OverUnity.com is Open Source

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[Omnibus]

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.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[Omnibus]

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.