Breakaways and the Military Industrial Complex-Oh My! Eisenhower's Farewell Address-1961

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Be prepared for the day when we are all in the military from the day we are born till the day we die, and even in death we may just keep on serving the military.

Don't see it happening, frankly.

originally posted by: framedragged
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Wait, is that a final fantasy sword?



This is a future I want no part of.

Shhh keep this secret because we wont really have a choice when the time most likely comes, we will be willing servants as we will be programed to be the perfect fighting machines. . . .

And yes thats a final fantasy sword.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Be prepared for the day when we are all in the military from the day we are born till the day we die, and even in death we may just keep on serving the military.

Don't see it happening, frankly.

Its called continuity of government. . . .

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

They don't need implants...they can use use active and passive scanning systems to know what you're thinking, and beam ideas and instructions to you!!

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Its called continuity of government. . . .

No, that's something else entirely.

And I just LOVE youtube videos where they use some jackass synth voice. Really adds to the realism.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



They don't need implants...they can use use active and passive scanning systems to know what you're thinking, and beam ideas and instructions to you!!

Hehehe now your talking!

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Its called continuity of government. . . .

No, that's something else entirely.
And I just LOVE youtube videos where they use some jackass synth voice. Really adds to the realism.

Ok sure nothing to see here. . . . . .

Dont be dissapointed when you dont get what you expect meaning you expect things to remain and to stay the same forever, all things are in a state of constant change. Dont expect more freedoms, that way you wont be dissapointed when you dont get them in fact less freedoms may be where we are headed due to circumstance, wether man made or otherwise.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Dont be dissapointed when you dont get what you expect meaning you expect things to remain and to stay the same forever, all things are in a state of constant change. Dont expect more freedoms, that way you wont be dissapointed when you dont get them in fact less freedoms may be where we are headed due to circumstance, wether man made or otherwise.

Maybe you could try leaving youtube alone for a second and look up what "continuity of government" actually means. And try skipping the nuttier sites. There's a real thing called that.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Dont be dissapointed when you dont get what you expect meaning you expect things to remain and to stay the same forever, all things are in a state of constant change. Dont expect more freedoms, that way you wont be dissapointed when you dont get them in fact less freedoms may be where we are headed due to circumstance, wether man made or otherwise.

Maybe you could try leaving youtube alone for a second and look up what "continuity of government" actually means. And try skipping the nuttier sites. There's a real thing called that.

Oh and now you dont like youtube because they are talking about military FEMA camps for the continuity of government, those are our elected officals discussing continuity of government, and posted on youtube.

Maybe you should listen to what they are saying, rather than plugging your proverbial ears to all information that points to something you dont want to see thats been planned should the need ever arise, wether man nade or otherwise.

Do you have anything that contradicts militarized FEMA's comming to a town near everyone should the need arise?
If you do please share it otherwise perhaps you need to educate yourself as to what a militarized FEMA really is, and what they can really do should the need arise.

Education is the key here folks education. . . .

a reply to: Bedlam

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?

Seems a bit hard to prove. 500 lone inventors (or small businesses) "become the target of this law" annually, unless that's changed the last few years. Why have a law if you're just going to assassinate hundreds of people a year for some vague notion that they're now "too dangerous"?

There are lots of other ways to find out what inventors are up to. That's one reason we have the SBIR program.

Do you see what you just did there? You've taken my comments out of context. What I actually said was:

I mostly cited this law to point out the framework that would be in place to empower any "homework eating MIB's". 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? Probably nothing too drastic, usually, as there seem to be plenty of control mechanisms built in to the system that could be activated. Whether Ogle or Tucker were threats to someone or not, SEC intervention did keep them from reaching the marketplace.

Taking my comment in its proper context, your reply doesn't make much sense, as I addressed the concern voiced in your reply in my original comment. Since you've taken us there, however, let's just go there anyway. Would governments(or a scientific-technological elite, perhaps) kill to keep some secrets? Yes! Other members have said as much, but I didn't need to hear it from them to believe it. I'm fairly certain history will back me up on this one, so I'll just leave that argument at that.

Or a good idea...I really don't know if I'd want a car with no dealerships in my state.

You would think that the consumer could decide that for themselves. Personally, I would be more concerned about facilities that could maintain and repair my vehicle than a dealership.

Have you read this paper you linked? The quote above - they're whinging about a patent holder who doesn't license their patent. Well, it's up to the inventor, eh? Takeovers of competitors - happens all the time. You get companies who buy others just for their patent portfolio. That's the way patents work. The patent holder assigns the rights to the patent to another party. As they say, they're whinging about patented tech that has been "suppressed" by the inventor. Well, it's the inventor's to do with as they please, no?

It's not talking about some evil doer blocking the patent, they're carping about someone patenting something and squatting on it. To which I'd reply - it's theirs to do with as they please, they're the inventor.

