It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Bedlam
I would have figured even 20 years ago we would have had something more advanced than the Space Shuttle.
I mean, spaceships are just submarines in space after all
originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam
Sorta don't know what a heat monkey is. IS that like the shimmering mirage effect underneath the UFO's. Where they sorta look slightly warped?
As a proud holder of a gagged patent or three, you're not going to be seeing this as the generic joe schmo inventor at the house. If you'd like, I can go into detail but if you google ats for gagged patent bedlam you'll find where I spoke about it in years gone by. Generally, the quickest way to buy a patent gag is to design a component for a nuclear weapon or a process that produces nuclear material, because ALL of those end up gagged under "born secret". The next quickest is to patent a use for a material, process or device that's currently classified. And you see the bulk of the other gagged patents fall under that category. Only about 500 filings a year are gagged for single inventor/small business. And while the stats aren't available for 'why', I'd suspect it's like me, they worked for the sorts of places that tend to give you ideas gagged under those two categories.
That's a lobby war thing. Unfortunately, Ford, Chevrolet, Nissan et al have more bribe money than Mr Musk. But no one's "suppressing his invention", they're making him play the game the way they do, and he doesn't want to. He's free to make all the electric cars he wants as long as he has dealerships.
And if you peel away the movie parts, I think you're going to find that Tucker was a bit of a fraud.
Looks like he od'd to me.
Which sort of creative use? Back to gags, or are you unhappy that you have to demonstrate a working model if it's "over unity"?
It helps if what you're trying to patent works. So many that whine about this are blatantly trying to patent over-unity/perpetual motion machines and can't pony up a demo. However, a lot of them weasel word their patents enough to get a patent issued, but it's still total bs, patent or no. Which is why you don't see them build examples. Hell, if they could get it to work in the first place, they wouldn't have to obfuscate it.
To what extent is it possible to see tell-tale signs of suppression? Some of the fingerprints may include: refusals to license, creation of patent pools and patent "thickets," takeovers of competitors, and the filing of baseless suits for patent infringement. These are not necessarily predictors of suppression, but they often coexist along with nonused patents. Inventions may be suppressed as a result of sound business judgment' or for anticompetitive reasons-to gain a monopoly, fix prices, or otherwise restrain trade. In this paper, we are concerned with patented technologies that have been suppressed by the owner or licensee in order to stifle competition.
We focus specifically on the intentional nonuse and nondiffusion of patented technologies. All nonuse is intentional, but when it is combined with a refusal to license for anticompetitive reasons, the result is suppression. How does this occur? Suppression may result from a "fencing" patent on an improvement to the product of a competitor and held in nonuse to restrict him to an inferior technology or to more effectively compete when the basic patent expires. Suppression may also result from obtaining patents on close substitutes, which achieve the same result as an existing innovation, thereby "blocking" competitors from development. Exclusive license agreements may also lead to suppression.
The study of technology suppression is particularly challenging because management science and strategic R&D literature do not readily acknowledge its existence. Moreover, the courts have been unwilling to view patent suppression as unlawful. Two additional factors complicate the understanding and resolution of technology suppression: (1)a characterization of patents as a form of private property rather than a publicly-granted privilege, and (2)a conceptual incompatibility between the purposes behind intellectual property and antitrust law.
originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Bedlam
If the lone inventor became the target of this law we'd know about it because...well we'd likely never hear about it. If said inventor already had "too much publicity", well then, who knows what measures might be undertaken?
Looks like with Tesla, the "game" is structured to benefit the big boys and squeeze out new entrants to the marketplace. Captive public policy, anyone?
Here's one paper on it:
To what extent is it possible to see tell-tale signs of suppression? Some of the fingerprints may include: refusals to license, creation of patent pools and patent "thickets," takeovers of competitors, and the filing of baseless suits for patent infringement. These are not necessarily predictors of suppression, but they often coexist along with nonused patents. Inventions may be suppressed as a result of sound business judgment' or for anticompetitive reasons-to gain a monopoly, fix prices, or otherwise restrain trade. In this paper, we are concerned with patented technologies that have been suppressed by the owner or licensee in order to stifle competition.
ETA: Please link your thread in a reply so that it can be accessed from this thread if you are able, I'd like to give it a look and I'll bet other readers would as well.