On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Toby Seiler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jim, > > You were working on patents for the GEK gasification. How is that > proceeding? Have you encountered problems in publishing plans or with prior > art in your patent application? > > Do you plan on similar patent for a gas to liquid invention? > > toby, the base gek design is without patent. the manufacturing method to make it is without patent. the particular method of the multi-stage totti heat exchange system that is added to the base gek has a patent submitted. the patent is of course not on the broad concept of a heat recovery and exhange system between a gasifier and engine. it is on a particular method and aparatus for implementing that broad concept. this patent was submitted before there was any public disclosure of it. a generic tube reactor for GTL work is not a patenable idea. i may do something someday in gtl that i would want to patent. who knows at this point. but it is not a tube reactor. the totti heat exchange system for the gek was patented so we can have some ability to direct the manner in which it is manufactured elsewhere by others. even without the patent we ask others to participate with us when they want to make it elsewhere. people seem to want to do this anyway, as there is much more at issue towards a successful installation than free cad drawings. there is far more value that can be accessed by participating in the gek ecology than by just taking from it. this is why i can give the drawings away, to the terror of most investors and mbas that consider our model. the wins of giving far outweigh the relatively few losses from simple theft. (btw, the v4.0 cad files are now up. see here: http://www.gekgasifier.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1500#post1500 others are welcome to use the base gek system and make proprietary thigns on top of it like we do. we do not own those innovations. things one posts on our forum or other forums related to the gek, we do not own. we expect many people will expect some combination of open and closed status in their work, as we do. we respect and encourage this nuanced combination and optimization of approaches. the goal again with the gek is to enable a distributed manufacturing scenario whereby others can make the gek system locally, over minimized capital investements and local labor. but for us to open this up while still being able to helpfully expand the engineering mothership of the project, and ensure some level of discipline in the development and versioning, it is helpful to have some tools to encourage others to participate in the larger financial ecology. open source software licenses are ultimately of debatable relevance over physical innovations. thus for now our default tool is patents. though what we do with those patents is atypical. a patent grants the receipent a monopoly on making, using and selling, in exchange for "full" disclosure to the public record of how to make and use the innovation. our general notion at this point is to enable the making and use with information far beyond a typical patent disclosure, though retain some limits on what others can do on the selling front. a patent disclosure of a concept doesn't provide a full manufacturing system to realize the idea, with dimensions, part lists, fab methods and user support to do so. that is what we have put put into the commons with the gek project. i like most of you have many ideas that are patentable. most of these are outside the frame of the gek project. however there are exceptional things in the gek project that we'll patent for the reasons above. there will be many other things which we'll not patent, where others would. in general, what is patented is an exception. and either way patenting is a fairly weak tool at this point and mostly a topic that induces hysteria or paranoia (which is what usually happens when it is raised on any public list). i realize this is vague. it is a hybrid model. it requires thinking through grays and resists a simple black and white answer. this is typical of most all open source efforts in the digital realm, and everyone seems to find it a given in those realms. there are nearly always combinations of open and closed. the proportions vary between projects. the models for propagation vary. this comfort with hybrid models is much less developed in more traditional industrial realms. this messy combination of open and closed can be an ocassion for paranoia. or it can be an ocassion to consider the new tools and methods we can use today to propagate a solution that has resisted propagation for decades, despite millions of DOE money and university innovation. in general, we're attempting a do-acracy and collaborative commons of resources with the gek project. those who contribute with pronoia perspectives are rewarded for doing so with more resources and increased ability to win in their own endeavors. those who hoard in paranoia will likely continue to not have much of benefit return to them, but will somehow feel safer in the self-defeat. i've tried to write out some of this on our licensing page on the gek site. see here if you want the details: http://www.gekgasifier.com/wood-gasifier-plans/gek-licensing/ jim > Regards, Toby Seiler > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Mason Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com Current Projects: - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: www.escapefromberkeley.com - ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs - Shipyard Announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com _______________________________________________ Gasification mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org http://info.bioenergylists.org
