Open Source Vs. Patenting

[Joe Kelley]

++++++++++
You paint a very dim picture for the poor inventor.
+++++++++++

AB Hammer,

I did no such thing. I did not paint a very dim picture for the poor inventor. If you read what I wrote and your opinion is that I paint a very dim picture for the poor inventor, then I?d like to know exactly what I wrote that you think is a very dim picture for the poor inventor.

Inventors have an ability now that has never been available before in human history. An inventor can now access the entire Global market through the networked media. If an inventor can gain positive feedback because the inventor invents marketable ideas the inventor can prosper as never before because of this instant access to billions of people.

Can you read that paragraph and retain your opinion that I paint a very dim picture for the poor inventor?

Does your word choice intend to suggest that there are non-poor inventors who do not invent poor inventions? If so, then I can agree that compared to the non-poor inventor the poor inventor is going to have a hard time marketing his inability to invent because he is a 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.
++++++++++

I?m going to link another link to show anyone how a link can aid in the effort to accurately communicate something. The above is vague. The above is to me a misleading paragraph due to its ambiguity. The above is not specific enough to do me any good. I could do my own search to gain more accurate data concerning this perpetual motion invention.

Here is a link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5684495902617203266&q=Joseph+Newman&total=149&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=0

Is that a poor inventor?

I lost the link I wanted to send and now I?m reviewing that link.

++++++++
What does the Constitution have to say about that?
++++++++

Before I end this response and get back to that link I linked, I am going to comment on The Constitution.

My comment is based upon many diverse sources of data not limited to these three books:

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutional-Convention/dp/1410203638/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220627933&sr=1-1

That is a first hand account of the dirty deed (also known as The Dirty Compromise) from someone inside the Secret Proceedings and Debates of the closed door Constitutional Convention.

You won?t find the actual words spoken by the principle actors who sold out liberty for slavery in that book because that book described the parliamentary type group meeting where the deal makers negotiated their treasonous acts after the deal was already struck.

The deal was struck between southern slave traders who wanted the north to enforce their slave trade laws and on the other side if the Dirty Compromise was the northern currency monopolists who wanted the south to enforce their currency monopoly.

The North and South were then destined to fight a war because of that Dirty Compromise because the South got the poop end of the stick. Open human slavery would not be enforceable in the long run. Slavery by stealth is still going on today with the currency monopoly business model ? closed source.

http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812218701/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220628408&sr=1-1

That is a description of the revolutionary war as the revolutionary war continued after the British were defeated and driven out of the colonies as those colonies became separate States held together under a voluntary republic described within the text of The Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation created a republic fashioned after the Swiss model government. The Swiss model government is a type of government that does not participate in wars, history proves this out.

Under the articles of confederation the separate State of Massachusetts suppressed the continued revolutionary war during skirmishes that were later called Shays?s Rebellion which were named after a revolutionary war soldier named Daniel Shays who helped defend the rule of law, liberty, and fight against taxation without representation.

The actors on the side of the State of Massachusetts suppressed the rebellion against the misrepresented whiskey tax by going against The Articles of Confederation. In other words the governors of Massachusetts broke the law of The Republic.

Massachusetts was working their end of the currency monopoly so as to finance invasions of Canada and in so doing they created more debt as merchants loaned (with interest) the goods to conduct those invasions of Canada. The governors of Massachusetts borrowed on the ability of the people to pay taxes in gold.

Gold became very scarce due to Gresham?s Law where legal paper debt money drove out the Gold. Gresham?s Law is easy to understand when considering how foreign traders will not accept paper debt money for their import goods. The gold leaves The State that prints debt money. It did. When the governors of Massachusetts dictated payment of taxes in Gold the soldiers figured out that the old bosses where replaced by the new bosses.

That is easy to see because the lack of gold inspired the creation of whiskey as currency. Whiskey was the money used by the people in the colonies who were not in the cities where people traded legal debt money and what remained of the gold supply. The soldiers had no gold to pay the whiskey tax. It was a ludicrous dictate. The soldiers continued the revolutionary war in Massachusetts under the Articles of Confederation and the governors of Massachusetts broke the law and suppressed that rebellion.

All the other state governors knew it. Everyone knew that the rebels were merely continuing the revolutionary war.

So?how can the powers that be figure out a way to enforce their paper debt note currency monopoly extortion racket?

