View Single Post
 
Old 02-04-2010, 10:22 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
Fuzzy deserves a great deal of credit for all he has done. He has helped this genre immensely.
I do not argue this. I only question why it is considered entirely Glen's work. I suspect that I was too liberal in my tributes as none were returned. I see now that this was intentional. It seems to show a certain want of generosity to put it mildly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
Open Source means ANYONE, and i mean anyone, can commercialize it. But considering that this will also raise public awareness off it, and inspire others to further study it, i cannot see a "down side" to this.
Who's arguing here Jibbs? It will, no doubt be further replicated and developed. That's not the issue. The question is this. Who gets to own that technology for the 10 years of a patent's life? I'd like to propose an inevitable outcome here if this is seen as a 'discovery' as Glen and Harvey claim. New replications will be funded by rich energy cartels through universities. They'll find yet more variations. Then those variations will be the intellectual property of those rich cartels. And those patents? More than justified. And why? because the very first replicator - himself - denied the underlying thesis. Because one of the authors to a joint paper secretely entertained that the experiment was never a replication. And both parties - until some days ago now, were debating this behind closed doors.

If they advance this as a discovery they ensure that these opportunities are left wide open for grabs. Open Source is about to let go the only claim they will ever be able to make that this 'discovery' belongs to the world and not to interested parties. This in defiance of the evidence. If you are a proponent of energy remaing 'free' then you are possibly doing this movement serious and irrevocable damage.
__________________