This is a very refreshing response. I certainly hope you are correct. Jeff On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff Berkowitz <pdx...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I suppose that if this work all holds up, the mainstream scientific >> community may get what it deserves for shunning the discipline: all the key >> results may be locked up behind an impenetrable veil of trade secrecy. >> > > That subject came up in the panel discussion; the panel of which I was a > member. An audience member expressed concerns that if cold fusion > transmogrifies into something like the semiconductor industry, how will > scientific information spread from what Berkowitz calls "an impenetrable > veil of trade secrecy." I address this question. I don't recall exactly > what I said, but the gist of it is that trade secrecy is not impenetrable. > It is a sieve. In industry, proprietary information floods out by well > known means such as reverse engineering of machine and poaching top > employees who have technical knowledge. > > (I believe the whole thing is on video, so you might find I blurted out > something quite different, but that is what I mean to say.) > > There is nothing more ephemeral that a vitally important trade secret. > Trade secrets about unimportant technology sometimes last for decades. > > - Jed > >
