[Keelynet] patents vs proprietary technology
Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 @ 17:05:49 GMT
Topic: Testimonials


In the KeelyNet discussion list Jerry Decker writes: Hola Folks!

I've been thinking a lot about Tilleys approach to selling his invention, if its a real deal of course...don't know, everything seems to say no its not for real.

This is my opinion based primarily on Tilley's steadfast refusal to have it tested by one or more independent parties, even in a 'black box' form, where no one would be allowed to open it or inspect the internal workings.

Consider this...

1) you have made a discovery that met your tests and shows overunity in measurement and practical application

2) you don't want to deal with the patent office for fear of theft or copying besides the time and costs of actually securing a patent, especially complicated if its internationally applied for

3) you decide to simply develop the technology secretly, setup working demos and let potential buyers check out the device (as a black box wih power in vs power out) in order to prove it to THEIR satisfaction and sell the technology to the highest bidder

4) you don't CARE what anyone else thinks feeling you have made claims that you don't need to prove to anyone unless they want to buy the device

5) you don't need to share the technology or provide sufficient information that anyone can duplicate it, why? Because its being SOLD for commercial applications

I can't fault this approach except for ONE POINT. And that is the failure to have it independently tested as a black box, clearly showing the power in vs power out is yielding clear overunity and yet protecting the interior secret of the box.

Why should an inventor out to sell his invention prove it to anyone solely in the form of releasing sufficient details that others could prove the basic claim?

Apparently Tilley will allow people to come test the device to prove it for themselves but draws the line at allowing anyone sufficient information to copy it.

Nothing wrong with that. Except for one part that bothers me..it is in his lab, attached to his system.

In my view, I would think he would be open to the heart of the device being hooked into someone elses identical setup of batteries and charge controllers, then tested to determine its operational characteristics.

Over the years, I have spoken with many inventors, some absolutely confident that the US Patent system is the ONLY way to go, yet to the best of my knowledge (and the frustration of the inventor), none of these inventions ever came to market or were copied with or without modifications and placed on the market.

Then there are people like Don Lancaster who makes a good case for not patenting an invention (brief quote from the page, several pdf documents on the page flesh it out);

http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp

For most individuals and small scale startups, patents are virtually certain to result in a net loss of time, energy, money, and sanity.

One reason for this is the outrageously wrong urban lore involving patents and patenting. A second involves the outright scams which inevitably surround "inventions" and "inventing".

A third is that the economic breakeven needed to recover patent costs is something between $12,000,000.00 and $40,000,000 in gross sales.

It is ludicrously absurd to try and patent a million dollar idea.

This library explores many tested and fully proven real-world alternates to patents and patenting.
-------------------

So in some ways, I think Tilley has a novel and logical way of dealing with invention and the selling thereof to the highest bidder.

Its been many years now with Tilley and still nothing on the market, from his group or anyone else claiming Tilleys technology.

But I do admire the approach and the additional protection from suppression by a buyer, that the technology MUST BE ON THE MARKET within a fixed time from the sale (2-5 years).

If the buyer fails to put the technology on the market within that time, the technology REVERTS back to the seller to do with as they please, AND the seller keeps any monies paid.

This prevents the buyer from locking up a free energy, gravity control or other world changing technology for fear of losing the technology and their investment.

I guess it depends on whether you want peer recognition or not.

Having investors I think would change the picture dramatically, though as an investor, I would wonder why it took so long to get this thing sold and marketed.

At any rate, whether Tilley's claim ever comes to market or not, I think one of his lasting contributions, at least in my view, are the dual ideas of;

1) keeping the technology secret until sold

2) and including a rider for world changing technology that would REQUIRE the buyer to get it to market within a reasonable time else risk losing the technology and the money spent.

Something else that comes to mind, from the viewpoint of a buyer.

Since it is up to the buyer to verify the technology, make the bid and be happy with the purchase and exploitation of the technology.

How does the buyer know the technology hasn't been stolen or based on prior art discoveries or patents?

Meaning, the buyer tries to patent it and finds its already been invented

OR

someone contests the claim of invention by the seller saying it was stolen from them and they have proof to show it.

So methinks the buyer would have to excercise 'due diligence', perhaps in a kind of technical posting of the banns as at;

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paday/dobbers/definitions.htm


Before the NC Constitution of 1868, NC used marriage bonds rather than licenses. The bond was paid by the groom to ensure his good faith intention to marry the bride, and the fact that it was legal for them to marry. It was to prevent a young woman (or an old one, for that matter!) from being "seduced and abandoned."

There should always have been a bondsman, because that was part of the "insurance" that all was on the up and up--if a man reneged on the wedding without good reason and the mutual consent of the bride, then not only he, but also the bondsman lost the money posted. If no bondsman showed on the bond, then it was probably technically not a legal bond. The bond was posted a short time before the wedding in the bride's county of residence.

A groom did not have to post a bond. The alternative was to have the upcoming wedding announced in the bride's church for 3 consecutive Sundays before the wedding. (This was "posting the banns"). The advantage to posting the banns was that it was free. Of course, you couldn't do it if the bride didn't have a church, or if you wanted to get married quicker than that.

Also, a bond didn't mean that a wedding took place. A groom might post a bond, then for some perfectly legitimate reason, the wedding might be called off--maybe a death in one of the families, illness of rhe bride or groom, etc. The bond was not binding on the bride, either, so if SHE called off the wedding, there was no penalty.
-------------------------

So I think a proper contract would include a clause stating failure to be able to prove invention or ownership by the seller would kill the deal.

