OverUnity.com is Open Source

[conradelektro]

Conrad:

I really think that an inventor is protected by publicly disclosing on a forum like this because if someone ran off and patented something they saw here, it should be an easy case to prove that it was not his idea and was publicly disclosed prior to his filing and his patent would be worth nothing.  This is, of course, my opinion but I believe I am correct.

Bill

Exactly, by disclosing an "invention" publicly the "inventor" not only forfeited his own chances to patent it, but also nobody else can ever patent it.

But from what I have seen in this forum,  I have the impression that some people want "protection" in the impossible sense that they give everything away for free but still somehow want to have some exclusive right.

Some try to do that by keeping little secrets, like not disclosing some important parameters (e.g. the exact material composition or a little "error" in the circuit diagram). Like: "Here, I am a good guy, I give everything to the world, but when it turns out to be good, I want it back, it should then exclusively belong to me, so that I can reap the benefits."

Others "give it to the world" but want very badly recognition as "having been the first one, the true inventor". Once you give it away, nobody has to acknowledge your role in the whole affair. Nice people will try to name the "source", but many will not bother or might even pretend to be "the one".

If the "inventor" manages to publish his "invention or idea" in a known scientific journal, recognition might be easier. But mostly we are talking here about "fringe" or "scientifically not accepted" stuff, so forget about main stream journals.

What I wanted to say in short: "Once you give something away, it will be truly away!"

But, don't we want to give "free energy" to the "free world" for "free" without any strings attached?

Don't we want to be the good guys, like saints, who will be rewarded in the after life?

Greetings, Conrad

[Omnibus]

This I disagree with:

Once you give it away, nobody has to acknowledge your role in the whole affair.

It is true (and Rosemary is the latest example) that

some people want "protection" in the impossible sense that they give everything away for free but still somehow want to have some exclusive right.

however, financial reward forfeited, priority in scientific sense has to be recognized. Of course, a forum can hardly ensure such recognition. Therefore, it's a must for a discoverer to have his or her discovery published in an archival journal and that will ensure the priority with regard to the discovery.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Conrad.

I absolutely agree.  The very minute any technology is openly disclosed on these type of forums it is GIVEN AWAY - never to be reclaimed.  It simply cannot be reclaimed.  Any more than one can call back the wind.  That is NOT the point.

There are two reasons that I jealously guard my association with this device technology.  The one is that it was developed to PROVE a prior thesis.  That means that there may be some need to recognise the thinking that went into this technology.  This matters.  If the understanding is NOT there then how can the technology be developed other than by random stabs at circuit configurations that may or may not work.  I do NOT say that the thesis is right.  But that it MAY be.  In which case it may also help to see the thinking behind the effect. 

The secnd reason is precisely because the technology has been made public - put in the public domain - then NO-ONE can patent it EVER.  Hopefully.  If Harvey and Glen and others like him manage to PROVE that they have a discovery rather than a REPLICATION then they CAN INDEED PATENT IT.  And that 'public domain' exposure that I managed - which is traditionally a costly exercise - all that effort will be wasted.  Why do you think Glen has made it impossibly difficult to access his data?  Why do you think the two of them are anxious to claim this as a discovery?  I cannot say what their intentions are.  But I certainly can speculate.

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This I disagree with:

It is true (and Rosemary is the latest example) that

however, financial reward forfeited, priority in scientific sense has to be recognized. Of course, a forum can hardly ensure such recognition therefore it's a must for a discoverer to have his or her discovery published in an archival journal.

Publication in an archival journal or anywhere at all is desirable but NOT NECESSARY.  What is necessary is to get this to our academia.  There - at least - is a forum that can progress the art without any thoughts for financial rewards.  Not that they're precluded.  It's just the simple truth that the progress of knowledge is still their overriding interests.

Rosemary

[Omnibus]

They cannot claim this is their discovery if you have published it in an archival journal. I think if you've done that you shouldn't worry at all with regard to who has the priority to that discovery (the experiment, not whatever you think is a theory that led to it).