PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 16:58:45
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Why Files: Killer Patents & Secret Science Vol. 1  (Read 5179 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
I thoroughly enjoyed this episode. WHo should be in volume 2?
Also be interested in your thoughts on the many issues he raises..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRwlYtAMps&t=2406s
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 47
I thoroughly enjoyed this episode.

Thanks - the video is well made.  Love the hecklefish ;-)


Have a look at this device.

Quote
Dr. Charles Buhler, a NASA engineer and the co-founder of Exodus Propulsion Technologies, has revealed that his company’s propellantless propulsion drive, which appears to defy the known laws of physics, has produced enough thrust to counteract Earth’s gravity.

A veteran of such storied programs as NASA’s Space Shuttle, the International Space Station (ISS), The Hubble Telescope, and the current NASA Dust Program, Buhler and his colleagues believe their discovery of a fundamental new force represents a historic breakthrough that will impact space travel for the next millennium.

https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Charles+Raymond+Buhler%2c+IV



---------------------------
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” but “That’s funny…”  --Isaac Asimov
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
Most longtime members are quite familiar with AJ’s latest production theme .
 Yes the patent office is a place you hand a man a stick to beat you with ( the FE patent application)!

Most longtime open source FE researchers are also not interested in the patent trap scenario …
And are always trying to do “ the next right thing” for our planet and future generations.

Makes a much better pillow ..
And yes I have heard all the other arguments to withhold such life saving tech .. mostly from those who have no real
Need for FE in their daily lives ( no problem with getting clean water or starvation or even a light to turn on at night etc etc
While we burn our atmosphere to move about ( now finding studies attaching fossil fuel emissions direct link to
Brain damage ( dementia etc etc)
And deforestation …Pollute our Oceans and drinking water ..etc etc

Keep moving Forward—->
Respectfully
Chet K







   

Newbie
*

Posts: 47
Most longtime members

I'll get my coat...


---------------------------
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” but “That’s funny…”  --Isaac Asimov
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
Here's an interview with Salvatore Pais mentioned in the video as having the patents with the Navy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkky3pKaseA

Some of his patents https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
A great doco by Jesse Michels about Thomas Townsend Brown and his anti-gravity work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTEWLSTyUic
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Chet
Quote
Most longtime members are quite familiar with AJ’s latest production theme .
Yes the patent office is a place you hand a man a stick to beat you with ( the FE patent application)!

I would disagree, have you read Centraflows patents?. He's a really smart guy, smart enough to know not to claim energy from nothing but the environment. It's perfectly acceptable and offers him some protection from others who would steal his work.

As well if all the FE inventors of the past did not patent then 99% of the most factual information about there inventions would have been lost to history. In many cases there patents is all that remains of there work and nobody can take that away. As Tesla eluded, the present may be there's but the future is mine. Almost all of Tesla's work remains in his patents.

Patenting is brilliant, so we can patent any circuit or device which extracts energy from the environment. We draw a little antenna on the device which does nothing and is basically useless. It's a valid patent, you see it has a little antenna. If someone should happen to replicate it without an antenna it could still work and still protect the inventors idea.

Simply put, throwing all our hard work to the wind hoping nobody steals or abuses it is naive and unprofessional. I don't trust anyone who implies we should blindly trust others to do the right thing considering the state of the world at present. The present state is a good example of what happens when we blindly trust others to do the right thing and they never do it.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
Chet
I would disagree, have you read Centraflows patents?. He's a really smart guy, smart enough to know not to claim energy from nothing but the environment. It's perfectly acceptable and offers him some protection from others who would steal his work.

As well if all the FE inventors of the past did not patent then 99% of the most factual information about there inventions would have been lost to history. In many cases there patents is all that remains of there work and nobody can take that away. As Tesla eluded, the present may be there's but the future is mine. Almost all of Tesla's work remains in his patents.

Patenting is brilliant, so we can patent any circuit or device which extracts energy from the environment. We draw a little antenna on the device which does nothing and is basically useless. It's a valid patent, you see it has a little antenna. If someone should happen to replicate it without an antenna it could still work and still protect the inventors idea.

Simply put, throwing all our hard work to the wind hoping nobody steals or abuses it is naive and unprofessional. I don't trust anyone who implies we should blindly trust others to do the right thing considering the state of the world at present. The present state is a good example of what happens when we blindly trust others to do the right thing and they never do it.