I read enough of the paper to know what I was looking at, did you read past the second sentence of the quote from it that I posted? Because if you had, I'm surprised that you didn't notice the other creative uses of patents that were listed. Certainly "non-use" of a patent as suppression is an interesting notion to consider, but it was only one of the several issues pertaining to technology suppression that was listed in those three paragraphs that I quoted. The paper goes into quite a bit more depth, I just thought that was one of the juciest quotes.

More to the meal of your last argument here, though, patent non-use...

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.

The last sentence of the quote from the paper that I posted earlier.

I tend to agree with your arguments here, and I know the courts would as well, yet I am conflicted. Should inventors be required to license their products? No. Should DIYers who build their own be prosecuted for patent law violation? No, but as I understand the law, they could be prosecuted. Sure, Exxon can buy all the engine patents they want to and sit on em, and its all nice and legal-like, but is it right? Exxon doesn't even make engines, do they? I can understand the appreciation for intellectual property. My ideas are mine, and I do feel as though I have a right to them. Does exercising this right to exclusivity begin to inhibit the rights of other individuals at some point? I suppose it depends on whether the expiration process is still intact or not...

Do you know if the expiration process is still intact, or is there some kind of a sneaky workaround for that? Most patents expire after twenty years, to my knowledge. I'd imagine defense stuff could get renewed perpetually, but what about others?

And, yes, the gag patent griping thread, please.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Begging your pardon, sir: Do you have anything to contribute to the ongoing discussion about "Breakaways, the Military Industrial Complex, and Eisenhower's Farewell Speech", perchance? Something other than a youtube video, perhaps? I'd like to hear your thoughts and/or opinions. What do you think of the questions I asked in the OP?

a reply to: TonyS

Thanks TonyS, appreciate the input. I'd tend to agree. If you happen across that report I'd sure like to see it linked in this thread.

Shadow government. The man/men behind the curtain...the globalist/NWO types certainly seem to fit the billing for a "scientific-technological elite", in that they would have much to gain by withholding technology, and much to lose by its revelation. Who else? What other factions should we be considering in this equation?

From a historic standpoint Eisenhower's speach might be considered to be a warning about Kennedy and his "idealism" in the face of the threats emerging from murky waters Eisenhower himself had been involved in.

Eisenhower was no angel and he got his hands dirty on various things that he suspected might come back to haunt America at a later date.

Eisenhower ( who was a a former Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces and a Republican) saw Kennedy ( Lieutenant Junior Grade and a Democratic) as a "lesser" and it could be said that this was political posturing as much as a benevolent warning to the electorate.

Bearing in mind Eisenhowers reputation as a strategist and the fact he signed off on the Bay of Pigs his warnings might just have been part of his plan to undermine the Democrats....which might have been the case if anyone was alive to vote after ww3.

a reply to: Bedlam

I should add to my last arguments to you to remind us all that being issued a patent for a product is not the same as arriving at the marketplace with a finished product. In the case of Ogle his problems began after he had been issued a patent, and Ogle did not survive to see his finished product arrive at the marketplace, nor did it ever arrive there...

a reply to: Jukiodone

Valid point, Jukiodone. The "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money", as Ike so eloquently put it, "is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded." But he lists the "danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite" as "equal and opposite" to the prospect of scholar domination thing. I would agree with you that most of his statements in that segment are to the political climate of the time. Perhaps his last statement there could be interpreted politically as an attempt to appear balanced to the public. "You better watch out for guys like him, but you better watch out for guys like me, too." These ideas were certainly on the public's mind, at the time.

I guess I can't help but see a deeper meaning, though. It may well have had intended double meanings at the time, for that matter. The entire speech seems as valid and pertinent today to me as it might have been to some back then. They say he spent a couple years writing it...I suspect he knew his words would be echoing down through the years when he wrote them.

originally posted by: engineercutout

I read enough of the paper to know what I was looking at, did you read past the second sentence of the quote from it that I posted? Because if you had, I'm surprised that you didn't notice the other creative uses of patents that were listed.

Yes, I did, and their summary pretty much covered what they were on about. Their viewpoint is, basically, if you come up with something new you MUST share it, with whomever, at a cut-rate price. Otherwise it's "suppression". Sort of "open source creation" or something. But that's not the way it works. If I come up with something, and want to keep it for my patent duration, it's mine to keep, or license selectively, or charge outrageous patent fees for.

Certainly "non-use" of a patent as suppression is an interesting notion to consider, but it was only one of the several issues pertaining to technology suppression that was listed in those three paragraphs that I quoted.

The other points they were making were in the same theme. Consider: by their lights, if you as a lone inventor, came up with the fabled 200MPG fuel injector, you MUST license it to the car manufacturers for diddly. None of this keeping for your own product. Too bad you wanted to come up with some funding and maybe sell the thing as a complete unit to them, make a lot more income from it. Nope, you can't be the 200MPG Edelbrock, you've got to take your few thousand and go home, because you aren't going to be able to compete with Delco once you are forced to give your ideas away to whomever.

