hartiberlin i think you should have a section here at overunity.com where people can see that we are for open source projects/ideas/funding/etc...
What exactly does "Open Source" mean to people? How would they explain how it applies to them?
To me Open Source means the total sharing of all information related to a specific project or projects. This is very good on many levels but the best thing about it is, on this site there are many intelligent and creative folks who may look at my idea, and add one of theirs and then another adds their input...etc. The end result is essentially a group effort.
Take the Joule Thief topic. All one has to do is to read it and see what open source is all about and what it can accomplish. ***EDIT*** Obviously there are many other topics on here that exemplify the open source spirit as well. To me, open source is the only way to go.
Bill
Pirate88179,
I truly agree with your response. With the Joule Thief thread being almost 1,000 pages I have read very little but I can see the help and contribution each person is giving. And yes, I have read many other threads with the same mentality of the sharing of ideas and helping one another to accomplish good.
So think about this, what if a person says " I just love Open Source" and then does not want to give required info for replication. Also openly states that someone else is copying their research device AND stating that there are NO PATENTS AND if certain people try to ever market anything relating to their device they will sue them for the intellectual rights. Does this sound like a person who really UNDERSTANDS what OPEN SOURCE means? :o
J
I want to state what "open source" in this forum means for me personally.
Let's suppose an "inventor" publishes his beloved work in one of the threads at overunity.com and to make it easy, let's say he disclosed everything there is to know, so that complete replication really is possible. And to make it even more straight forward, let's assume that the "inventor" has not patented his "invention" (or that the patent has expired).
The following things might then happen and the "inventor" must be prepared to accept this stoically:
- some one else might falsely claim that it is his work (only bad people will do that, but it can happen, there are strange folks around)
- some one else might "steal" the "invention" and will become stinking rich while the "inventor" gets nothing, not even recognition as "inventor" (very unlikely, but it could happen)
- some one else might attack the "inventor" and threaten to sue him because he allegedly has "stolen" the idea (very unlikely, but every "inventor" publishing something here should be careful not to infringe on prior rights)
- by publishing his "invention" here, the "inventor" can never patent it in the future, because it was turned over to the public (by the act of publishing it in an open forum)
- the "inventor" can of course try to sell products based on his "invention", but every body else can do as well (the "inventor" has given away all rights and can not exclude anybody from exploiting the invention)
This sounds all very negative, but I nevertheless think that one should give away ones "inventions" for free, because "the little guy" can not become rich with an "invention" any way. And specially if it is a very good invention one will be pushed aside by big business.
So, if you want to share for free, publish here. If you want to become exclusively rich or famous with your "invention", please stay away and shut up. Specially do not tease people by alleging to an "invention" without giving away all details.
And by all means, be prepared to accept criticism, specially when you make strong claims without backing these strong claims up with real physical evidence. You may talk about your "thing" without evidence, but please state immediately, repeatedly and clearly that you have no evidence. Speculation has to be clearly marked as speculation, otherwise you will be accused of having illusions or worse.
(Attention: This is my personal opinion and might not be the opinion of the "owners" of this forum.)
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: truthbeknown on August 16, 2010, 10:41:51 AM
Pirate88179,
I truly agree with your response. With the Joule Thief thread being almost 1,000 pages I have read very little but I can see the help and contribution each person is giving. And yes, I have read many other threads with the same mentality of the sharing of ideas and helping one another to accomplish good.
So think about this, what if a person says " I just love Open Source" and then does not want to give required info for replication. Also openly states that someone else is copying their research device AND stating that there are NO PATENTS AND if certain people try to ever market anything relating to their device they will sue them for the intellectual rights. Does this sound like a person who really UNDERSTANDS what OPEN SOURCE means? :o
J
J:
Yes, I have seen the type of behavior you describe on this forum (very rare) and other forums as well. One fellow here accepted the help of many of the forum members and then, when his idea worked, he deleted all of his posts and was off to the patent office. Too bad for him that, as Conrad has pointed out, he has already disclosed "his" idea to the general public by publishing here so....his patent, if granted, would be easily rendered null and void if challenged by anyone that knew of his prior public disclosure. Thankfully, this is far from the norm here on OU dot com.