They went to George Washington who promised to retire and never become a politician and they told George that if you didn?t fight against the rebellion that George would lose all his land holdings that he bought from soldiers for pennies on the dollar because George was paid with gold and the soldiers were paid with worthless paper debt notes (and land). That was before whiskey was invented as monetary currency ? or re-discovered if you will.

http://www.amazon.com/Whiskey-Rebellion-Frontier-Epilogue-Revolution/dp/0195051912/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220629499&sr=1-1

That exposes the whole hoax to ?fix? The Articles of Confederation so as to make it legal to suppress a rebellion. George Washington drove out the mighty British army with a voluntary army of volunteers under The Articles of Confederation and then after the ?Fix? was printed (The Constitution) George Washington conscripted an involuntary Army (as big as the voluntary one) to suppress another flare up of the ongoing Whiskey Rebellion. Pennsylvania was picked for tactical reason so as to teach the rebels a lesson throughout the formerly separate States that were now a Limited Liability Corporate Nation State Dept Money Currency Extortion Racket i.e. The Constitution.

I can link and quote The Constitution right where it make suppressions of rebellions legal if you wish.

+++++++
What we would have to have is a US patent and a World patent.
+++++++

Are you one of those New World Order Global propagandists? Patent enforcement is one of many excuses for creating a one world government.  If it isn?t voluntary then it is criminal. Do you contend otherwise?

+++++++++
Don't even consider China for they have there own special patents in the place of intellectual patents designed to steel anything they can.
+++++++++

China is where the bad guys are because they steal patents compared to us the good guys who go around the world torturing and mass murdering for oil?

I think we live in different worlds.

I?m in the reality based one.

What was the last country invaded by the Chinese?

Do you know if South Ossetia is the last country invaded by U.S. military advisors, or is Pakistan the last one? Who is counting?

Do you know that legal criminal A,B,C, and D (Bush, Cheney, Killer McCain, and Osama Obama) all promise to continue invading at will (torturing and mass murdering).

Iran and Pakistan are on the list.

So?how bad is China? We need a world government to get ?them? in line with moral values like Patent enforcement?

Are you serious? Have you thought this through?

++++++++
It is bad that China only recognizes there own.
++++++++

Perhaps they trust in the fact that the U.S. National government lies, tortures, and mass murders on purpose for profit and therefore can?t be trusted to honor anything at all?

[Joe Kelley]

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

utilitarian,

You obviously misunderstand my viewpoint. Joe?s Law is merely a way of describing physical and psychological reality. The relationship is what it is, I merely describe it.

If you, I, or anyone thinks that my description is inaccurate the fact that the relationship exists doesn?t change. I see no need to support or disprove the relationship described by Joe?s Law. It exists even if I don?t see it; conversely it won?t vanish if I ignore it.

+++++++++
I see evidence of this every day in the business world, as people tend to gravitate to higher paying activities.
+++++++++

The business world includes open source phenomenon and patent enforcement as competitors for market share. If the company I worked for is an example of American type ?business world? gravitation to higher payment activities then I can safely say that the gravitation is short lived, borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul, living on borrowed time, and cutting off the business world's nose to spite the business world's face; therefore the push to get that behind and move onto newer, more far reaching, investment oriented business practices like those being invented in the open source phenomenon will increase income and reduce costs.

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

One of us misunderstands the words published at that site; however the principle remains the same while the time factor changes.

Over-unity can be seen clearly as a cost/benefit ratio that can increase or decrease.

If cost is greater than benefit there is no over-unity. That is under-unity and that is unsustainable.

If the cost is 1 year of power (money, energy, or electric power) and the benefit is 25 total years of power production (money, energy, or electric power), then the ratio is 1/24 cost/benefits and it is obviously over-unity.

I may have the over-unity concept misunderstood, perhaps over-unity is meant to describe a perpetual motion machine whereby power is generated out of nothing (or out of something unknown - exactly)?

The trend in Solar Panels (and just about everything mass produced) is a lowering of cost and an increase in benefit (while demand for the benefit exists).

The current state of the Solar Panel industry is such that suppliers are offering consumers a one time call up to allow them to install Solar Panels on consumer's homes in order to reduce their yearly electric bill. You call them up. You get Solar Panels. You pay less electricity per month. You pay nothing. You pay the new electric supplier less money per month.

Out with the old; in with the new.

Solar Panels may not yet be available to the individual consumer where the entire cost of the panel is paid in full during the first year of use and the same solar panel will produce the cost of one more solar panel each year for 25 years, yet. What is to stop solar panels from reaching that ratio of cost to benefit?

One answer is another invention that offers more benefit for less cost. If that happens then the higher cost and lower benefit stuff is no longer purchased from the same shelf as the lower cost and higer benefit stuff.

