Open Source Vs. Patenting

[d3adp00l]

a lawyer would be a good idea here. But I doubt if there is any who would ever be interested in helping out people with no real regard for themselves first.

So in spain it would seem that the best thing to do would be to do this. Post all data and info of the device, put on there a notice that you are pursuing a patent, but if anyone would like to build the device for their own use they are more than welcome. If anyone is interested in building the device for business they must contact you and get permission. From there you have 1 year to get the patent, and then you can continue an outsource type license setup, with people who ask for permission and agree to the idealogy of the agreement. Don't take money in exchange for the use, as that would entitle the person giving you money a vested interest in the device. Stipulate that if they are in the business of making the device and selling it for a profit then they must pay you royalties, and they are restricted on the profit and markup percentages they can use. You can determine what is fair and reasonable profit and markup.  but if they are not in a business model, then they are exept from royalities.

Since no corporation will agree with the spirit of such terms then you can reject their license application.

This would keep the prices from getting out of control, would prefer smaller businesses over huge corporations (who see a limit on profitablity as evil), and allows for the device to proliferate in such a way that only peoples ability to make the device will limit.

[AB Hammer]

a lawyer would be a good idea here. But I doubt if there is any who would ever be interested in helping out people with no real regard for themselves first.

So in spain it would seem that the best thing to do would be to do this. Post all data and info of the device, put on there a notice that you are pursuing a patent, but if anyone would like to build the device for their own use they are more than welcome. If anyone is interested in building the device for business they must contact you and get permission. From there you have 1 year to get the patent, and then you can continue an outsource type license setup, with people who ask for permission and agree to the idealogy of the agreement. Don't take money in exchange for the use, as that would entitle the person giving you money a vested interest in the device. Stipulate that if they are in the business of making the device and selling it for a profit then they must pay you royalties, and they are restricted on the profit and markup percentages they can use. You can determine what is fair and reasonable profit and markup.  but if they are not in a business model, then they are exept from royalities.

Since no corporation will agree with the spirit of such terms then you can reject their license application.

This would keep the prices from getting out of control, would prefer smaller businesses over huge corporations (who see a limit on profitablity as evil), and allows for the device to proliferate in such a way that only peoples ability to make the device will limit.

That is what a patent is for. For if you post before you get protection. You have just open sourced it. Public Domain! no possibility of controlling your interest with corporate. They take what they want, create different variations and patent them and you can just pound sand and prey that the people remember you where first. While those who took it get the Nobel prize, and recognition for saving the earth. 

In this world, if you don't have something to fight with? You are unarmed and nothing. Just look at how many inventors you can name. Then look how many inventions exist. Only one in a million will ever be truly remembered. 

[cameron sydenham]

ab, this argument sounds like a proponent of patenting??

[jibbguy]

Ash knows what he is talking about here

Patenting could get you:

> Having the Patent Request "secretized"... Then it's "game over".

> Finding out that what you want to Patent has ALREADY been Patented and secretized, so you are not allowed to do anything with it commercially, or even talk about it. You get nothing... And don''t let the screen door hit you on the way out.

> Getting constant attacks by legal predators for "Prior Arts" and Patent Infringements.

> Having to worry that every Investor you find is not really a "shill" planted on you, out to sink you any way they can legally (.. Be sure to stay away from Agreements with investors that state a time frame "dead-line" for them to receive money back.. This appears to be their favorite trick: With endless roadblocks to delay). Remember the government or "MIB" may not be the only ones "out to get you" (if this is the case): Even competitors can play dirty and often do.

> Once you get the Patent, no one will touch it, no manufacturing agreements can be made that don't just shelve it. In essence you are "black-balled"... Forcing you to manufacture it yourself, if you can get the money up to do so. Then the suppliers start black-balling you....

These problems are what could await you when you go the Patent route with an "alternative energy" device. These are not new styles of "Juicers" or "Water Softeners" we are talking about here, this is a very serious game with Trillions at stake. Why is it so strange to consider that the rules are different? And why, when literally THOUSANDS before have tried and failed, do YOU think you can succeed where they could not?

Going the Open Source route will gain you:

> "Free R&D"... IF you can convince those who would replicate it of the worth. But here's a clue: If you cannot convince the people here or at Panacea first that it is a valid concept; forget getting anywhere with it in the commercial world, lol. The skepticism level is fairly high here, despite what some may think. Its not that you have to convince every nay-sayer, just those here who really know what they are doing (...those who actually "do" stuff ). But even still, we are "push-overs" compared to copper-top engineers who worship The Laws of Thermodynamics lol. And the device's features and performance may well be considerably improved by those replicating it, possibly saving you years of further development.

> "Immunity" from the above Patenting problems of secretization and legal troubles. It can't be "secretized" if it's OS. And they cant sue you over phony infringements unless you try to directly commercialize it.

>  Increased safety from suppressions... Should they exist, it is much harder to suppress an Open Sourced device (then the only real means they have is using paid dis-info shills to knock it down in forums like this, lol). They don't want "martyrs" and they don't want proof of suppressions that people like me can point to, to prove our points much more effectively in the wider world, lol.

> Greatly improved credibility from multiple replications. THIS is what matters here: CREDIBILITY. Without it, you will get nowhere... The bar for this is much higher in this game. The key is MULTIPLE replications all over the world that makes it much harder to attack and falsely debunk. Independent verifications are literally GOLD. Without them, you are nothing but hot air, with them, you can then tackle the NEXT difficult hurdle:

> Public Awareness. The Open Source community will help with that: the key to getting around the gates of the corporate-owned mainstream media is local news outlets, Internet, and gaining scientific and academic verification at local levels first, then going for higher levels. When there are 20, 50, 100 working devices out there; and they know this... It is much harder to knee-jerk deny and crap on something... Because they then risk looking like shills of the system. Eventually it is "forced" into the mainstream by threat of exposing them of being "suppressors" if they refuse to. Just like with LENR last month: It was other countries' advances that FORCED the US government and mainstream media to grudgingly acknowledge that LENR was real (..or otherwise they would soon be looking like either morons or suppressing liars)... This will be our model for further successes, too.     

> GETTING PAID: Remember, such a device will have literally thousands of parallel applications... So many, that it will be impossible to lock them all up with Patents anyway. So do this: Open Source the main idea, then save a couple choice parallel applications for Patenting yourself once the technology hits the mainstream. This way you still get paid directly for sales (although there are also many ways to cash-in going strictly OS), and still get the Open Source benefits that got you there in the first place  

The key imo is this: Do you have a working free energy device, that can do useful work: If so, are you ready for several years of difficulty, and having your reputation attacked and smeared? Are you willing to go the extra mile to see the planet benefit from the device, to see your name go down in History? If the answer to the is last 2 is "no": Then try to Patent it and hope for the corporate "buy-out" offer (but if it's already been secretized because it was previously submitted by another Inventor, then usually you will get nothing but a Court Order to keep silent).

If you answer "Yes": Then there is only one road to success with these devices until things change greatly.... Open Source.

[d3adp00l]

agreed jib, OS with patent seems to be the best way. That is the way linux works (in a way) purely OS means that a corp will replicate get a patent, falsify docs to say that they had it first and will destroy you in court. But if you start the process, and then OS it, with an explaination of your use agreement, then you may just stand a chance.

Ignoring their game is not an answer, but trying to play their game by their rules is not the answer either.

Next to add to your list of things to be ready to accept, here is the other, be ready to have to produce it yourself to earn money from it. If you try to sell the idea you will lose the idea. You have to be ready to make money by actually DOING SOMETHING, getting money for free is a farse.