OverUnity.com is Open Source

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So, those of us here on OverUnity are we going to give freely everything we are posting here in the threads to help the world and the poor people of many countries? Or are we going to say we own this or that and so and so can't have any of it or less I want compensation? And are we going to share ALL of the specifications or just a few and maybe they will figure it all out? Or is it we are just playing games with people? Do we REALLY understand what "Open Source" means? If we can't trust forum members then what are we doing posting anything at all on this forum that will have people comment on or add to  our research and we just Poo-Poo it all? Lets get honest and real here folks....if things are going to progress and make something to help this old planet Earth of ours then move forward and get busy...I believe most of the people here in this thread have been doing such.

J.

You're still asking the same questions - truthbeknown.  The fact is that whether technologies are patented or not - my personal opinion is that all such patents will be unenforceable.  You can only protect a patent in as much as you can impose a royalty on the manufacture of the patented devices.  I rather think that this technology will eventually become so simple and so easy to apply - that we will be able to do our own 'DIY' number to achieve those desirable energy savings.  My final argument for this is based on my own abilities.  I'm your average ignoramus.  If I can bend my mind around the principles and the applications - then anyone can. 

And no-one can ask me to pay a royalty for building my own variation of what ever it is that is patented.  And where open source rocks - it systematically discloses the 'ingredients' so to speak to get that technology working.  I think that any patents - any attempt at capitalising on energy - will eventually be outlawed by the public.  I find it imoral and somewhat indecent to 'charge' for anything that Nature has given us in abundance.

Regards,
Rosemary

[truthbeknown]

You're still asking the same questions - truthbeknown.  The fact is that whether technologies are patented or not - my personal opinion is that all such patents will be unenforceable.  You can only protect a patent in as much as you can impose a royalty on the manufacture of the patented devices.  I rather think that this technology will eventually become so simple and so easy to apply - that we will be able to do our own 'DIY' number to achieve those desirable energy savings.  My final argument for this is based on my own abilities.  I'm your average ignoramus.  If I can bend my mind around the principles and the applications - then anyone can. 

And no-one can ask me to pay a royalty for building my own variation of what ever it is that is patented.  And where open source rocks - it systematically discloses the 'ingredients' so to speak to get that technology working.  I think that any patents - any attempt at capitalising on energy - will eventually be outlawed by the public.  I find it imoral and somewhat indecent to 'charge' for anything that Nature has given us in abundance.

Regards,
Rosemary

I guess as it has been said that the proof is in the pudding and time will definately tell. I wish all the best on getting something going and helping out the planet.

J.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I guess as it has been said that the proof is in the pudding and time will definately tell. I wish all the best on getting something going and helping out the planet.

J.

Thanks for the good wishes truthbeknown.  The pudding has been proved though.     What's now needed is to bring it to the table - and enough of it to satisfy the appetite.  Thus far we've only got really small helpings.  LOL.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[sm0ky2]

@rosemary

heres the thing with the patent. if glen/harvey were to go and get one, based on the technology you ALREADY posted in the public domain... who cares if it is granted to them?
the information is already public, you can legally, continue to post this information, and they cannot stop you.

If they were to try to, then the information contained in their patent would be used as testimony. Which :::: puts it into the public domain.
(unless they are prepared to spend a extra million or two in litigation, proving their case as to why the judge should disclude all or part of the judicial records on their behalf.)

Furthermore, posting the information publicly, defeats the purpose of having a patent, except in the instance where a person or business entity sels the product or technology for monetary gain.
... if i understand you correctly,   this too would help your position. Making sure its only "use" was joe the plumber building one for himself and his neighbors. Or a not-for-profit effort by a company or someone with enough $$ to hand out a few thousand FE-devices.

the glen/harvey group getting a patent, would do more to benefit your position, than they could ever hope to do to stop an already public technology.

Take for instance the lightbulb.

now,. you cant sell a lightbulb without giving GE yur 2 cents.
but if i wanted to make a lightbulb myself, all of Edison's work is in the public domain, and as long as im not selling it to anyone, there's not a lot the patent owner could do about me building one, and screwing it into my lamp.



