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.

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

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

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.

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.