Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qe5l$n1r$2@dont-
email.me:

Well, unless your code contains a "new and innovative idea", it's not
patentable, anyway. You can copyright the code (it's automatically
copyrighted, anyway - but you have to register that copyright in the
U.S. to have any *real* protection), but not necessarily patent it.


I've considered copyright, and that's the only realistic legal and public
protection, I think.

As to innovative ideas, I have several things never seen in any commercial
'FM' (more accurately, phase modulation) synthesiser. One of which produces
much more natural sound, the 'grit' in a tonewheel organ simulation, the
flare in brass sounds, and many other applications, also a totally new way to
configure the instrument, many more routings between operators than Yamaha
allowed, and a few more besides! The trouble is NOT that theyare 'new'. It is
surely that others like me have likely done similar, and all been beaten into
oblivion.

The problem is not a lack or real innovation, it is that no-one can establish
it! I bet there are tens, if not hundreds of people out there with similar
advances, all equally thwarted, waiting in vain for a way out.

In message , Molly Mockford
writes
At 19:12:34 on Sun, 9 Nov 2014, gareth
wrote in :

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
And, of course, Wiltshire Police will get a copy of your post. Don't
think that just because I am abroad I cannot progress a complaint of
malicious communication against you.

That's fine because as it happens I had already approached Patrick Geenty,
the chief plod, for his assistance in forwarding my complaint to the Canary
Islands.

And you lot really think that you are promoting the case for a
moderated newsgroup?? Seems to me that you are in fact promoting the
case for radio ham euthanasia.

Sometimes it's hard to believe this is meant to be fun. I don't know
why some of you just can't lighten up.

B
--
Brian Howie

On 11/10/2014 8:31 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qe5l$n1r$2@dont-
email.me:

Well, unless your code contains a "new and innovative idea", it's not
patentable, anyway. You can copyright the code (it's automatically
copyrighted, anyway - but you have to register that copyright in the
U.S. to have any *real* protection), but not necessarily patent it.


I've considered copyright, and that's the only realistic legal and public
protection, I think.

As to innovative ideas, I have several things never seen in any commercial
'FM' (more accurately, phase modulation) synthesiser. One of which produces
much more natural sound, the 'grit' in a tonewheel organ simulation, the
flare in brass sounds, and many other applications, also a totally new way to
configure the instrument, many more routings between operators than Yamaha
allowed, and a few more besides! The trouble is NOT that theyare 'new'. It is
surely that others like me have likely done similar, and all been beaten into
oblivion.


If they have, it would not pass the "new and innovative" test.

The problem is not a lack or real innovation, it is that no-one can establish
it! I bet there are tens, if not hundreds of people out there with similar
advances, all equally thwarted, waiting in vain for a way out.


I would suspect so. And the cost of patenting something is a huge
detriment, unless you are either rich (and don't need the money) or can
convince someone that your idea is marketable (and get a penny per
thousand dollars for your idea).

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 11/10/2014 8:26 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qe13$n1r$1@dont-
email.me:

Basically, that's it. Even if you create something, if I file for a
patent first, I get the patent.

Yes, the U.S. patent system is totally screwed up, and has been for
years (some would even say decades).


What that means a hothouse. A rainforest. Each new form only able to survicve
in an exclusive location. A multiltude of privately held creations surviving
mainly because no-one else knows they are there. The law of the jungle. Earth
to Earth, dust to dust, even before death. No wonder the 'western world' is
tanked. It's stifling its own growth and probably deserves to die. China will
win, so long as it can continue to innovate. After all, it has done so for
thousands of years longer than the US, the UK, and pretty much anywhere. It's
communist historyu is a small abberation on that scale.

Maybe the only hope of doing anythign other than returning to a mediaeval
model here, is to live somewhere that has the power and disregard of
'Western' patents as China does, combined with the ability to defend itself.
I'll settle for e the mediaeval model, as UK life and morals and social
standards and political structure is headed back there anyway. Go with the
flow, says I.


No, just insure if you come up with a good idea that you have the means
to patent it first. A patent attorney friend told me a typical patent
search (required before filing) starts at around $20K U.S. - and can
easily reach six figures for a more complex search.

Of course, you can do it on your own. But even if you get the patent,
you could lose it (and all the money you spent) if your search were not
thorough.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote in
:

If they have, it would not pass the "new and innovative" test.