Secondly, if you already HAVE a working technology, and a device to go along with it. there is a very simple loophole in U.S. Patent Law, which is recognized in most circumstances under international patent law.

Simply put, a Device that is in Commercial Use, at the time of application, or prior to, the item/ idea/ technology/intellectual property/ ect. is inelligible for a Patent.

Power a desklamp in an office building,
or use it to power a temperature monitoring system on a piece of machinery. anything, just put it into commercial use.

That garuntees that it can never be patented.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello sm0ky
You make some good points.

@rosemary
heres the thing with the patent. if glen/harvey were to go and get one, based on the technology you ALREADY posted in the public domain... who cares if it is granted to them? the information is already public, you can legally, continue to post this information, and they cannot stop you.

It's variations to the original claim that may get consideration.  But you're right.  Provided that the 'logic' behind their variations is shown to be based on these published experiments of ours then I'm reasonably sure it can be contested.  But it's that logic that is troublesome.  This is why I am anxious to promote the thesis - albeit partial - so that this can NEVER be contested.  Interestingly it's the thesis that they both VOCIFEROUSLY objected to.    Fortunately science is not based on 'speculation'.  The thinking will be seen as right or wrong.  And then it will be thrown out or accepted - accordingly.  And right now I think the thesis may have some general merit.  Certainly I can prove the sequence between the predicted result of our experiment and the build of that test apparatus.  It may matter - eventually.

If they were to try to, then the information contained in their patent would be used as testimony. Which :::: puts it into the public domain. (unless they are prepared to spend a extra million or two in litigation, proving their case as to why the judge should disclude all or part of the judicial records on their behalf.)

Unfortunately it will be me as 'plaintif' who will need to spend those millions.  And with patents there are usually financial and vested interests available to afford that defense.

Furthermore, posting the information publicly, defeats the purpose of having a patent, except in the instance where a person or business entity sels the product or technology for monetary gain.
... if i understand you correctly,   this too would help your position. Making sure its only "use" was joe the plumber building oneareor himself and his neighbors. Or a not-for-profit effort by a company or someone with enough $$ to hand out a few thousand FE-devices.

the glen/harvey group getting a patent, would do more to benefit your position, than they could ever hope to do to stop an already public technology.

I'm not sure of this at all.  But your next point is comforting.  I never knew this.  I'll need to find some direct application - even if the energy delivered is not that significant.

Take for instance the lightbulb.

now,. you cant sell a lightbulb without giving GE yur 2 cents.
but if i wanted to make a lightbulb myself, all of Edison's work is in the public domain, and as long as im not selling it to anyone, there's not a lot the patent owner could do about me building one, and screwing it into my lamp.

Secondly, if you already HAVE a working technology, and a device to go along with it. there is a very simple loophole in U.S. Patent Law, which is recognized in most circumstances under international patent law.

Simply put, a Device that is in Commercial Use, at the time of application, or prior to, the item/ idea/ technology/intellectual property/ ect. is inelligible for a Patent.

Power a desklamp in an office building,
or use it to power a temperature monitoring system on a piece of machinery. anything, just put it into commercial use.

That garuntees that it can never be patented.

I think our actual protection which is also the real benefit of Open Source is to show how to apply technology.  I see some considerable skills and talents on these forums.  If this is, in any way, representative of the general public, then I also think that once the technology is understood and applied at reasonable wattage levels - then anyone could build their own.  The principles are simple and the hardware readily available.  Effectively it should allow some reasonable relief from our dependency on utility suppliers - and once off the grid - then it will be difficult to monitor the users of this technology - patented or otherwise.  In other words - understand the technology - apply it - and then how can anyone enforce that patent?  And if those applications are wide enough - it will put paid to a monopolists efforts to enforce any kind of intellectual property ownership.  They'll be drowned out by the shere weight of majority interest  - I would have thought.

But meanwhile - the simple truth is that I need to keep certain aspects of this development low key.  I know how preposterous is their claims - and how transparent their actual intentions.  But that they tried to drum me out at all - is proof of the extent to which they'll go to reach their objects.  Are you aware of the fact that Glen actually wrote to the university where we're testing this - to advise them that I was plagiarising his work?  Extraordinary. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary