A123 acquires IP and scientists from Leyden Energy

[John in CR]

BigOutrunner,

If your patents are sufficiently detailed to give you what you believe is protection, then there is sufficient detail to simply copy your work. Big companies can do so effectively without recourse, because they already employ the lawyers to fight your patent suits for long enough to render your perceived protection worthless.

The end result of the current system is only for those with sufficient means the power to stifle, squash, or otherwise hinder innovation. Texaco/Chevron's ability to stop Toyota's attempts of plug-in electrics using NiMH battery packs is one perfect example, and I'm certain there are numerous examples of similar or monopolistic behavior by Big Pharma that harm the citizens of the world by making medicines that should be cheap and readily available prohibitively expensive and hard to find. As long as abortion is legal anyone who profits from this type of behavior should be retroactively aborted from the population.

While you're cleaning things up add spammers, virus writers, and identity thieves to that list.

 

[BigOutrunner]

BigOutrunner,

If your patents are sufficiently detailed to give you what you believe is protection, then there is sufficient detail to simply copy your work. Big companies can do so effectively without recourse, because they already employ the lawyers to fight your patent suits for long enough to render your perceived protection worthless.

The end result of the current system is only for those with sufficient means the power to stifle, squash, or otherwise hinder innovation. Texaco/Chevron's ability to stop Toyota's attempts of plug-in electrics using NiMH battery packs is one perfect example, and I'm certain there are numerous examples of similar or monopolistic behavior by Big Pharma that harm the citizens of the world by making medicines that should be cheap and readily available prohibitively expensive and hard to find. As long as abortion is legal anyone who profits from this type of behavior should be retroactively aborted from the population.

While you're cleaning things up add spammers, virus writers, and identity thieves to that list.

So you get my point that big pharma HMOs, big oil, big brother, big banks, and corrupt court systems are the enemy - all stifle much needed innovation from prospering - but you missed the crux of the matter by saying that innovators need not bother seeking ownership or credit for their innovations. Just give up? That is not in my nature. I am an optimist. And while I may not have an army, I see to it that I can protect And provide for myself and those in my charge.

Exactly - they can copy my work, so that technology is not lost to future generations, but they cannot claim to have given birth to that technology and profit unduly by commercializing it (or so the original intent of patents - if applied without distortion).

Credit to whom it is due.

Our litiguous culture which only favors the rich - do please rant against that, and not honest, striving creative individuals who only seek to provide for those who depend on them.

So we should not try to develop electric motors that can produce twice the power of an ordinary motor of similar size?
Or one half the size and weight but producing the same output as an electric motor double the size?

Just because the Chinese and big multinational corporations will copy the technology?

If a gifted person, whose algorithms for near perfect FOC control is never published - suddenly dies, mankind could lose 10 or even 15 years of progress. Is that the better way to go? For the sake of the young, innocent and yet to be born, I say it is not. Give him the credit, I say and let him profit from it. He deserves it.

Do please be supportive of innovators. They are not your enemies.

 

[wb9k]

All very well put--both posts. Just because a system can be abused doesn't mean the intent or the net result of the system is evil or worse than no system at all. This to me looks a lot like the fad d'jour among the political right which says that everything would be right in the world if only we would dismantle all government. They miss the forest for the trees. You can bet some of these guys also have no conception of the world as it existed prior to the internet--a little scary to see guys who think all of civilization just springs from a screen for free or that we should just be able to take whatever we want from whoever we want just because it is so easy.

 

[Dauntless]

I have to say the use of Jefferson's comments seems like a stretch, since we're talking about a whole lot more than just some guy saying something and then claiming ownership of the "idea". An actual working invention which may have taken years and loads of money to develop surely can have at least some ownership claimed by somebody. Or not?

Let's not forget, Thomas Jefferson owned PEOPLE, not ideas. Excuse me, he owned over 200 SLAVES, which his constitution didn't count as full fledged people. He did oppose slavery, however.

More to the point Jefferson could never have a clue about the difference between now and then. But he did understand about owning rights. But only because John Locke did. Jefferson never had an original thought in his life, he STOLE the Constitution from the work of John Locke. I assume Jefferson opposed slavery because Locke did, Jefferson had to repeat Locke at all times.

wb9k is the only one with brilliant posts on all this. Just don't anyone steal that comment from me.

 

[liveforphysics]

So you get my point that big pharma HMOs, big oil, big brother, big banks, and corrupt court systems are the enemy - all stifle much needed innovation from prospering - but you missed the crux of the matter by saying that innovators need not bother seeking ownership or credit for their innovations.

This misunderstanding of reality is the source of your confusion my friend. One can not have ownership of ideas, one is free to choose to believe in the delusional construct that someone can take possession of an idea, but that does not make the ownership any realer. You can not own a thing which does not have a limited quantity and self-copies and spreads merely by sharing awareness of it's existence. The concept of Patent is fairy-tale delusion, you can prove this by merely observing the state of system.

Just give up? That is not in my nature. I am an optimist.

All wise-men are optimists. Give up what? You already know you have certain death awaiting, the only risk is to not do while able.

And while I may not have an army, I see to it that I can protect And provide for myself and those in my charge.

With open development, you can provide for them, yourself, and happily share your idea with the rest of the world that may also wish to make that thing, some of whom (like myself and all of my personal peer-group) donate generously to you as well.

Exactly - they can copy my work, so that technology is not lost to future generations, but they cannot claim to have given birth to that technology and profit unduly by commercializing it (or so the original intent of patents - if applied without distortion).

Tell me the technology you claim to have birthed and what the experience was like for you. I suspect you made an arrangement of aluminum and/or steel and/or copper and ended up with something that rotates by torques generated by a magnetic field, perhaps yours has a nice cooling path or geometry that enables fine stepping resolution and sinus BEMF for minimal drive current harmonics. Maybe it's just an economical logical way to make it that reduces cost in the design. Even to play in the fantasy land delusion world, can you really tell me you had something novel and unique and significant and not obvious about making arrangements of copper and iron that turn a shaft?


At which point in thinking of this idea did you feel bestowed with imaginary power to have ethical right to restrict anyone from also building what they can also build. Do you think it is the droplets of ink on the paper, or the enforcement system that somehow prevents people with the needed competency from simply making more or less exactly what they choose to make?

Credit to whom it is due.

What credit can be greater than giving back to what enabled all you have done and know in life?

I will let a wiser and better poets help you understand:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Thomas Jefferson

Our litiguous culture which only favors the rich - do please rant against that, and not honest, striving creative individuals who only seek to provide for those who depend on them.

So we should not try to develop electric motors that can produce twice the power of an ordinary motor of similar size?
Or one half the size and weight but producing the same output as an electric motor double the size?

Just because the Chinese and big multinational corporations will copy the technology?

We do not share the same values, or reason to work. I work to improve the world by creating the future of production electric vehicles so they can become used to improve quality of life for all in the world. Even the best technology does nothing useful unless it is being used. You do not need to if you don't choose to, but you may be surprised how many people prefer to contribute good into the world rather than harm people with lawsuits (the action by which a patent "functions" in imaginary thought-restriction-construct delusion land.)

In giving freely, they not only realize the greatest joy in life, they also enrich the world and created real value and should also be clever enough to find a way to get lots of money if they want to have lots of money. Having an idea is not entitlement to anything but appreciating the chain of thoughts you had as a result of life experiences that composed your thought. If you get a good idea, it is it's own best reward to share it. To use the function of a patent and cause harm to others for your personal gain by leveraging some crooks delusional game's enforcers is how you harm not help the very world you also live your life in.

If a gifted person, whose algorithms for near perfect FOC control is never published - suddenly dies, mankind could lose 10 or even 15 years of progress. Is that the better way to go? For the sake of the young, innocent and yet to be born, I say it is not.

Can you share with me a better way to keep an idea preserved and optimal for using than openly sharing all the research and testing and development notes with the world online? Respecting the sake of satisfying the concerns of the young unborn, open source will ensure optimal free deployment of good idea contributions to the world in real-time and without having to filter through patent lawyer intentional-obfuscation of concept (and/or lack-of-concept) writing. The young and unborn will even be free to develop and improve the products in their world by simply spending the effort to do so. It is irrelevant if you like the patent system or not, there will only be two type of company soon, those who embraced open-development and those that have not yet been replaced by those who embrace open development.

Give him the credit, I say and let him profit from it. He deserves it.

You deserve to profit as much as you find a way to profit from your idea. If you find no way to profit from your idea, than it was not a profitable idea for you, but you still got to enjoy contributing something that hopefully someone can use if it was indeed a useful idea. If you want to make huge profit, you must find an idea which is hugely profitable for you, you only get exactly as much as you deserve.

Do please be supportive of innovators. They are not your enemies.

Please hear your plea my friend, it fantastic!

 

[Dauntless]

You already know you have certain death awaiting, the only risk is to not do while able.

Yikes! I hear the wolf's theme from 'Peter and the Wolf.'

Just give up? That is not in my nature. I am an optimist.

Ah, along comes Peter. . . .

You already know you have certain death awaiting. . . .

Well, I certainly can tell who would be the hero in the movies. And who shares the views of the office of the inquisition. There is nothing Utopian about deciding you can take it all away from someone.

If you want to make huge profit, you must find an idea which is hugely profitable for you, you only get exactly as much as you deserve.

Unless someone succeeds at preventing you from getting it by making himself as some self styled hero who 'Steals from the rich and gives to the poor.' (It took some 700 years for that to be added to a certain legend.) The true story of the real life "Robbing Hood" was that he was trying to steal back what had been taken from him, then gaining the support of the locals by bribing them. Of course this gets twisted around when it becomes legend. Of course it also gets twisted around just who's rich enough to steal from and how poor you have to be to get any of it. If ONLY he held the trademark on Locksley.

Do please be supportive of innovators. They are not your enemies.

Please hear your plea my friend, it fantastic!

It WOULD be fantastic if you would support innovators. But how could a conservative such as yourself ever favor a liberal like BigOutrunner? (Ouch, the truth hurts.) Only you and your fellow conservatives are fit to decide. You'll take from the liberals as you please, and demand that they thank you for it.

I remember the recordings of the phone canvassing investment 'Counselor,' of the variety that specialized in duping senior citizens into very high risk very low return investments that about killed them when they got the news. He would call back his past victims and put them down for new losses, since he got his commission from sales, not results. And he already had this particular woman's credit card, he once again told her he was putting her down for it anyway. So when she kept saying 'No,' crying, screaming, he said "You'll thank me for it." She was not his enemy, but he was hers. Such is most cases where one person is victimized by another.

No, Mr Physics, we won't thank you if you succeed at taking away everyone else's rights so YOU can live in the world YOU want to live in. There are all kinds of slavery, in no uncertain terms YOU are a proponent of one type.

I try to picture the SHOCK of this guy forcing the bad investments on the elderly, taking away their pensions/social security, when he was ARRESTED. I imagine his outrage that the rights of others have been put ahead of what HE wanted as he was locked in jail. (I'd say this is the most fair analogy anyone could come up with, it's a good idea to recognize that fact.)

The only mistake BigOutrunner made is bothering to say they aren't your enemy. They don't have to be your enemy for you to be theirs. You choose to do this wrong to them without even making them your enemy. Maybe you'll get around to that as you continue to fail.

But is this the Robbing Hood's actual tomb? Some questions can never be answered with certainty.

 

[liveforphysics]

Dauntless-

No amount of rambling text makes an idea something that can be owned.