AC
And your thoughts on those patents that never see the light of day due to US "National security" issues? I had not heard about the incident with the Pugh carb and what happened on the stock market before.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Jimboot
Quote
And your thoughts on those patents that never see the light of day due to US "National security" issues? I had not heard about the incident with the Pugh carb and what happened on the stock market before.

I am biased on some issues including national security. Suppose it was WW2 and someone wanted to openly patent a 100 mpg carb which could allow your enemy trying to wipe you out a much greater range. Do you allow the patent knowing it could change the outcome of the war and destroy you?. Would you allow your country to be put in harms way just so a few people could profit from a patent?.

Given the chance I would never allow my work and/or technologies to go to places like Russia, China, Iran etc. for obvious reasons. We do not need to debate the reasons why and any intelligent and civilized person should understand the reasons. So in some instances patents should be denied in my opinion.

It's kind of like the Prime Directive or non-interference principal in Star Trek. We should never give primitive and often hostile cultures advanced technology. Primitive people always act on primitive emotions and false beliefs not facts and reason. Maybe this is why many inventors like Tesla kept implying that only intelligent people truly skilled in the art would understand his work. Also relating to the fact that most of these very intelligent and skilled inventors took there most advanced technology to there grave with them. Maybe they were following a kind of Prime Directive?.

AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
I suppose your replies/comments over the years make a lot of sense ( from “your” perspective)
You Endorsing patents etc etc for FE devices.( see AJ’s Why-Files you tube for reference)

Keeping the lid on FE devices and status quo in the world..

Better question ,
Why are you here in this open source free energy forum ( and as a moderator too ?

Untold billions of people have no access to electric or clean water ..while we burn ( all of us) our atmosphere
For transportation etc etc
Those who “have not” cause Deforestation.. for basic needs ( cooking heating etc etc

Seems a big conflict of interest on your part ?
Should we just close open source FE research forums ?
Reroute all to the patent office ?

Or as you hint in previous post
Hide it in the patent …( they’ll never catch on  :-[ ?? Yikes …

 guess it’s all good with you and yours …
You got yours …
Yeesh!

BTW
Swiping the broad brush of elimination on entire countries and cultures…
Double Yeesh









   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Chet/AC,

There are valid points from both perspectives imho.

Another example up for debate is AI, and whether the public's access to it should only include models that are tempered or "aligned" with safety to humans and against potential bad actors.

It would be wonderful to believe that humans, freely given all the necessities of life, would no longer have any malevolent thoughts or aspirations towards others. But sadly, I think there will always be bad actors, whether they be individuals, groups, or "governments", that wish to diminish or control others.

Whether the topic is about open source free energy, or open source uncensored AI, it is imperative to have rational debate and discussion about the impacts each could or would have across the globe.


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 152
The voice of experience.

Quote
When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.
...
Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor...

Elon Musk, CEO, June 12, 2014

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you



---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Quote
When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.
...
Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor...
Elon Musk, CEO, June 12, 2014

Another version is that Musk was never the smartest guy in the room and holds few if any patents personally. He hires scientists and engineers magnitudes smarter than he could ever be then tries to take credit for there work. Musk is just another ruthless business person and a psychopath in my opinion. Don't listen to all the arrogant bs coming out of his mouth look at what he does and how he treats all his employees. I suspect he doesn't patent simply because he wants to take all the credit for his employees hard work. Musk like most billionares really gets off on taking all the credit doesn't he?.

My opinion is that all the hard working people doing all the real work should get more credit for there work and paid accordingly. Unlike the 20,000 people Musk just fired and kicked to the curb after making him billions of dollars. I think it's comical, people say don't believe all the BS and hype then at the first chance they all dive in head first. Ever wonder why a douche bag like Musk can fire 20k people and he's a hero but if any other person or company did the same there would be outrage?.

So yes I will be patenting everything and everyone involved will get credit where credit is due. I'm would make huge pictures of all our patents like wallpaper plastered on the company walls and every single person involved will have there name on it in big black letters for all to see. As if to say, look all these ordinary people made this happen and they deserve credit for it.

We could also ask another logical question, why the recent push to delegitimize or discredit research, scientists and inventors?. You know, implying there not really important, they don't really need to document there work, patent to protect themselves or be given any real credit for all there hard work. In fact, we have seen all this before in the Dark Ages. The age of authoritarianism/communism, the concentration of power and wealth at the top where ordinary people were looked down upon like animals. The scientists and inventors were seen as heretics and troublemakers disrupting the status quo of the wealthy. Here's a clue, there was massive book burning in the Dark Ages and a concentrated effort to try to erase all proof and documentation of peoples work if not existence. So I would document everything and patent it to protect your work while you can. You can still share your work... after you document and protect it.

AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
Another version is that Musk was never the smartest guy in the room and holds few if any patents personally. He hires scientists and engineers magnitudes smarter than he could ever be then tries to take credit for there work. Musk is just another ruthless business person and a psychopath in my opinion. Don't listen to all the arrogant bs coming out of his mouth look at what he does and how he treats all his employees. I suspect he doesn't patent simply because he wants to take all the credit for his employees hard work. Musk like most billionares really gets off on taking all the credit doesn't he?.

My opinion is that all the hard working people doing all the real work should get more credit for there work and paid accordingly. Unlike the 20,000 people Musk just fired and kicked to the curb after making him billions of dollars. I think it's comical, people say don't believe all the BS and hype then at the first chance they all dive in head first. Ever wonder why a douche bag like Musk can fire 20k people and he's a hero but if any other person or company did the same there would be outrage?.

So yes I will be patenting everything and everyone involved will get credit where credit is due. I'm would make huge pictures of all our patents like wallpaper plastered on the company walls and every single person involved will have there name on it in big black letters for all to see. As if to say, look all these ordinary people made this happen and they deserve credit for it.

We could also ask another logical question, why the recent push to delegitimize or discredit research, scientists and inventors?. You know, implying there not really important, they don't really need to document there work, patent to protect themselves or be given any real credit for all there hard work. In fact, we have seen all this before in the Dark Ages. The age of authoritarianism/communism, the concentration of power and wealth at the top where ordinary people were looked down upon like animals. The scientists and inventors were seen as heretics and troublemakers disrupting the status quo of the wealthy. Here's a clue, there was massive book burning in the Dark Ages and a concentrated effort to try to erase all proof and documentation of peoples work if not existence. So I would document everything and patent it to protect your work while you can. You can still share your work... after you document and protect it.

AC
Let's not waste time and get OT by attacking billionaires. A scarecrow factory has less strawmen than your above post. Specifically on the point of a clean efficient energy device that would negate the need for homes/businesses to be connected to an energy grid, where do you stand? You sound conflicted. On one hand you are ok with bureaucratic censorship of a device for "national security" reasons, then you go on to lament  about inventors not getting credit for their work unless they patent. Where is Pugh's credit? Should Joseph Salk had patented the polio vaccine and forbid enemies of the US access? On the AI front I am finding myself aligning with the effective accelerrationists.  Otherwise we head back to the dark ages where the authoritarians get to control the tech.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Let's not waste time and get OT by attacking billionaires. A scarecrow factory has less strawmen than your above post. Specifically on the point of a clean efficient energy device that would negate the need for homes/businesses to be connected to an energy grid, where do you stand? You sound conflicted. On one hand you are ok with bureaucratic censorship of a device for "national security" reasons, then you go on to lament  about inventors not getting credit for their work unless they patent. Where is Pugh's credit? Should Joseph Salk had patented the polio vaccine and forbid enemies of the US access? On the AI front I am finding myself aligning with the effective accelerrationists.  Otherwise we head back to the dark ages where the authoritarians get to control the tech.

I agree with JimBoot here.
First I would get the device replicated - and verified.  Then EVERYBODY involved help spread the word freely = with the intent to benefit humanity )as opposed to the ruling/controlling elite).

If a guy is worried about getting credit, perhaps contact a local TV station or newspaper (find a trusted reporter if possible).
Get the idea in print.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
There is one small snag with open source, many countries like the U.S. use the first-to-file patent system. This means the rights to an invention go to the first person to patent and not the person who invented the technology.

From ChatGPT...
Quote
In the United States under the first-to-file system, if you disclose your technology publicly without first filing a patent application, someone else could potentially file a patent application for the same technology and obtain the patent rights, even if you were the original inventor. This is why it's generally advisable to file a patent application before publicly disclosing your invention to ensure that you establish priority for your invention.

However, it's important to note that there are some exceptions and nuances to this rule, such as the one-year grace period for certain disclosures made by the inventor themselves before filing a patent application. Additionally, if someone else files a patent application for a technology that you had already publicly disclosed before their filing date, you may have the opportunity to challenge the validity of their patent application based on your prior disclosure.

In effect, if you disclose any device or idea without a patent anyone can file a patent on your idea and try to gain full rights to it. They could literally steal your invention or idea and there is nothing you can do about it. They could then potentially file law suits against anyone sharing or reproducing what is now there property.