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
"open source" to me, means fully and freely sharing the entire subject matter at hand.
Teaching everyone who reads it, what it is, how it works, and how to build their own from the ground up.
There is no room for possession, assets, property rights, ect when it comes to open source.
---------------------------------------------------------------
That being said, i think there should be some degree of social and moral standards when it comes to open sourcing energy projects.
You wouldn't want to teach everyone how to build a specific-gravity centrifuge and harvest their own uranium.
or teach people how to create a massive exothermic chemical reaction in their back yard.......
While other things are perfectly acceptable, such as plans for small-scale steam-engine that runs on scrap-wood and twigs.
or user #x's magneto-twirlie-gig, that outputs 1.4 watts of electricity.
So,. deciding what and how to open source something, has not only Materialistic factors involved, but also social, moral, and legal factors as well.
The end result is ultimately, a random mixture of the varying degrees of "open source" interpretation and implementation, for every possible "reason" a person can come across on their journey.
This guy wants to make a buck, that guy sole the other guys idea, these two people came up with it on their own, but one got a patent, so the other cant open source it. this girl wants to open source but is scared of the M.I.B.'s, this guy told that guy not to mix powdered chlorine and brake fluid and the kid down the block accidently blows up the pool house. Or maybe this guy just wants to hold onto that one piece of information that makes his entire puzzle complete, you know, for security reasons, or just to be a *#@!!.
Open source can be a very good thing, when it is used properly.
the power of having hundreds of brilliant minds at your disposal day and night, is truly amazing. and who knows, maybe you can help someone out on their open source idea too.
Smokey:
I believe (with respect) that your one example is flawed in that, if 2 people came up with the SAME idea independently, and one guy published it open source and the other guy obtained a patent on it, the patent would be worthless because it had already been disclosed to the public. Therefore the open source guy would be free to do whatever he wanted to with it. Again, this only works IF it is the exact same device or idea.
I do agree about the moral issues but I don't know what could be done about that?
Bill
@ bill
theres nothing that can be done, except to trust that most people that are smart enough to be dangerous, are of sufficient moral ground to be cautious with their knowledge.
a good chunk of what floats around in my head would have to come with a "dont try this at home kids", and an even larger chunk that i wouldnt share (and some that i would probably get in serious trouble if i did).
I guess thats just my personal thing. I have no say or control over Peter or EnergyBlogger483, if they want to open source an HV-Plasma cannon that disentegrates physical matter.
am i to say wether that is "right" or "wrong" ? certainly not.
but if it was my plasma-gun, it wouldn't be in the hands of little 8yr old tommy jones whos daddy just bought him an electronics kit.
Smokey:
I totally agree.
Bill
Quote from: truthbeknown on August 16, 2010, 10:41:51 AM
Pirate88179,
So think about this, what if a person says " I just love Open Source" and then does not want to give required info for replication. Also openly states that someone else is copying their research device AND stating that there are NO PATENTS AND if certain people try to ever market anything relating to their device they will sue them for the intellectual rights. Does this sound like a person who really UNDERSTANDS what OPEN SOURCE means? :
truthbeknown - I am definitely 'guilty as charged'. But the fact is that open source also carries some innate risks. Glen and Harvey publicly stated that their replication of our device technology was NOT a replication but a discovery. Now. Entertain that thought for a while.
What Glen did was put an inductive resistor in series with a battery supply source and MOSFET - driven by a 555. He then adjusted to the duty cycle until the unit 'fell into' that preferred oscillation mode. At which point the duty cycle was overridden and the the evidence was that the battery was being recharged as quickly as it was discharging. That is PRECISELY in line with our own published technology. Then add to that, the hundreds of hours spent on the telephone organising appropriate machinery to measure, guiding him into the required oscillation - discussion on the materials to be used, the winding with the required spacing in that winding. Add to that the apparent 'friendliness' of all parties - and the excitement of actually managing an OU number, albeit somewhat less than our own tests. BUT - there was some minor variation to the switch - and there was some required variation to the resistor - this because this had been published with an error. Both variations EXTENSIVELY discussed prior to the replication build.
