The government in US does not exist. it is a puppet of business, and this
is a concept that in Europe we had to learn to fight. But it is hard to
import.
US Government is a vehicle to make business run nicely.
In europe a big change is in process, but not event to the quite coherent
system of US.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> ...There is precedent for this. In 1917, the United States wanted to begin
> large-scale mass production of aircraft for World War I. The industry was
> hamstrung by patent fights especially by the original patent which had been
> bought by W
the need to merge the patent like it has been for plane seems reasonable.
the notion of taxing cold fusion is classic for IP or any business. Windows
is a tax on PC...
state or private is a polemic detail.
the CF inventors could merge their patents to accelerate the developpement
of applications
noone noone wrote:
I don't agree with the government using tax dollars to pay cold fusion
> inventors.
>
> In my opinion, the government needs to be forced (peacefully) to grant
> Rossi's patent.
>
As I said, having the government grant a patent is functionally equivalent
to using a tax surchar
e it worse.
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
Craig Haynie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:01 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Someone here
50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
Robert Leguillon wrote:
Due to the international nature of these patents, what do you predict today?
>
I know little about patents. My only prediction is that the people who deserve
a patent for the basic i
.
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
Craig Haynie wrote:
But you're not proposing a solution within a moral framework. You're
>advocating that peop
Craig Haynie wrote:
But you're not proposing a solution within a moral framework. You're
> advocating that people take money from those who may not want to give
> it . . .
In that case it should come from a temporary tax on the sale of cold fusion
devices. A royalty, in other words.
Taxation
Terry Blanton wrote:
> Where is Stanley Pons?
>
He is living quietly in France. I have not heard from him in years.
- Jed
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Fleischmann is not working on anything. He is old and suffering from a fatal
> disease. He got nothing for his efforts in cold fusion. Neither did any of
> the other pioneers. They are mostly old or dead. All they got was 22 years
> of grief
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:34 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Craig Haynie wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:01 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Someone here suggested that the best solution to this
> problem would be
> > for governments to throw a large pile
Robert Leguillon wrote:
Due to the international nature of these patents, what do you predict today?
>
I know little about patents. My only prediction is that the people who
deserve a patent for the basic invention of cold fusion will not get one.
Cold fusion is essentially in the public domain.
Craig Haynie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:01 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Someone here suggested that the best solution to this problem would be
> > for governments to throw a large pile of money that everyone involved
> > in the initial development of cold fusion. I think that would proba
Due to the international nature of these patents, what do you predict today?
Would LENR be coopted by the IAEA or UN? Would there be a declaration of energy
as a "human right", and thus richer countries subsidizing the energy needs of
poorer nations? Or would $ for new energy sources be pried fr
Here are some notes on the outcome. I though Uncle Sam purchased the
patents, as originally planned. Not so, according to: "The American
aviation experience: a history" By Tim Brady
There was a tangle of 130 patents, all essential to aviation.
On July 24, 1917 Congress appropriated $640 million f
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:01 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Someone here suggested that the best solution to this problem would be
> for governments to throw a large pile of money that everyone involved
> in the initial development of cold fusion. I think that would probably
> be a good idea. I hope
I think it is likely that the intellectual property rights for cold fusion
will soon result in a gigantic legal brawl with countless lawsuits. I
suppose that powerful interests may line up behind Piantelli to sue Rossi,
and vice versa, with everyone suing Defkalion. A lawsuit frenzy should not
hold
17 matches
Mail list logo