More to the meal of your last argument here, though, patent non-use...
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.

As I said. These chowderheads who wrote the paper see creation of something new as a sort of socialism of mind. You created it, so you owe the world to give it away, none of your profiteering, non-use or keeping it for your own use! If you don't give it to us for a pittance, and to your competition to make product with your new idea, it's NOT SHARING!

Yeah. That ought to get people lining up in the streets to come up with new ideas.

Do you know if the expiration process is still intact, or is there some kind of a sneaky workaround for that? Most patents expire after twenty years, to my knowledge. I'd imagine defense stuff could get renewed perpetually, but what about others?

Drug patents and probably medical equipment has their own set of rules in order to get the pharma company past the long drawn out trial periods before their patent coverage begins. It's oddball and I've never done a drug patent, so I can't speak to it. Defense patents that are not gagged lapse like any other. There's a way to extend a patent indefinitely by command of the president but it takes an EO or a finding or something, and only the President can do it. Any gagged patent may remain gagged in perpetuity. You can't get license fees after the normal term but you still have an NDA.

And, yes, the gag patent griping thread, please.

The bits and pieces are sort of all over...

Goes on for a bit
Only a few posts
A single post
Yet another short thread
A few posts from the olden days

There are other short bursts for the last few years but I think they're sort of redundant.

a reply to: engineercutout

What other factions should we be considering in this equation?

I read this question and was somewhat puzzled. Did you mean "factions" or did you mean "factors"

Either way...I see several trending items which, if they begin to materialize at the same time, could spell some real trouble for the youth of this country going forward. One is the refreshed and intellectual analysis for the need to reinstate the draft. (See Atlantic Monthly). Then consider: www.youtube.com...
As this explains, soon the sum total of government employees and their spouses will represent 32% of eligible voters. That means that the government agencies will be near self supporting; elections will be pro forma affairs that are more confirmation process than actual decision making events, much like is the case in the one party jurisdictions that are the large cities in the US.

Consider also that the US and its allies, primarily the Saudi Arabians, have created the enemy for perpetual war fare in ISIS. Now...put these together and I think we'll see the military draft reinstated but the authorizing legislation will EXEMPT the offspring of Government Employees! So then we have a permanent "Government Class" that supports the MIC and their black box/black budget operations and we have the "Shadow Government" of elites that directs the activities of the MIC through the "Political" branches of government that are selected by...the "Government Class".

I think you then have what I would call the perfect "Round Robin Cluster F&#&K" of doom necessary to engage in an endless war to which Drafted cannon fodder can be constantly fed!

As to other "factions" to be dealt with? Well, after 2016 and the health care reform is reformed, for all practical purposes, the medical profession will have become co-opted and sucked up into the Government as just another one of it's Agencies. Doctors, etc., will essentially be Government Employees, with a difference...they'll have power of life and death over the hapless prols that either work for a living or sit in Section 8 housing collecting welfare. They'll also decide who is mentally healthy enough to own a firearm, drive a car, reproduce, etc. and they'll get to decide who is and who isn't 4F qualified to serve in the drafted military!

This thing would make a great novel.

a reply to: Bedlam

You are deflecting my argument, sir!

Your characterization of the paper's non-use of patents as socialism of mind is innaccurate. While that point of view is discussed in the paper, it is only a small aspect of the overall issue of patent non-use and how it relates to the issue of technology suppression. It's really not "all" that they are "on about".

I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree. You seem to think that the only possible creative use of the patent laws would be non-use, which is really a nothing issue just business as usual. I shall continue to believe that there are multiple creative uses of the patent laws and that they are not just wacky nothing issues. Business as usual, we'd both agree, but not wacky non-use nothing issues.

Many of those "other than non-use" tactics are listed in the mere three paragraphs I quoted a page back, for any interested readers, and while the paper admittedly focuses on patent non-use, it is only one of the many creative uses of the patent laws that come into play in instances of technology suppression as it pertains to patent law. The tactics listed aren't the only ones, either.

Thank you for the links, by the way

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I know I know, it's like, our dog and pony show has like one old dog that barks and spins around in a circle, those are his tricks, and one pony that won't even let your kids ride it. Where's the backflippin' dog? How about a team of ponies? Hmmm? At least one I can let my kids ride? Uncle Sammie?

a reply to: Jukiodone

Upon further reflection I suppose we are both exactly right. It was political posturing and speaking to the political climate of the time, and hence that deeper meaning was defenitely intended. They really were contemplating these sorts of ideas at that time, as we are here today. The need for secrecy. National Security issues. Compartmentalization of ideas and projects. Kennedy's President And The Press speech that I quoted earlier with the "secrecy is repugnant" quote, puts forth some of these issues, and it was given only a couple of months after Ike's farewell address. The cold war was pretty ramped up right about then...