This might imply an escrow account, stipulating the conditions of the contract be fulfilled before funds are released to the seller.

If the buyer found prior art or absolute proof that the invention did not derive from the inventor, having been stolen or copied from other sources, the deal was off, any money in escrow or otherwise paid to the seller must be returned to the buyer.

In a way, that suggests the inventor spring for a patent which requires 'vetting' prior to issuance. This is usually sufficient for a buyers confidence that the inventor is telling the truth.

Ah, permutations and complications...its never simple...

--
Jerry Decker - http://www.keelynet.com

Donations to support KeelyNet: http://www.keelynet.com/donate1.htm

Public Archive http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet

Order out of Chaos - From an Art to a Science
=============

Carl Tilley wrote:

Jerry,

I seldom respond to such discussion. However it must be pointed out that many outside concerns have tested this device at both on site and off site locations.

It takes a long time to proceed through contracts and different proposals of the offers we have received. It is a matter of funding for many company concerns .... they all desire the invention and simply would rather you give it to them to produce with no money up front or they offer what the board of directors consider a low price.

This is the feeling of the majority vote by the shareholders as well. We have many test results from several high powered company concerns and these are available to "Qualified" buyers to review as well as ANY test they wish to perform at ANY location.

Be this as it is the sale of the technology belongs to the board of directors to decide along with the shareholders. I am just one person in many that is involved in the process.

Will it be on the market or sold soon? Company business is simply just that COMPANY BUSINESS and not subject to the desires of those not involved.

I would consider that with the many delays involved, with two separate people that have admitted they lied, that we are still alive and proceeding every day on active discussion with outside concerns.

Remember we had everything seized and we had to start over again with new prototypes....not may people could put up with this and continue forward.

Respectfully,

Carl Tilley
=================

Hola Carl et al!

I have been rethinking the whole thing and I think I now understand where you are coming from and WHY.

If the technology was patented and you were protected, it would be possible for others to try to duplicate it from the patent and much easier to get the peer recognition (for what its worth) of many who now doubt.

Unfortunately, that includes me though on a scale of 1-100, I am now at about 75% thinking you DO have something....still a fence sitter since no one has been able to duplicate your posted tests using any known technology, therefore its not PROVEN in a public arena that your claims work or don't.

But in thinking about it these last few days and the conditions of being proprietary and not patented, it stands to reason that an inventor WITH INVESTORS would take all the steps necessary to prevent theft of the technology until a sale had been completed.

The question of proof of invention is always subject to contest as in your case with Webb claiming fraud and Kibbey claiming you absconded with his technology? As I recall, you took them to court and they admitted lying.

Saw this post;

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-perpetual-motion-machines


"In 2001, Carl Tilley and Robert Kibbey in Tennessee have claimed an over unity device. Their demonstration failed in 9 February and as of 11 February, they have been evading proper demonstrations."
----------------------

'Proper Demonstrations'....an interesting term...and something I would most certainly have done with a couple of independent testing labs to verify the claims and stamp their certification, thus stopping all the suspicions of fraud, error or delusion.

That takes care of 90% of the questions...the other being proof of invention as original, not copied or stolen.

This part of it concerns me for a future project I have in mind which does have SOME relation to a project by another but is new and novel.

If it works out and I don't plan to patent, but use the proprietary technology approach you use, I don't want the potential buyers to be spooked thinking it might have been ripped off or copied from a patent, it is not, OR have people claiming it is stolen from them.

Perhaps the provision of notarized, dated plans and changes along the way as proof of first discovery. Yes, I think that would work as it has for several technologies that sprang from basic lab notes never pursued, though sending details as registered mail to several associates and dated at the time of discovery. The result was years down the road, when the technology was ubiquitous, the inventor spent hundreds of thousands to gain hundreds of millions as the original inventor.

An offshoot of this....how can a company protect themselves from someone just sending notes to themselves and a tight circle of friends/associates?

A prior art search of patents of course won't reveal it so it opens up all kinds of mischief for people to go after patent holders based on their closely held invention for years waiting for it to be in wide use. But that is another thread entirely.

That is what started all this, thinking along those lines with the possibility of what would I do to protect my 'new' technology from other claimants and convince people it was real.

The buyers of course would test it to their satisfaction before making any kind of offer and I guess it is a matter of who cares what the public thinks if all some of them want is enough info to copy the invention for themselves.

This line of thinking runs almost parallel to the methods you have chosen to use, although I have no hesitation in having my claim as a black box, inviolate and unopened, to be measured for input vs output and prove the claim with their stamp of approval, be it a university or commercial testing lab such as UL (Underwriters Laboratory).

Thanks for responding...I didn't expect it but when it comes down to brass tacks, one has a discovery, has attracted investors, does not chose to patent, then these questions and problems arise and must be dealt with.

The ultimate proof and success of any invention or claim, to my view, is its availability for purchase and use by anyone in the world.

I hope your efforts do result in one or more marketed products that use your discovery. And I've upped my estimation of the probability that you are protecting the discovery until it can be sold, based on reviewing how I would handle my own discovery if choosing not to patent.

Good luck and maybe I will beat you to market......nos vemos (seeya!)

--
Jerry Decker - http://www.keelynet.com





This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1313