Personally I think it's complete bullshit and designed to give big corporations a clear advantage over the average man but it is what it is. So obviously I do share many things however I understand that when I do so I throw my ideas and technology into the wind. Who knows where it may land or who may use it. It's part of the creative process of invention in my opinion.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
AC said
Quote
if you disclose any device or idea without a patent anyone can file a patent on your idea and try to gain full rights to it. They could literally steal your invention or idea and there is nothing you can do about it. They could then potentially file law suits against anyone sharing or reproducing what is now there property.

One way to protect yourself and your idea is to properly disclose it and have that disclosure "witnessed and understood", signed and possibly notarized. I'm not intending to give legal advice, so seek such if you're in this position. I've worked for corporations where they are very careful about the proper disclosure with their engineers whether they choose to patent or not.

And another method is to disclose the idea in a publication. Then you can claim prior art to prevent other from patenting your idea,  or enforcing such a patent.

bi
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
I just found it a little strange that some were suggesting to give FE technology away.

When in fact it doesn't work that way. If someone did just give the technology away then anyone could patent the idea first and prevent anyone else from using the idea. Possibly the person, paid shill or AI suggesting someone just give everything away.

Thankfully the solution is super easy.
1)Get get some credible help or a like minded investor and have everyone sign a contract to protect the idea and to be clear in writing you want to open source it.
2)Use the investor money to file patents.
3)Open source the technology being clear it is patented to protect it but free for anyone to use.
4)Congratulations you succeeded.

As well, in the patents do not claim the invention is ou or free energy which could be denied. Claim the energy comes from the external environment and the energy source is yet to be determined which is technically true. This is perfectly acceptable and I have seen countless patents do the same. Remember your not patenting the energy or it's source only a device to convert said energy from a yet to be determined source.

AC
« Last Edit: 2024-05-05, 23:07:33 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
There is one small snag with open source, many countries like the U.S. use the first-to-file patent system. This means the rights to an invention go to the first person to patent and not the person who invented the technology.

From ChatGPT...
...They could then potentially file law suits against anyone sharing or reproducing what is now there property.

Personally I think it's complete bullshit and designed to give big corporations a clear advantage over the average man but it is what it is. So obviously I do share many things however I understand that when I do so I throw my ideas and technology into the wind. Who knows where it may land or who may use it. It's part of the creative process of invention in my opinion.

AC
What was your prompt and what version of ChatGPT are you using?  You can get it to agree with anything. From ChatGPT4 "
Open sourcing your invention can indeed help prevent others from patenting the same technology. Once you publicly disclose the details of your invention, it becomes part of the "prior art." Prior art is all information that has been disclosed to the public in any form about an invention before a given date. If your invention is already part of the public domain through open sourcing, this makes it much harder for someone else to patent it because:

Novelty Requirement: For a patent to be granted, the invention must be novel. If your invention is already documented and publicly accessible, it cannot be considered novel by patent authorities.
Non-obviousness: Besides being novel, an invention must also be non-obvious to someone skilled in the field. Publicly disclosing detailed information about your invention sets a high bar for others to prove their inventions are non-obvious over yours.
Public Disclosure: By open sourcing and documenting your invention thoroughly and making it publicly accessible, you create a solid record of the invention's details and the date of disclosure. This public disclosure is critical in establishing the prior art that can be used to challenge any subsequent patent applications that are too similar to your invention.
However, there are a few points to consider:

Specific Details: Ensure that the disclosure of your invention is detailed enough to encompass all aspects that you want to protect. Vague or incomplete disclosures might not provide full protection.
Global Variation: Patent laws and enforcement can vary significantly between countries. Public disclosure in one country might not automatically prevent patenting in another country unless those disclosures are accessible and recognized internationally.
Timing: It's crucial to ensure that your public disclosure happens before any potential patent applications by others. Once a patent application is filed, subsequent public disclosures won't affect its examination.
To enhance protection against potential patent threats, you might also consider defensive publishing, which is specifically aimed at creating prior art to prevent others from obtaining a patent on a disclosed invention. This could involve publishing in scientific journals, technical magazines, or using online platforms dedicated to defensive publications." Good to know your position AC thanks.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Jimboot
Quote
What was your prompt and what version of ChatGPT are you using?  You can get it to agree with anything. From ChatGPT4 "
Open sourcing your invention can indeed help prevent others from patenting the same technology. Once you publicly disclose the details of your invention, it becomes part of the "prior art." Prior art is all information that has been disclosed to the public in any form about an invention before a given date. If your invention is already part of the public domain through open sourcing, this makes it much harder for someone else to patent it

I knew about this years ago when many countries followed the U.S. changing from "first to invent" to "first to patent" in 2011. I remember the day well because most inventors like myself were not happy about it. It was the equivalent of a kick to the teeth to any individual or inventor wanting to share and open source idea's in my opinion. 