Wouldn't matter, if what you said about first patented, first served, is
true. The real point is that because innovation is so brutally stifled, by
patent, by established business, and many other 'concerns', we'll never
likely know, will we? When a gardener sows poppies, thewy count the poppies,
if they count anything, they do not count failed seeds. The majority ALWAYS
fail. All the current issue shows is that business and patent is as cruel as
a cat playing with a mouse.

The problem is not a lack or real innovation, it is that no-one can
establish it! I bet there are tens, if not hundreds of people out there
with similar advances, all equally thwarted, waiting in vain for a way
out.


I would suspect so. And the cost of patenting something is a huge
detriment, unless you are either rich (and don't need the money) or can
convince someone that your idea is marketable (and get a penny per
thousand dollars for your idea).


The deal would likely be better than that.but still far from encouraging. It
doesn't mater, I'm MUCH neared the end of my life than the beginning. The
idea will die with me. I can carry a cimputer around, perform a bit, enough
to show what I have done, but to extend the poppy analogy, why bother. It's
sowing the seeds ina desert, mostly. The few people whpo already know that
what I have is in any way convicning *there are a few, it has been known...)
are as hopelessly unable to establish it as I am. My best shot is probably to
get is shared via some artists collective, because those actualyl have a
habit of breaking culturao ground, even estebklishing business. But the cost
of that succcess will be total surrender. But even that is better than seeing
it get eaten alive by someone whose desire for golden eggs leads them only to
kill geese.

And when I'm dead, I won't care, so I'll probably figure out a way to explode
it into the public domain so widely that no-one whatever their power will be
able to force the genii back in the bottle. If the techncal methods fail even
then, they probably deserve to. No-one will know the outcome of that before I
die, because I won't release it until I have taken it as far as my life will
let me, before I release it. I think that is my final decision, I won;t live
long enough to make many more big dicisions.

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qi1d$bpp$1@dont-
email.me:

No, just insure if you come up with a good idea that you have the means
to patent it first. A patent attorney friend told me a typical patent
search (required before filing) starts at around $20K U.S. - and can
easily reach six figures for a more complex search.

Of course, you can do it on your own. But even if you get the patent,
you could lose it (and all the money you spent) if your search were not
thorough.



If you were Sysiphus, pushing boulders up a mountyain only to roll it down
and start again, would you also do if if the moment you showed your head out
of your shack, snipers would red mist you head? Hell no. Any soldire would
say there are some points where no matter what any other idiot says, you keep
your head down. I'm ok with that.

On 2014-11-10 14:44:34 +0000, Lostgallifreyan said:

Jerry Stuckle wrote in
:

If they have, it would not pass the "new and innovative" test.


Wouldn't matter, if what you said about first patented, first served, is
true. The real point is that because innovation is so brutally stifled, by
patent, by established business, and many other 'concerns', we'll never
likely know, will we? When a gardener sows poppies, thewy count the poppies,
if they count anything, they do not count failed seeds. The majority ALWAYS
fail. All the current issue shows is that business and patent is as cruel as
a cat playing with a mouse.

The problem is not a lack or real innovation, it is that no-one can
establish it! I bet there are tens, if not hundreds of people out there
with similar advances, all equally thwarted, waiting in vain for a way
out.


I would suspect so. And the cost of patenting something is a huge
detriment, unless you are either rich (and don't need the money) or can
convince someone that your idea is marketable (and get a penny per
thousand dollars for your idea).


The deal would likely be better than that.but still far from encouraging. It
doesn't mater, I'm MUCH neared the end of my life than the beginning. The
idea will die with me. I can carry a cimputer around, perform a bit, enough
to show what I have done, but to extend the poppy analogy, why bother. It's
sowing the seeds ina desert, mostly. The few people whpo already know that
what I have is in any way convicning *there are a few, it has been known...)
are as hopelessly unable to establish it as I am. My best shot is probably to
get is shared via some artists collective, because those actualyl have a
habit of breaking culturao ground, even estebklishing business. But the cost
of that succcess will be total surrender. But even that is better than seeing
it get eaten alive by someone whose desire for golden eggs leads them only to
kill geese.

And when I'm dead, I won't care, so I'll probably figure out a way to explode
it into the public domain so widely that no-one whatever their power will be
able to force the genii back in the bottle. If the techncal methods fail even
then, they probably deserve to. No-one will know the outcome of that before I
die, because I won't release it until I have taken it as far as my life will
let me, before I release it. I think that is my final decision, I won;t live
long enough to make many more big dicisions.

Have you considered releasing it as open source software under the GPL?
At least some people would have an interest in making sure any
commercial exploitation gave back its innovations to the community,
even if not wholly successfully.

