Debate: a method to insure a fair distribution of the money LENR will generate

There is currently exchanges in the LENR community about "a method to insure a fair distribution of the money LENR will generate".

The Rossi-IH affair raised this long-time problem.
Some says that without such a method, LENR cannot advances.

I cannot cite all, but Michel Vandenberghe allowed me to cite his position

Quote

To protect a discovery, what does that mean? This is about getting a fair share of value and recognition. Beyond that, this is another question.

My view is as follow. How value is created depends on the business model. How to get a fair share of the value ? If you can get a fair share of the value without IP, why do you need IP?
That does not mean your discovery is Open or Public. That means value does not come from IP. What is required is to make sure that rights, true whether they are based on IP or not, grant you a fair share of value. Whether IP grants a unique position does not depend on IP but on the fact that what is protected is unique. Rossi has done a great work but at the end, it is only configuration which works. I do understand well that doing that is unique but any First of a kind is always unique whatever it is.

Why a business model not based on IP. We need scientists and engineers to cooperate to tackle the huge challenge of LENR. Too many actors need to find mutual self-interests to make LENR real. Considering that Energy is a key factor for at least 50% of the WW GDP, the critical factor which can makes the difference between a global disaster for all in the 15 coming years and a growing and sustainable economy.

Then for me, let's go back on planet Earth!

On our side, we are working on a "platform" to address this objective. This is also closely relates to how to fund LENR R&D. Our current design platform includes how to integrate what is based on IPR and, work is in progress to integrate what is based on Open work. But again, the process to make value is NOT based on IPR or Open stuff. This is one side of the LENR problem.

The other side is about create the first working LENR configuration, your own challenge, in order to get all scientists to explore the physics of LENR and be used by engineers in order to build all derivatives models suited to various applications, creating new challenges for scientists.

If Rossi has a unique, it is very easy. He starts an auction on Ebay. he will get more than 100M for this unique and any work he can produce before massive investment which will make its unique work as unique as the plane of the wright brothers...

Display More

This is an important problem, as I consider that many problems with LENR were caused by desire to protect the Intellectual Property of inventors, leading to lack of sharing.

Interesting debate... An essential one.

To fuel the debate, I will cite the article of a patent expert who have another opinion, more positive, on patents:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com…he-myths/article29663542/

Quote

...
Our patent system enables several different companies to develop, share and exploit derivative innovation that is dependent on the opportunities generated by one or more primary patent licences. In short, far from discouraging innovation, patents promote innovation.

What about the benefit to society generally? Society benefits from continuing R&D, regardless of who benefits financially from its exploitation. A weakened patent system might force innovators to seek limited trade-secret protection for know-how rather than be required to publish complete how-to information in the patent disclosure. It’s almost a certainty that licensing and cross-licensing activity will generate far more R&D by more companies that will be willing to invest not only in exploitation of the patented invention but also in making improvements in the technology, than would be the case under a weakened patent system. And society has the “insurance” that patents expire after their fixed term, after which everyone is free to make use of the patented subject matter.

So who loses? Unlicensed competitors of the patentee may sometimes lose. But if the patented invention is of importance, those competitors, in order to remain competitive, may be compelled to invest more heavily in R&D than they normally would. And their R&D may generate more derivative or substitute improvements than are forthcoming from the patentee and its licensees. So again, society wins.

...

Display More