++++++++
This is my original post to you. I was only trying to help the people reading this string to be able to understand what you are saying. Simply to talk to the masses, you have to adapt to them, they do not have to adapt to you.  That is the point you have missed completely. All the rest between you and I is just trivial.
+++++++++

WB Hammer,

At some point you may move to the topic. I know you can since you have demonstrated that ability amid all the person attacks that you call ?help?.

Suppose that the topic was ?How to edit for someone who has not asked for editing help?, and suppose that someone began to offer data on the relative power of Open Source economy compared to Patenting enforcement. Now suppose I agree that your first post had something to do with the topic since you offer editorial work despite my lack of demand for it. Now suppose that you continue to school me by pointing me to a topic on a forum somewhere on the network of forums so that I can exchange data with people who are interested in a topic where the title suggests and interest exists concerning the Open Source Vs. Patenting topic.

Now suppose that I fail to take your advice and move along to the topic where people have an interest in data concerning Open Source business practice or Patent pending enforcement and instead I stay in the forum where people offer editorial help despite any request or desire for that help. Suppose I spam that unwelcome self elected editorial help topic with things like this:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/421.html

Would your next step be to help me again and then promise to stop helping me forever?

I?m guessing that you might do something appropriate for once.

If any of the other readers here on this forum finds the link to be somewhat but not quite relevant to this forum and this topic I can offer more data that links the two in a more relevant manner than you may know.

I found that topic to be curiously informative despite my supposed understanding of the subject matter (which is on topic).

I am assuming, of course, that the words chosen for the topic was specifically meant to welcome data concerning the words chosen for the topic.

Perhaps the words chosen for the topic are merely a disguise for the real topic that exists here and now and here is where people can go to suffer unwelcome editorial ?help?.

Thanks joe

For posting the link for the video of David Blumes.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/421.html

He was straight forward and very clear with straight language, no big words.

Quote from: Joe Kelley on August 30, 2008, 08:49:07 AM
I have an open source experiment for y'all

I invented a political/economic LAW and I call this law Joe's Law. I tried to get Wikipedia to publish it; however that effort failed.

The political/economic LAW is my discovery; the words describing the political/economic Law are my invention.

The reason why this open source experiment is being offered in this thread could become obvious to the reader as the reader works on the open source experiment.

Someone, or many people, suggest that open source won?t make someone rich and the alternative is to patent an invention so as to get rich as the patent enforces the elimination of competitors who re-produce the item that is under the patent enforcement mechanism.

Once the reader becomes familiar with the political/economic LAW (as it exists in reality) their notions of patent enforcement may change.

I see where you are going, but your view is overly simplistic.

While your basic premise of making more energy-creating devices makes sense, and I agree that with more energy overall, the cost of making more devices will also decrease, it does not stand to reason that because of this we should do away with patent protection.

You ignore incentive to invent.  If a person knows that he will have patent protection for his idea, he is more likely to invent.  Sure, the inventor without protection still stands to make some money, but significantly less than if he had a temporary monopoly.  So many people would not bother inventing revolutionary things without patent protection.

Also, your reverse example is wrong.  You claim that oil is produced into a state of scarcity, and producing more oil somehow is counterproductive.  This makes no sense.   Oil is also something that produces more energy than it takes to create it.  While oil is not an infinite resource, so long as oil is being produced, the cost energy is kept down by consistent oil production.  Try not producing oil for one day and watch what happens to the price of energy.  So producing oil is a good thing, while it lasts.

Also, not completely crucial, but your efficiency numbers on solar panels are way off.  Currently available solar panels take much longer than one year to pay off, when considering total cost of implementation.  It is common for people to amortize a solar panel installation over 10 years or more, with the monthly payments being comparable to their electric bill.  While I suppose any period of eventual break-even is good, you make the solar panel scenario overly rosy with those numbers.

++++++++++
While your basic premise of making more energy-creating devices makes sense, and I agree that with more energy overall, the cost of making more devices will also decrease, it does not stand to reason that because of this we should do away with patent protection.
++++++++++

utilitarian,

I have already specifically agreed with the perception that patent enforcement has its place and use. Who wants to do away with patent protection? Who do you not agree with concerning that someone who thinks that ?we should do away with patent protection?

Why association me with that person who thinks that ?we should do away with patent protection? I do not thing that anyone can do away with patent protection. Who has enough power to do away with patent protection?

+++++++
You ignore incentive to invent.
+++++++

Who ignores incentive to invent? Please be specific. If someone ?ignore incentive to invent?, then let that someone speak up and be quoted as they ?ignore incentive to invent?.

Invention doesn?t usually occur as a result of disincentive. Why associate me with someone who ignores incentive to invent? What is the point of associating me with someone who ignores incentive to invent?