--

Percy Picacity

Percy Picacity wrote in
:

Have you considered releasing it as open source software under the GPL?
At least some people would have an interest in making sure any
commercial exploitation gave back its innovations to the community,
even if not wholly successfully.


Yes. Likely under the MIT type license. Same sort that OpenBSD uses. When
I release it (I almost certainly will, before I die), I want it to be done in
a way than cannot be foced back into private hands, especially at my expense.
While I develop it, I want to keep control, so it is more complete than most
things that ever reach public domain this way, but this is about as good a
way as I have found, not least because there are people with actual money (a
luxury I do not have, finding it hard to raise an extra 200 quid for tools)
to help protect something;s tenure in public domain once someone has been
willing to hand over all their hard work to those same people. Also, it may
be one of the best ways to keep it alive after I can't do it anymore.

The only other two contenders I'm aware of, Hexter, and another one written
for Android machines, are both open source. The only reason I didn't go that
way already is that I want to make my own mark on things as best I can,
otherwise I would have very little to offer anyway.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3orvu$d93$1@dont-
email.me:

In the United States, it is called "First Inventor to File". You can
find more information at
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...t_inventor.jsp.


The main thing I need to know now is: can nothing but a full patent protect
my own work from being effectively satolen from the instant I put it in the
public domain, leaving me with absolutely no right to distribute or profit
from it in any way at all?

A patent alone protects nothing.

I takes:

A) A legally defendable patent.

B) A smart and well payed lawyer.

The patent mearly provides probative evidence for your lawyer's arguements
in court.


--
Jim Pennino

In article ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:

The main thing I need to know now is: can nothing but a full patent protect
my own work from being effectively satolen from the instant I put it in the
public domain, leaving me with absolutely no right to distribute or profit
from it in any way at all?

I think you're throwing a whole bunch of different terms and thoughts
into a stewpot here, and the flavors aren't mixing well.

Point #1: the term "public domain" has a broadly-accepted legal
meaning. It means "This idea belongs to the public as a whole. No
one has proprietary rights to it. Anyone can use it without asking
permission or paying anybody for the rights."

So, if you do in fact "put it in the public domain", you would be
doing so in a way which *explicitly* renounces any proprietary rights
to the invention, and deliberately gives up control over how it was
used.

It seems to be a good question as to whether an inventor can in fact
release something completely to the public domain... in some
jurisdictions there's a clear way to do this, I understand, while in
others there is not. Some poeple who do wish to do this, do it
explicitly by publishing a statement on the order of "I grant
everyone, everywhere, a perpetual free transferrable license to use
this invention for any purpose whatsoever."

This is clearly not what you want to do.

Now, even if you *did* release something to the public domain, that
doesn't prevent you from distributing it in other ways or making a
profit. You can still do that.

All it does, is prevent you from *stopping* other people from doing
so.

The latter is the *specific* purpose of the patent system. A patent
grants you a specific time-limited right to prevent other people from
using your invention, in return for your having adequately described
the invention in a clear way so that other people can learn from it.

If that IS so, then the patent system is violently in need of serious reform,

Ummm... that's what a patent *is*.

A patent is, in effect, a government's agreement, to put the
government's power behind your right-of-exclusivity, for a limited
period of time, in return for you being willing to describe your
invention (to help advance the state of the art).

but as far as I'm concerned it basically means one thing: I shall never
release my work. If the workd will not share it, it will die with me. End of
discussion.

That is entirely your right.

What you would have, then, is a "trade secret". It something that
know how to do, that you choose to keep secret. You can profit by the
sale of its results. You can maintain exclusivity, by not sharing the
secret (which doesn't mean that you can't tell specific people, but
you would have to have and enforce a proper non-disclosure
agreement).

With a trade secret, you have no protection against somebody
rediscovering the same idea independently, and then using it or
selling it or giving it away for free. Unless you can prove that they
actually took *your* idea (e.g. somebody who was under non-disclosure
with you broke their agreement and leaked the secret), you have no
rights in this case.

Basically, you have two choices - keep the secret to yourself (and
carry the whole burden of keeping it secret, and the whole risk that
somebody will invent the same thing independently), or agree to
disclose the secret under controlled conditions and (in return) gain
some degree of government-sanctioned protection against unauthorized
use.

Frankly, patents don't seem to be a good protection for the small
innovator. Not only are they expensive and troublesome to get, but
the cost of enforcing them still falls on your shoulders... big
companies may (and often do) ignore them, use the idea, and figure
that the cost of prosecuting a patent infringement is beyond the means
of a small inventor.