Then consider. Through the denials that it was EVER a replication - through the denials that the replication had anything to do with the thesis that predicted this effect - through the gross attack and unsubstantiated attack on my character - came the LOUD requirement that I sign an AFFIDAVIT allowing them the right to develop this technology? Why should I want to advance this? I was more than competent to do this myself - as is any member of any forum and anybody anywhere in the wide world. Why should Glen and Harvey hold custody on further and future progress?
It seems that precedents are established where inventors have successfully challenged prior art claims notwithstanding the lack of a patent. I went to some considerable expense to establish this. I then assured both Harvey and Glen that - should they choose to develop this technology then I will most certainly challenge them to pay royalties - should the claim be approved in a Court of Law. And that promise persists. There is absolutely NO guarantee that I will be successful. But I will be glad to impoverish myself - if required - to get that claim tested. I am entirely committed to the requirement that neither of them benefit financially from my own hard work. Or if they do benefit - then I will hope to share in that benefit. This thing has become really personal.
The simple truth here that needs to be known - is that Open Source carries innate risks. These events are proof. But I am also on record as assuring any member of the public that should they progress this technology to applications - and the potential here is very great - then there are NO patent restrictions and there will be NO claim for compensation - except in as much as it may relate to Glen and Harvey's interests. I am a mere mortal. I do not like them nor trust them. In fact, it is my opinion that they are rogues.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
Sorry if that post was off topic. To get back 'on topic' the excellence of Open Source is only in as much as the devices can be replicated. This, theoretically, will make all patenting of these technologies absurd. A patent is only effective in as much as it can be applied. If everyone knows how to 'save' electricity costs - then they will NOT need permission to install their own variations of this device. And my read is that the build and installation will be both affordable and doable. It may be that monopolists can try and outlaw those installations. They could pretend that it's dangerous - or simply illegal. But any such restrictions will carry a public protest that will howl across the globe. And I'm reasonably sure that even those aspiring monopolists will not want to confront that much protest.
More importantly - is the thinking behind all that potential clean green. Provided this is readily understood by the public then the advancements of this technology will also not be patentable. It ALL needs to reach our public. Right now the authority of monopolists is protected by the authority of experts. And one needs to be schooled in the art of physics to understand it. Hopefully this will change. It is my opinion that all that authority is based on the need to understand the incomprehensible - before one can subscribe to quantum or classical theory. It is also my opinion that energy and it's uses are NOT that complicated.
So. Open sourcing is the only way to avoid the continued power of monopolists. And it is REALLY needed. Frankly I can see very little that will stop it - in any event. It's become a force all on its own.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary, from what I'm reading it appears that you're quite confused about the matters concerning patents and intellectual property in general. You're going back and forth at one point seemingly in favor of open source only to negate it by stories about how someone did something regarding your priority which you will sort out in a court of Law let alone you intend to seek financial relief from that person. Confusing indeed. I strongly suggest that you talk more to @pirate88179 who is very experienced in these matters and with @shruggetatlas, if she's around. They can straighten out some of this confusion which is obviously standing in the way of your work and is making you suffer. Things are much simpler than you perceive them once you decide not to file for patents and have all the results from your studies presented out in the open.
Maybe @pirate88179 and @shruggedatlas as well as other friends who have knowledge and experience in these matters can develop a strategy which you can follow which will ensure both protection of your priority and a genuine open source climate for presenting of your studies.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 03:50:35 AM
Rosemary, from what I'm reading it appears that you're quite confused about the matters concerning patents and intellectual property in general. You're going back and forth at one point seemingly in favor of open source only to negate it by stories about how someone did something regarding your priority which you will sort out in a court of Law let alone you intend to seek financial relief from that person. Confusing indeed. I suggest strongly that you talk more to @pirate88179 who is very experienced in these matters and with @shruggetatlas, if she's around. They can straighten out some of this confusion which is obviously standing in the way of your work and is making you suffer. Things are much simpler than you perceive them once you decide not to file for patents and have all the results from your studies presented out in the open.
