Jed, Eric and Alain, The patent system has never worked (as most other *complicated* laws. There are too many details and possibilities to find loopholes. I do understand that the system sounds as it will provide fairness. However, I have been involved when companies said 'the owner of this person is a person with not too much cash - let us just ignore him, he cannot get a fraction of what he is asking by using the legal system and we can always settle if it seems costly'. I am trying to say that there are laws and there is economical reality. Eric you are absolutely right - countries which will benefit from a quick LENR adaptation will sidestep the patent system. You may think that for example the US would support a US patent. I think that patent becomes a chip in international negotiations and the owner will be squeezed. IMHO the only way to get a reward for an invention is to arrange for a quick return. It can either be by selling (perhaps licensing) the know how as soon as it is well established or make sure to have adequate resources to quickly became the market leader. That requires resources to sustain the demand so nobody can establish in a void created by more demand than supply. Jed's opinion that all governmental protection laws will slow the process down is probably accurate in a country like the US. It will be supported by all the Exxon, GM, etc. also. However, in Bangladesh or Zimbabwe the situation is different. The market can be established over night. And again, Jed, the government has never made anything. It is an organization and by definition organizations cannot achieve results. People funded or employed by the government can and has and will in the future. Just let us think about who feeds the government to be able to fund this? Do we want to have one channel where we send all resources hoping the resources will be used efficiently? As an example the communists in Russia was of the opinion that the very fertile soil in part of Russia would be able to feed the whole nation if the private interest was eliminated. Well . . . The black majority in Zimbabwe thought that if they took over the land and the resources as a nation (nationalization) they would all benefit from the export of food products (Zimbabwe was grain and corn source for all Africa). Well, a few years later Zimbabwe needed to import grain and corn. Bigger is not better. Progress requires people thinking outside the box and that is not promoted by a big government.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > But at the same time in China, India, people will decide to embrace LENR, >> invest trillion$, to take supremacy over the West. > > > It's difficult to see into the future beyond having a vague sense of "big > change will happen." But it seems clear that great strain will be placed > on the patent system, and that patent enforcement will potentially fracture > to some extent along national boundaries. There is little chance in my > mind that entrepreneurs in Russia, India or China will be required to pay > patent fees to someone outside of those countries at such a time as LENR > becomes widely understood, at least for products sold within those > countries. The governments will protect businesses as a matter of national > strategic interest. > > Also, I think you are correct in anticipating the possibility of dystopian > consequences flowing from a situation in which the cost of energy goes to > zero, although I don't think things necessarily have to go in that > direction. > > Eric > >