Did anyone look at the link to Joseph Newman?s work?

I didn?t dive in yet. I?m replying to this forum discussion first.

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

When I am in a position to buy, I?ll know more. My plan is to end up with Solar Panels and an electric car or two. Right now my income is nill due to an ear disease, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and an allograph for one ankle. I don?t think my family can afford the fix on the other ankle since the Currency Monopoly Extortion Racket began its cycle downward in America. I don?t think the bottom will be hit for another 2 years. I may be in a better position to buy in a few years. I may not.

When I buy I can offer more accurate data.

++++++++++
Finally, I do not think I understand what you mean by "producing into a state of scarcity".
++++++++++

I can illustrate what I mean precisely. Producing something into a state of scarcity is a method by which the producer restricts the output on purpose so as to maximize profits based upon an ideal relationship between supply and demand.

If the producer adds too much supply (not enough restriction) the demand lowers and so does the price. If the producer restricts the supply too much (not enough supply) the natives get restless or they invent and adapt by finding new supplies that cost less and produce more.

The power or ability to produce something into a state of scarcity is a power that must be exclusive or monopolized by cartel or some other arrangement between competitors who vie for market share.

If someone has the power to supply more and does supply more than the agreed upon restriction among the cartel members, the obvious result is more supply, less demand, and a lowering of price. The other obvious result is either an increase in market share for the supplier who doesn?t abide by the cartel agreement or the other members of the cartel must lower their price in order to maintain their market share.

Do you really not understand how or why someone would produce something into a state of scarcity? Have I not described this phenomenon precisely?

Do you contend that I have to prove that someone would supply something into a state of scarcity in order for it to exist?

Do you argue that oil is scarce?

+++++++++
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).
++++++++++

I don?t argue. If oil is scarce then it is scarce. I?ve seen much evidence that supports the conclusion that oil remains to be an abundant supply in Alaska, Africa, Russia, South America, and the Middle East. New oceans of the stuff have been discovered since I first looked into the supposed ?Peak Oil? phenomenon.

Even if the evidence supporting an abundant supply of oil is false or inaccurate the relationship seems very clear to me while your words are not clear to me.

These words:

+++++++++
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).
++++++++++

Your words suggest that producing oil in a scenario where oil is scarce will have a diminishing effect on the price of oil.

You don?t mention demand. How can you conclude anything concerning the price when you offer no measure of demand?

Even if demand was static while oil is scarce there is no mention in your words to measure cost. If oil is scarce and harder to find, harder to drill, deeper, or otherwise more difficult to get to the market with a price tag on it, on the shelf in a barrel, or at the pump, then the cost will go up. How can the price go down (deminish) if the cost goes up?

How can the price go down if the cost goes up while the demand goes up?

Your words are too ambiguous to mean anything to me; can you elaborate and explain how a scarce supply of oil will have a diminishing effect on price?

[AB Hammer]

Joe Kelley

Answer this.
What protection is there for open sourcing?

What protection for patenting?

This is in line of the string. Here that is all that is important.

[Joe Kelley]

AB Hammer,

I am not a mind reader. When you ask for that which protects I am unable to know what it is that you suggest is attacking or injuring Open Source or anything.

What is the protection or defense aimed at?

What is threatening?

What is it that is being protected against?

What is it that is the cause, need, or demand for protection?

Example:

A rubber is a protection device employed to protect the egg from the sperm.

What is the sperm in this case where a rubber is needed for protection against it?

Is the rubber used to protect against aids?

Is it aids or sperm?

What exactly is it that concerns you to a point whereby you see the need for protection?

[AB Hammer]

AB Hammer,

I am not a mind reader. When you ask for that which protects I am unable to know what it is that you suggest is attacking or injuring Open Source or anything.

What is the protection or defense aimed at?

What is threatening?

What is it that is being protected against?

What is it that is the cause, need, or demand for protection?

Example:

A rubber is a protection device employed to protect the egg from the sperm.

What is the sperm in this case where a rubber is needed for protection against it?

Is the rubber used to protect against aids?

Is it aids or sperm?

What exactly is it that concerns you to a point whereby you see the need for protection?

LOL

I see why you use long winded talk and big words. For without it, it show us that you know nothing. But it is now obvious that you are over compensating for what you don't have as well.

Not being able to answer a straight question with a straight answer without over complicating it, to avoid what you don't know, or don't want to say. For like in a court of law can cause you to loose your case.

Like I said before.

(Dazzle them with brilliance or baffle them with bull$#!+) And I am stepping out of this string because it is getting to deep.