I hope, Omnibus, that one day you'll actually READ what I've written. THERE ARE NO PATENTS. I am NOT talking about patents. I am talking about 'prior art' claims. Here's the history of the patent. I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT OPEN SOURCE. In any event - I do not know if forums such as this existed 10 years ago. I developed this technology to prove a thesis. The thesis required a COP>1. I went to some considerable trouble to ensure that I first took out a provisional patent - which carries international protection for a year. Then I filed for an international patent - in Geneva. Then - the technology related to the patent is fully disclosed to the public to invite 'prior art' claims. That exposure in the public domain is required for - I'm not sure if it's 6 months to a year. Whatever. When there were NO prior art claims then the adminstrators of the International Patenting Office wrote to me to invite me to register the patent. I think it was in or around the year 2002 or 2003. I DECLINED to register. They wrote to me again three months later. I AGAIN declined. Because my advise was this. The patent and it's potential applications had now been put in the public domain courtesy that publication. And that was the ONLY reason that I filed for the patent in the first instance. THEREFORE the patent status is this. It is UNREGISTERED and therefore of NO FORCE AND EFFECT.
Pirate is WELL aware of the situation. I have my own expert advisors on the situation. While I am happy to take all advice on board - with respect, your own advice is invariably patronising and based on incomplete knowledge of the facts and on an entire assumption of my own ignorance in all matters. Now. May I impose on you to take the trouble to READ what I write rather than to ASSUME what I've written.
Regards,
Rosemary
The minute you say 'prior art' that invokes patents. I know you are not filing for patents now. You told me that. And yet, you speak a lingo of a person who actually does care about patent rights while denying that in words. That's the confusion I'm talking about.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on August 17, 2010, 12:07:10 AM
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
This I disagree with:
QuoteOnce you give it away, nobody has to acknowledge your role in the whole affair.
It is true (and Rosemary is the latest example) that
Quotesome 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.
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
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 04:16:18 AM
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
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).
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 04:20:58 AM
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
No, you're wrong. Publishing a discovery in an archival journal is a must if you really care about the scientific priority.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 04:22:46 AM
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).
They cannot claim it if there is ANY prior publication anywhere at all - here on these forums - in technical journals - in blogspots - ANYWHERE. Provided always that it is recognised as A PUBLIC DOMAIN.
YET they ARE CLAIMING that it's their discovery. Go figger.
Rosemary
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 04:24:22 AM
No, you're wrong. Publishing a discovery in an archival journal is a must if you really care about the scientific priority.
I DO NOT CARE ABOUT SCIENTIFIC PRIORITY. I SIMPLY DO NOT CARE. I have a thesis that needs refinement. I have a technology that needs development. I AM NOT INTO ANYTHING ELSE. I do NOT need public recognition. I NEED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THEIR REQUIRED DEVELOPMENTS.
AND I NEED TO ENSURE THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS REMAIN IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 04:25:59 AM
They cannot claim it if there is ANY prior publication anywhere at all - here on these forums - in technical journals - in blogspots - ANYWHERE. Provided always that it is recognised as A PUBLIC DOMAIN.
YET they ARE CLAIMING that it's their discovery. Go figger.