The one year grace period, loss of novelty and prior art are considerations and I am aware of some cases being won using these aspects. That is, if the person suing has millions of dollars to spend years in court fighting a team of highly trained corporate patent lawyers. If the news is any indication the wealthy are seldom if ever held accountable for there actions. There are two different sets of rules for the average individual and the wealthy or corporations.

Quote
Good to know your position AC thanks.

No problem, all you need to know about me is that my position is always for the freedoms and rights of the individual.

I'm not sure why there is so much open hostility towards patenting. For example, to my knowledge Centraflow has copyrighted and patented all his work with the STEAP and tpu. He has also shared more of his experiments and work than almost anyone here to my knowledge. In my opinion this is all the proof we need that we can protect our individual interests and share our work.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
Jimboot
I knew about this years ago when many countries followed the U.S. changing from "first to invent" to "first to patent" in 2011. I remember the day well because most inventors like myself were not happy about it. It was the equivalent of a kick to the teeth to any individual or inventor wanting to share and open source idea's in my opinion. 

The one year grace period, loss of novelty and prior art are considerations and I am aware of some cases being won using these aspects. That is, if the person suing has millions of dollars to spend years in court fighting a team of highly trained corporate patent lawyers. If the news is any indication the wealthy are seldom if ever held accountable for there actions. There are two different sets of rules for the average individual and the wealthy or corporations.

No problem, all you need to know about me is that my position is always for the freedoms and rights of the individual.

I'm not sure why there is so much open hostility towards patenting. For example, to my knowledge Centraflow has copyrighted and patented all his work with the STEAP and tpu. He has also shared more of his experiments and work than almost anyone here to my knowledge. In my opinion this is all the proof we need that we can protect our individual interests and share our work.

AC
I don't have knowledge of what other members have done in this regard unless they have shared it publicly. Your argument about prior art is the same as having a patent. It's useless unless you have deep pockets to enforce it. Those pockets in most cases will belong to the licensees who have a vested interest in fighting breaches. Your attitude of supporting Govt censorship though of "free energy" devices is at odds with "the freedoms and rights of the individual" and the open source movement in general. My comments from an earlier post stand.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 123
  Just use GPL4 and state it free to the world. No patent will hold then.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Jimboot
Quote
I don't have knowledge of what other members have done in this regard unless they have shared it publicly. Your argument about prior art is the same as having a patent. It's useless unless you have deep pockets to enforce it. Those pockets in most cases will belong to the licensees who have a vested interest in fighting breaches.


If the inventor patented to protect the idea with an intent to open source the technology later then there is literally nothing to enforce. We could patent the idea to protect it then forget about it and do whatever we want.

Having been in the loop what I can tell you is that big corporations, con men and grifters love an unprotected individual. An individual is easy pickings while an individual with a patent within a shell company is very hard to manipulate. A full blown company in production with countless employees who understand the technology is a game changer in my opinion.

I wish you could have been in the room when I implied it would be easier for me to just patent a technology under a shell company. There was this long silence and they knew the con was finished. Once the technology is patented under a company they cannot touch you personally. Hence the term Limited Liability Company protecting the individual owners from personal liability like law suits. You see Jim most of the douche bags conning inventors thrive on gaslighting, intimidation, blackmail and the threat of law suits. Don't be naive, protect yourself.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
Jimboot

If the inventor patented to protect the idea with an intent to open source the technology later then there is literally nothing to enforce. We could patent the idea to protect it then forget about it and do whatever we want.

Having been in the loop what I can tell you is that big corporations, con men and grifters love an unprotected individual. An individual is easy pickings while an individual with a patent within a shell company is very hard to manipulate. A full blown company in production with countless employees who understand the technology is a game changer in my opinion.

I wish you could have been in the room when I implied it would be easier for me to just patent a technology under a shell company. There was this long silence and they knew the con was finished. Once the technology is patented under a company they cannot touch you personally. Hence the term Limited Liability Company protecting the individual owners from personal liability like law suits. You see Jim most of the douche bags conning inventors thrive on gaslighting, intimidation, blackmail and the threat of law suits. Don't be naive, protect yourself.

AC
Your assertions are self contradictory and circular. You support Govt suppression of devices that would benefit all of humanity. I'm really not sure why you are here.
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 16:58:45