On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Mark Goldes wrote: > I'm surprised at your rant.
Well, I'm suprised that you're suprised (and I'm also suprised that you're confident that OU development is just another example of normal inventions and normal patent procedures.) > Companies and inventors who have not released results publically have patent > lawyers who understand the law. Sure, but that applies to conventional science. My rant is based on the (probable) fact that the OU-arena is playing by very different rules, and that anyone who ignores this aspect will follow in the footsteps of many other doomed projects. > I assure you there will be no secrecy on our part once machines are in > production and I believe that will be next year. I vaguely recall that Greg Watson (SMOT) said exactly the same thing. And he was trying to teach an enormous number of experimenters how to replicate. Instead, his investors suddenly rose up and took over, put secrecy up as their primary goal, got him to sign docs that made him retract SMOT nonsecrecy philosophy, then things fell apart, and Greg dropped everything after receiving several death threats against his family. > There is every intention of moving our work into the market as rapidly as > practical, and we cheer on every other company or inventor who will do the > same. The planet orgently needs the technology, and our team neither > expects to corner the market nor has any desire to do so. > > Your views of the patent system are understandable, but I do not happen to > agree. My first job out of college was with Ampex. The tape recorders that > built the company were reverse engineered by RCA, and put into production > with only the nameplate changed. BEEEP, wrong. Ampex and RCA were not OU companies. The invention/patent rules seem to work normally for technology which is an extension of Academia and involves no massive upheaval of contemporary society. American OU companies have a 100% failure rate so far, but non-OU companies do not. I think you should ask why this is so, rather than going ahead under the assumption that yours is just another technology company, and silently assuming that "It Won't Happen To Us." History suggest that unless you do something radically different than all the others, your company is doomed. It would be better to assume "It WILL happen to us, and it will happen at any second, so what can we do to stop it?" My original question was... what is your company doing that's radically different than all the others which failed? So far I see nothing that gives me any hope. And here's an extremely important facet: if we assume that your company is doomed (in fact, it's like a massive radiation burn patient, "already dead,") then how can you rescue the achievement from oblivion before the hammer falls? One possibility would be to get working prototypes into the hands of many independent people, under strict NDA of course, with the provision that if anything occurs to block mass production within one (two?) years, the solid proof that the device is real will be released to the public through several channels. Jeeze, for all I know the "oil company/govt/illuminati conspiracy" stuff is real, and if you do obtain patent protection, the next barrier to success will be a host of thefts, death threats, tax fraud accusations, etc. OU companies fail 100%, and as you point out, not all failures were caused by inventors being their own worst enemies. > Patents will be issued when a machine is demonstrated to work, even if > refused until that occurs. ...unless they decide to refuse the patent regardless of any demonstration you make. This isn't rare where OU stuff is concerned. Remember that USPTO refused to bother testing Joe Newman's device. On the other hand, your patent might issue with no problem, and then my "deadlock" scenario won't occur. Instead, it will be something else. Bet on the 100% failure rate. > Howard Johnson was one example. Howard Johnson didn't try to patent his device just after Valone was kicked out of USPTO for supporting OU, and just after Park managed to quash a CF patent. But your device will be a test case as to whether USPTO has become "hypervigilant" against "outsider science" patents. > The path to overcoming understandable skepticism is Demo devices and toys. That only works if you manage to create any of these before something bad happens. > Your wonderful contribution in creating and maintaining vortex, suggests the > opinions you express here are a rare lack of good judgement. Others here may recall that I've been posting a similar rant since 1989 Compuserve, then on Keelynet BBS, then on newsgroups prior to 1995. I bent Gene Mallove's ear with this same rant back before he knew that the OU community existed. Here's another that I clipped out of some old discussion from 1996 and turned into an article Inventors and Secrecy http://amasci.com/freenrg/secret.txt Since you've missed them, perhaps I should have written them into the vortex rules? :) I've been tempted. I'm not alone in ranting about this. Several inventors agree that secrecy is a major problem. Look at JL Naudin's site. How can he publicize all his research like that?!! Yet he does. And here's Wiseman's browns-gas page: http://www.eagle-research.com/nopatent/patfree.html Another guy with a rant. I like his point about the number of widjets needing to be sold before the company recovers the cost of patents. If an OU company also takes USPTO to court to force them to test the device, the required gross sales will be far higher than Lancaster says. Don Lancaster: The Case Against Patents http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp "For most individuals and small scale startups, patents are virtually certain to result in a net loss of time, energy, money, and sanity. "One reason for this is the outrageously wrong urban lore involving patents and patenting. A second involves the outright scams which inevitably surround "inventions" and "inventing". "A third is that the economic breakeven needed to recover patent costs is something between $12,000,000.00 and $40,000,000 in gross sales. "It is ludicrously absurd to try and patent a million dollar idea. This library explores many tested and fully proven real-world alternates to patents and patenting. (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