Rosemary
Like I said, you shouldn't worry at all then. However, you should be careful because blogspots, forums and other net instruments are ephemeral and are hardly archival in most cases. No wonder there are still archival journals, although many of them with a net presence.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 04:28:00 AM
I DO NOT CARE ABOUT SCIENTIFIC PRIORITY. I SIMPLY DO NOT CARE. I have a thesis that needs refinement. I have a technology that needs development. I AM NOT INTO ANYTHING ELSE. I do NOT need public recognition. I NEED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THEIR REQUIRED DEVELOPMENTS. AND I NEED TO ENSURE THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS REMAIN IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
The problem is, you don't have the technology you claim you have (if that's a technology at all). You would have it if you had a patent. You do not have a patent so you don't own that kind of property. It is made public and anybody can do anything with it without you being able to prevent it in any way. That's the confusion I am talking about in several posts already.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 04:30:29 AM
Like I said, you shouldn't worry at all then. However, you should be careful because blogspots, forums and other net instruments are ephemeral and are hardly archival in most cases. No wonder there are still archival journals, although many of them with a net presence.
I hope you're right that I have no cause for concern. And I agree that it also requires printed proof of what is written here to keep due record. Trust me. I do this.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 04:34:50 AM
The problem is, you don't have the technology you claim you have (if that's a technology at all). You would have it if you had a patent. You do not have a patent so you don't own that kind of property. It is made public and anybody can do anything with it without you being able to prevent it in any way. That's the confusion I am talking about in several posts already.
Oh God help me Omnibus. See if you can get your mind around this. If I DO NOT HAVE ANY CLAIM TO THE TECHNOLOGY THEN THAT IS A REALLY GOOD THING. BUT NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE. If however GLEN AND HARVEY have something that is NOT RELATED TO THAT TECHNOLOGY - then they DO HAVE A PATENTING CLAIM.
Therefore it is of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE to assure them both that the technology ALREADY BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC DUE TO MY EARLY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. It no longer belongs to ANYONE - CERTAINLY NOT TO THEM.
Is that any clearer yet? I keep seeing glimmerings of understanding that are then contradicted in the next post.
I am attempting to advise them and everyone who ever studies their work that theie work IS a simple replication that conforms in general and in particular to the technology that is already owned by the public. If I do not repeatedly protest this fact then the ownership of that technology MAY BE CLAIMED by them. And that would be a shame if they have gone down this road - with the intention to simply discredit that first patent and my involvement in it. And the evidence speaks to this intention.
No, no, I don't disagree with that. You should do anything possible to prevent anybody from patenting what you've discovered and placed in the public domain (that isn't at all hard to do once the discovery was made public, as was explained repeatedly). That goes without saying. My point is that you also don't have property rights over this. No one has. Somehow you give the impression you think you own something and that's the confusing part. The only thing you can claim is scientific priority and it is ensured through publications in archival journals.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 04:57:51 AM
My point is that you also don't have property rights over this. No one has. Somehow you give the impression you think you own something and that's the confusing part. The only thing you can claim is scientific priority and it is ensured through publications in archival journals.
That impression is based on the promise that in the event that either of them attempt to capitalise on this discovery then I will claim prior art - and look to financial compensation. But that is precisely because I suspect that they will attempt to patent the developments if not the technology itself. And I would rather see that the development of applications remains with the public. It is a simple promise - and I will - most certainly, need to go that route if and when I smell the whiff of intellectual property rights - stinking out these forums. Right now the stench is overpowering. I am more than a little concerned that their commitment to Open Source is bereft outside their protestations. I happen to know how they have lied to the public about me. And I know the damage that it's caused. I cannot understand that action unless their interests here are entirely self-serving. And I will do anything required to prevent this.
