On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Che wrote > > People here sneer at the likes of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial > Project.. but say what you will: its very OPEN [Source] nature is what > *will* at least keep it out of the grubby clutches of moneyed-interests. > > > Not so - no one here that I am aware of - sneers at MFMP. Or if they do - > they are misguided. > Well they have. Right here. Recently. Just the opposite - in fact, a version of "open-source" is the way of the > future for LENR... but it needs refinement. For instance, patents can be a > necessary evil - if only to keep patent trolls from jumping in and > obtaining one first. > Patents are 'necessary', like locks on your doors are necessary. There was a time in the past when door-locks were UN-necessary -- and there will come again a time where they will become a relic of our barbaric Past (Present). I prefer to focus positively, on the contents of the house. > > The main thing needed for continuing cash flow for the research is the > promise of some kind of future reward for the funder. It is easily possible > to merge capitalism and optimized R&D into a mutually acceptable package. > NO. The FOSS software Movement is proof enuff that monetary reward is NOT the main, essential motivation for the creative process -- whatever paid propagandists continually and relentlessly say (and whatever particular details don't really match my claim). However, money *does indeed* become a crucial issue, when a chronic lack of resources poses an obstacle to further creative effort (and in fact, the ruling-class *consciously* starves society generally, of resources -- in order to maintain _precisely_ this sort of control over us). Even now, the heroic 'cool' days of Silicon Valley (more myth, than anything) are essentially over: and the usual corporate interests _assert_ those interests more and more, in computer technology. They DO want a ROI. However, that 'cool' model of 'hip', enlightened, Yuppie investors does not appear to work in such a chance-y field as cold fusion research. Too much 'up-front' risk, right? We require a steady, *public* -- OPEN -- source of funding: and should commensurately be demanding the public OPEN release of any and all scientific theoretical and research findings. > > In short, it is possible to "keep it out of the grubby clutches of > moneyed-interests" and at the same time provide a decent return on > investment in a vehicle for continuing R&D funding -- which does not demand > that the inventor has to subsidize his own efforts. > > The end result can be win-win, whereas a complete abdication of IP is not > going to be as efficient. In fact, it is brain-dead in the era of patent > trolls. I think MFMP realizes this dynamic. > This is pie-in-the-sky, AFAIC. The World does not work this way. Or not for long, anyway. Mixing in 'patent trolls' at the end here is only obfuscating the issue: the primacy, Über Alles, of 'private property', in our barbaric times -- and its crushing effect upon true 'innovation'.
