Well, we all live and learn...I was simply floored when I
found out about this having been done by someone in our
group and am now considering steps to make sure it cannot
happen again...at the least, MINIMIZE the possibility of it.
The question as I see it, is the invention being worked on
for the public good and without any REQUIREMENT of financial
payback or reward,
OR, is it just a 'pure science' experiment to learn and pass
on something new that will add to the pool of knowledge and
hopefully lead to practical applications, ideally developed
and marketed by many worldwide (which will result in more
options, more competition, cheaper units, look at the
digital watch, used to be $200 for an LED display, now $5
for LCD)?
I can understand an inventor spending time and money on a
project with the expectation of patent protection that will
provide future income each time one of the units is sold,
thats business.
This utopian idea, flawed as it may be, offers the hope that
the inventor or more precisely the discoverer would be
associated with it and be offered all kinds of opportunities
and awards of appreciation, some with monetary awards.
On investigation, it turns out most of the highly successful
'perpetual' large nonprofits own land and real estate,
research and develop inventions and technologies and have
all kinds of income producing investments and activities
which sustains their growth, their charities, their trusts
as well as their overhead and salaries.
So WHY NOT setup a nonprofit specifically to investigate
alternative science technologies, both as 'pure science'
that is freely given AND commercial technologies that allow
it to self-sustain without having to rely on contributions.
It is because of this that I was and am concerned about the
two most important foci of KeelyNet, free energy/overunity
and gravity control followed closely by electronic and
energetic health methods. It would be totally pathetic and
ironic if all this non-paid effort, exclusively given and
expected to benefit humanity,
led to all kinds of experimentation that was freely
released, then patented by some unscrupulous person or
company to lock it all up or reap rewards by selling or
marketing that which they simply were first to patent.
There is no question we will protect our interests through
non disclosure for commercial devices, but WHEN we get the
basic proof of principle for overunity, no matter which form
it takes (and there will be many variations), AND how to
alter gravity in a device or local area, we must insure that
it cannot be stolen, locked up or otherwise suppressed.
Glad someone else out there sees the point of this....I
should have checked into it a lot more and have to varying
degrees in the past but it was this revelation that one of
us had cheated that brought it home.
What is interesting is that 'public disclosure' doesn't have
to be hundreds or thousands of people....it could just be a
pamphlet mailed out or given to a few people....most won't
do anything with it anyway but even less risk would be
incurred by limiting the release to just a few trusted
contacts, even family.
In your case, it is purely commercial which is not a
problem, so I'd certainly not post any details or even
description of operation, that revealed anything
significant....a teaser page with an announced approximate
date of release might be useful as it could draw in
investors who you could have sign a non-disclosure prior to
even discussing it with them, let alone demonstrating a
working model.
CYA and protect your interests and ideals, that's what its
about.
Adrian Knotts wrote:
>
> Thank you JERRY!!!
>
> I find myself reeling in disbelief after reading this and subsequent links.
>
> Am I the only one who was under the impression that public disclosure
> granted a right to file ( or release to public domain ) on the invention
> for the following year?
>
> I am fairly new to this list and though I have not been participating I
> have been following closely while finishing up on many years of work. I was
> preparing for disclosure and filing and now it appears that I have to
> completely change my course of action. I have been converting my notes to
> html, making video captures and actually finding myself having to re-do
> some experiments because I either cant find the film or forgot to take
> pictures. Looks like my website will NOT be going up as planned and once i
> get my heart rate back to normal I will just thank God that jerry is
> on-the-ball.
>
> This information comes "not a minute too soon" too.
>
> There HAS to be a way for people to work together through a medium like
> this while not "tipping their hand" to those who would steal their ideas. I
> have felt a real tinge of fear about openly telling the whole world about
> my work, as I am sure others have felt, but would really like a forum for
> discussion. The result has been a passive approach to co-operative research
> which, even though I doubt I could have helped many people much I sure
> would have liked to bounce ideas off a group such as this.
>
> You all have my deepest respect for your work and devotion (and I know,
> first hand, what its like to spend years working toward one goal)
>
> I had a finance source who appears to have found other priorities more
> spectacular than my simple work and may well not be willing to follow
> through the patent process with me. Of course I want to think my work is
> suitable for marketing and may make a difference in this world but they
> appear to be just dropping the ball even though I have already recieved
> some funding from them and I am asking myself another question? maybe you
> can help?
If you have your website, that would be great to just post a
basic description of what your device does, but not how,
unless that description might lead people to thinking about
how to do the same thing....but it might draw in investors.
> Does the contribution of funds towards developing a "next generation"
> prototype grant the contributor any special rights? Assuming
> proof-of-concept has already been accomplished.
You'd have to talk with a lawyer about that. As I
understand it, unless there is a specific contract granting
a percentage of proceeds from an invention or activity, then
you simply would owe the amount of money invested as a
'loan', but a lawyer would certainly be able to write up
specific contracts that both parties agree to.
> And, for general information, what if it hasnt? Does someone who gives you
> money to prove a concept own any part of the concept?
>
> Sorry to add more questions to this maze-of-a-topic but I need to develop
> another strategy now and im not quite sure which direction to go.
>
> Thx
> Adrian Knotts
-- KeelyNet - From an Art to a Science Jerry W. Decker - http://www.keelynet.com/discussion archives http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, TX 75187 - 214.324.8741------------------------------------------------------------- To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com> with the body text: leave Interact list archives and on line subscription forms are at http://keelynet.com/interact/ -------------------------------------------------------------