++++++++
If a person knows that he will have patent protection for his idea, he is more likely to invent.
++++++++

Who is this person that you speak of? I invented many things during my working career and at no time did I consider patent protection. I invented Joe?s Law and I have yet to consider patent protection. Who is the person that you speak of where the person you speak of is more likely to invent when he knows that he will have paten protection for his idea? Is that person you, or do you speak for someone else?

I can easily see how many people may be more likely to invent if they think that their idea will be enforced against use by someone without someone having to pay a fee, however ?Patent Protection? is hardly enforceable especially since many of the enforcers are criminals. Thinking that an idea can be excluded from use by force can easily encourage someone to invent if that someone invents because that someone wants to gain wealth by enforcing payment for use of the idea being invented.

Who is this someone who thinks that their idea will be ?protected? and therefore this specific someone is more likely to invent? Someone else may be not so disposed. Someone else may actually be less likely to invent if the mind is occupied by thoughts of wealth accumulation. 6 billion people do not act the same on this issue.

++++++++
Sure, the inventor without protection still stands to make some money, but significantly less than if he had a temporary monopoly.
++++++++

One the invention is invented there are many ways to market it. Patent enforcement is one business method. Open source is another business method. Some inventions, like a cure for cancer, could make someone very rich if such an invention could be an exclusive monopoly business where the inventor was the sole supplier.

++++++++++
So many people would not bother inventing revolutionary things without patent protection.
++++++++++

How many? List a number of inventions that you think would not have been invented without the profit incentive enforced by patent enforcement.

How about starting with fire?

++++++++++
You claim that oil is produced into a state of scarcity, and producing more oil somehow is counterproductive.
++++++++++

I do no such thing. Your misunderstanding is the source of the error that you glom onto me.

If oil is produced into a state of oversupply the price of oil will drop while purchasing power increases because oil reduces the costs of production.

Counting the costs of the Iraq war as a cost of increasing oil control does not enter into the political/economy of non-criminal human action. The Iraq war is a crime.

If you think that I wrote something suggesting that producing more oil will somehow be counterproductive then quote those words that you derive that misunderstanding.

The reverse of Joe?s Law with oil goes like this:

Oil produced into a state of scarcity increases the price of oil while purchasing power decreases because the lack of oil increases the cost of production (assuming that no other cheaper source of power in produced into a state of oversupply).

Are you still confused?

+++++++++
This makes no sense.
+++++++++

If my words were written wrong, then show me where you derive your misunderstanding concerning Joe?s Law. Quote the words that inspire you to misunderstand. I can correct any error in wording.

++++++++++
Also, not completely crucial, but your efficiency numbers on solar panels are way off.  Currently available solar panels take much longer than one year to pay off, when considering total cost of implementation.  It is common for people to amortize a solar panel installation over 10 years or more, with the monthly payments being comparable to their electric bill.  While I suppose any period of eventual break-even is good, you make the solar panel scenario overly rosy with those numbers.
+++++++++++

I can link sources. Would you like those links?

Quote from: Joe Kelley on September 03, 2008, 10:15:57 PM
utilitarian,

I have already specifically agreed with the perception that patent enforcement has its place and use. Who wants to do away with patent protection? Who do you not agree with concerning that someone who thinks that ?we should do away with patent protection?

OK, then I guess you do not oppose patents.  Good.

Your requests for specific examples of people who might be less motivated to invent give me the unfortunate impression that you are just being hardheaded.  I do not claim that no one will invent without maximum financial incentive.  I am just saying that the number of people sitting around and foregoing other activities, whether money-making or pleasurable, for the sake of inventing, is directly proportional with how well that inventing gig pays.  Reduce the payoff, and you will get fewer people doing it.  Just like with everything else in life.

Look, I think you are on the right track, but the reason why what you propose is not happening is because solar panels take way longer to pay off than one year, as is the case with wind, geothermal, and others.  I do not so much care for any sources you may link, because reality speaks much louder than Internet links.  If people could recoup the costs of solar panels and other renewable energy capturing devices that quickly, there would be alot more of them.  Believe me, there are many out there that sit all day and dream of better ways of making money off this stuff.  It's not like it has been overlooked.

Good luck with Joe's law, and it's good that you are inventing, but frankly I think that what Joe's law proposes will be reality just as soon as the economics of it work out.

Finally, yes, I am still confused by your reverse example.  I will quote:

"Oil produced into a state of scarcity increases the price of oil while purchasing power decreases because the lack of oil increases the cost of production (assuming that no other cheaper source of power in produced into a state of oversupply)."

I do not understand how producing oil increases the price of oil.  Producing oil can only contribute to lowering the price of oil (or have it rise less quickly).  Just simple supply and demand.

Similarly, if you are looking a the cost-of-production angle, producing oil should decrease the cost of production of further oil.  (Producing oil has a lowering effect on cost of energy, thus making further oil exploration less expensive than if that original oil had not been produced.)