissism.

Suppose that you too ran for congress and now we two have something in common by which we can compare notes?

++++++++
Therefor you have to be able to talk to them where they can understand what you are saying, (common talk to get your meaning out).
++++++++

During my version of what occurred when I jumped through all the hoops to get my name on the ballot I did a radio show debate with the other candidates who were not set up to win the election. The people at the debate and everyone I talked to agreed with what I had to say but?

That was the interesting and enlightening part of my quest to learn more about the process of modern National government in the U.S.A. legal system. I agree with liberty but? I agree that involuntary taxation is criminal but? etc.

This topic happens to concern open source versus Patent Pending business but?

The but here is that I offered data and I get the typical and expected shoot the messenger systematic method of suppressing (making scarce) specifically unwelcome data.

You can agree with me but?

But; you think you have the power to assume control over my history. That is a telling sign of narcissism. Narcissism is a telling sign of brainwashing. Some people are born pathological, some are learnt.

+++++++++
Now for the problem of what you have said.
+++++++++

What I do is learnt from experience. I quote the data offered by the person when I am going to comment upon that person?s comments. That way there is less room for misidentification concerning who wrote exactly what and what exactly did they write. That way the confusion factor is minimized rather than the confusion factor being expanded on purpose for some reason.

Usually the reason for someone writing those words quoted are reasons that include a narcissistic person pretending to know something that they do not know and then injecting false data in place of their misunderstanding of the words they comment upon.

These words:

+++++++++
Now for the problem of what you have said.
+++++++++

What I have written is published verbatim. You can quote what I have written. You can even suggest that your version of what I have written is more accurate than my version of what I have written. I am very interested in hearing what anyone has to say about my version of what I have written. I have heard many versions of interpretations of what I have written and so far the lions share of those re-written versions of what I have written are false.

Here goes.

+++++++
It comes across like this.
+++++++

I see that as an excuse. You are now going to excuse your misinterpretation of my words by suggesting that my words just naturally ?come across? in a certain way to everyone generally or universally. My words are written accurately. Your complaint concerning how my words ?come across? could involve a dissection of the actual words written by me so as to accurately identify why my words ?come across? in the way my words ?come across?. I look for this accurate communication of why my words ?come across? the way that you see my words coming across so we both can see why my words ?come across? to you in the way my words ?come across? to you.

Let?s see.

Here goes.

++++++++
Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.
++++++++

Here is where I accurately identify you words as your words. Here is where I accurately distance myself from your version of my words as they came across to you. Here is where I caution any reader in the error of forming a belief in your version being my version. I did not write those words above.

These words:

++++++++
Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.
++++++++

Those are the words written by someone who is not me. Those words are intending to be attached to me. I am supposed to be the person who made the person ?come across? with that viewpoint. I do not have that viewpoint. Those are not my words. I reject those words. They are none my words; so why would someone suggest that I am somehow connected to those words?

Will I find out why someone would attach me with words I did not write?

Here goes. I?ll read the next paragraph that follows words I wrote. So far the words that follow the words I wrote do not manage to represent the words I wrote, at all. I am able to judge if the words that follow the words I wrote represent the words I wrote because I wrote the words I wrote. I am therefore the author and the authority concerning the words I wrote. If anyone has an questions concerning the meaning of the words I wrote they could ask someone other than the person who wrote the words I wrote.

Who is the authority concerning the data offered by Stan Meyers?

Does the reader understand the above question in the context of this forum ?discussion??

Does the person who rewrites my words understand my words well enough to usurp my authority concerning the meaning of the words I write?

I?ll read the next sentence in the next paragraph to see if this person continues the typical narcissistic response to the words I write.

+++++++++
The true facts are, that the only way things will change is if people try.
+++++++++

Who and what is that sentence intended to address? Have I been discarded at this time? Is this now a new paragraph constructed with a specific purpose in mind and is that purpose to state the obvious on purpose for some reason?

Perhaps the next sentence will offer a clue.

+++++++++
No matter how often we get crushed.
+++++++++

Who is ?we?? Who is being crushed? As far as my viewpoint is concerned the average person is being brainwashed. One method of brainwashing is called conditioned response. If the victim of brainwashing hears the word ?terrorist? for example the brainwashed person will identify 911, rag-heads, Osama bin Obama, and the victim will feel crushed and impotent.

See how my words are my words and the comments following my words are not my words ? specifically? Another form of brainwashing is accomplished with ambiguity. Black is grey. White is grey. Black is white.

See? Those are my words.

Moving on.

++++++++++
For when we give up trying we can just put the slave collar around our necks and get our tags for who owns us.
++++++++++

What happened to how my words ?come across?? When did the comments turn into statements of the obvious?

I?m going to repeat the words I wrote that appear above the words AB-Hammer wrote so as to bring some context back into this supposed ?discussion? of Open Source Vs. Patent ?Rights? and note that Sid Meyers went the route of Patent ?Rights?.

Should I patent the words I write so as to remove the factor of ?coming across??

++++++++
If a person creates something that increases the productive power produced by our species the inventor will be paid in the long run because more power produced lowers the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the costs of producing everything.