I might add. Had Stefan not allowed my thread on this forum and had I not faught this issue as I have done - where do you think that technology would be now? My own thread on EF.com buried. And the only thread available to the public littered with spurious argument that denies its efficiency. My guess is that 2 more months and the technology would have 'left the building' faded from sight - and that would have been that. That was the intention. Then a careful rewording of the application technology - perhaps greater power realised - and then? I assure you the objective here was to lose me from these public forums and TAKE OVER the technology. As it is Ashtweth - Glen - Harvey and Aaron HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PATENTING - in principle or in fact. I personally have a really big issue with PATENTING anything to do with savings in energy costs. For many different reasons.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 05:08:32 AM
That impression is based on the promise that in the event that either of them attempt to capitalise on this discovery then I will claim prior art - and look to financial compensation. But that is precisely because I suspect that they will attempt to patent the developments if not the technology itself. And I would rather see that the development of applications remains with the public. It is a simple promise - and I will - most certainly, need to go that route if and when I smell the whiff of intellectual property rights - stinking out these forums. Right now the stench is overpowering. I am more than a little concerned that their commitment to Open Source is bereft outside their protestations. I happen to know how they have lied to the public about me. And I know the damage that it's caused. I cannot understand that action unless their interests here are entirely self-serving. And I will do anything required to prevent this.
I'm afraid you won't be able to do this. I said that already. Especially the part with the financial compensation. The only thing you can do is to render their patent, if they manage to obtain such, null and void through the court of Law. Otherwise, if they somehow start earning money on that invention without bothering with patents you'll only retain the role of a witness without any possibility for recourse.
As to what they write in forums and such, it's a free country and people express all kinds of opinions. If you, however, feel that's hurting you financially or is defaming you there are courts, you can sue. Don't forget, however, that many times judges throw out such claims prior to even hearing them classifying them as nuisance. Therefore, you have to have a really good reason to undertake such step. At this point I don't see any such good reason because there isn't even a technology recognized by someone. So, the only rational thing you can do at this moment is to just ignore these fellows and carry on with the research until you bring it to some successful stage when society (academy as its responsible part in these matters) gets to recognize it.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 05:21:37 AM
I'm afraid you won't be able to do this. I said that already. Especially the part with the financial compensation. The only thing you can do is to render their patent, if they manage to obtain such, null and void through the court of Law. Otherwise, if they somehow start earning money on that invention without bothering with patents you'll only retain the role of a witness without any possibility for recourse.
As to what they write in forums and such, it's a free country and people express all kinds of opinions. If you, however, feel that's hurting you financially or is defaming you there are courts, you can sue. Don't forget, however, that many times judges throw out such claims prior to even hearing them as being nuisance. Therefore, you have to have a really good reason to undertake such step. At this point I don't see any such good reason because there isn't even a technology recognized by someone. So, the only rational thing you can do at this moment is to just ignore these fellows and carry on with the research until you bring it to some successful stage when society (academy as its responsible part in these matters) gets to recognize it.
I entirely agree with you. I could do nothing but manage a certain nuisance value to their developments and possibly attract some media attention to the cause. But I'd still go this route if there was a need. THIS is the actual danger of Open Source. And this is why it is important to acknowledge results. Because, unwittingly Open Source is otherwise aiding and abetting these type of efforts. Do you see this yet Omnibus? This is precisely why, when one goes to the trouble of producing replicable results that are also carefully measured and thereby unequivocal - that those disciplines are acknowledged by those who can manage power analysis. Otherwise the fact of the technology is forever at risk - from mainstream because they prefer it - and from these forums because they dare not invest all that hope into believing it.
Which is why it does not help to refer to 'technolgy - if it is a technology'. Each and every detraction puts the value of that technology further out of reach. Our academics assume that these forums actually trust those results. If you are all spewing out doubts - in defiance of the evidence - why then would they be interested? Here EF.com served the cause well. At least the evidence was acknowledged. Later denied - but no-one actually believes that denial.
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.
Keep sharing....Keep experimenting...show us what worked and what didn't and keep your promises.
J.
Quote from: truthbeknown on August 17, 2010, 04:12:03 PM
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
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 18, 2010, 11:30:02 AM
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.
Quote from: truthbeknown on August 18, 2010, 11:50:40 AM
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
@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.
Hello sm0ky
You make some good points.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on August 18, 2010, 11:38:16 PM
@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.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on August 18, 2010, 11:38:16 PMIf 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.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on August 18, 2010, 11:38:16 PMFurthermore, 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.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on August 18, 2010, 11:38:16 PMTake 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