OverUnity.com is Open Source

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

[Omnibus]

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.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.