Someone withholding the knowledge by which more power can be produced so as to profit from that scarcity of knowledge is no different than the oil company and monetary currency company profiteers who withhold the free flow of power so as to profit by that scarce supply of power. How about knowing something before spouting off your mouth concerning what you think someone is saying when in fact you miss the point entirely?

In today?s business world inventors can work the open source business model and in so doing the inventor gains positive feedback as an inventor. To suggest that a powerless inventor can somehow gain enough power to enforce a patent by which the inventor can fend off all criminal powers that are exerted in the effort to take credit, take patent ?rights?, and falsify any sense of reasonable justice is to ignore current reality.
+++++++++++

Compare that to this:

++++++++
Inventors, why do you even try? Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.
++++++++

If the reader (other than AB Hammer) has ?come across? with the same opposite meaning of what I wrote, then the reader may rest easy with that misinterpretation since you have company in AB Hammer. The fact is that my words are not those words for a reason. My words are chosen by me to convey specific meaning that is specifically not the meaning offered by the coming across AB Hammer. If my words intended to convey the meaning offered by AB Hammer I would have chosen the specific words chosen by AB Hammer. I did not choose AB Hammer?s words. I chose my words.

Compare this:

+++++++++
To suggest that a powerless inventor can somehow gain enough power to enforce a patent by which the inventor can fend off all criminal powers that are exerted in the effort to take credit, take patent ?rights?, and falsify any sense of reasonable justice is to ignore current reality.
+++++++++

To this:

++++++++
Inventors, why do you even try? Big business has the money (money makes wright) and you don't have the money (lack of money makes wrong) So big business has the wright to take away any thing you have, and you can do nothing about it.
++++++++

I offered the Stan Meyers example. Suppose that Stan Meyers rejected the whole idea of Patent ?Rights? and went about manufacturing twenty water powered cars for the local market? Suppose Stan Meyer filmed the whole business on Youtube while his business venture played out in time and space. How much less time and energy would have been spent toward an increase in the number of water powered cars running on the roads on this planet compared to what Stan Meyers did ? in fact?

Well?suppose someone questions the facts concerning Stan Meyers? water powered car?

Has the data been destroyed? How many water powered cars are running around and available for reverse engineering? Who is in power to stop people from reverse engineering the Stan Meyers water powered car?

Are those my words or should I wait for my critic to ?come across? with my words for me?

I?ll read more of the response to me to find out if the subject returns to the topic, returns to the quote of words written by me or if the rest of the comments appear to me to be nothingness.

++++++++++
When profit becomes more important than the people and our courts only work for the ones who can afford it?
++++++++++

Profit at the expense of no one is not the same thing as profit at the expense of someone.

Does anyone notice the significance of accurately discriminating between black and white, night and day, true and false, right and wrong?

+++++++++
Yes this means you have to play their game of politics to get past it, to at least get your fair share.
+++++++++

Government at the expense of no one is not the same thing as government at the expense of someone ? specifically.

Patent rights may require an enforcement mechanism other than one that resembles honor. You get what you pay for?

If you can?t beat em?; join em??

Am I too serious again? If so; where did I cross that line?

[z.monkey]

Howdy Joe Kelley, AB Hammer,

It was definitely something you wrote.  The sequence goes like this.

I responded to the Joe's Law theory in a acknowledging manner...

AB responded next saying that Joe sounded like a southern lawyer.

Then I wrote some satirical legalese to be funny.

Then Joe (missing the point) attacked me.

You know I do know something of the patent process.  I am an inventor.  I have tried to patent ideas and you know what happens?  The lawyers wind up with all the money.  The deck is stacked by the legal system against the inventors.  It is literally impossible to get a patent unless you have your own team of lawyers and millions of dollars to throw at the endeavor.  If you are a single individual or a small company then you might as well forget trying to get a patent.  In my own business I decided to forget trying to get a patent.  Instead we use copyrights.  We design and manufacture the products and then market them with a patent pending label on them to prevent people from trying to reverse engineer our products, but ultimately they could if they wanted to.  Here is where our advantage is, we are continually improving the product to stay ahead of the curve.  When the other guy finishes reverse engineering our current product we are releasing a new improved product that is better than the knock off.

Joe, I think that you are the one that has been duped.  You think that you as a common man can actually change the course of our government.  Ever since the Constitutional Common Law Government of the United States was hijacked and held in suppression by the Federal Corporate United States Government there is no chance that the common man can make any difference.  The US.Gov is a Federal Corporation which only allows the Elitist Party (Illuminati) Members play in their doll house.  Commoners are looked down upon as if they are chattel (human cattle) and the chattel disgust the Elitists.  There is no chance that a common dog like myself could make one whit of difference in their doll house.  They are a corporate entity in and of themselves and the only reason they have any interest in the commoners is to fleece them of their resources (money).  However, This is OK with me.  They have developed a body of Bad Karma which is so great that it is going to cause their doll house to implode in a very spectacular manner, something that I am looking forward to.  There is no power on Earth which is free from Karma.

I am done with this thread.  I find it repugnant to be badgered by someone which has to, at all costs, dominate a conversation.  Joe, you disgust me.  I am not going to respond to this thread any longer.

Blessed Be...