[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/10/01/are-we-repeating-history-justin-mccarthy/']The following post has been submitted by Justin McCarthy A lone inventor announced that he had an invention that would change the world forever. It involved heating up metal to extreme temperatures with some special gasses. It involved unknown reactions which the inventor couldn’t fully explain how it worked. When the invention turned on, a […][/feedquote]
Steel and LENR — Are We Repeating History? (Justin McCarthy)
-
This is fascinating. A comparison can indeed be made between Rossi and Bessember, but ... read the Wikipedia article on Bessemer process. Bessemer was not paranoid. He made business deals that considered the needs of his partners. And when evidence appeared of a competing patent, how he handled it showed his character. from that Wikipedia article:
QuoteDisplay MorePatent battles
Patents of such value did not escape criticism, and invalidity was urged against them on various grounds.[clarification needed] But Bessemer was able to maintain them intact without litigation, though he found it advisable to buy up the rights of one patentee.[who?]
In the case of Robert Forester Mushet, he was assisted by the patent being allowed to lapse in 1859 through non-payment of fees.[citation needed] Mushet's procedure was not essential and Bessemer proved this in 1865 by exhibiting a series of steel samples made using his process alone, but the value of the procedure was shown by its near universal adoption in conjunction with the Bessemer process. Whether or not Mushet's patents could have been sustained is not known, but in 1866 Robert Mushet's 16-year-old daughter travelled to London to confront Henry Bessemer at his offices, arguing that Bessemer's success was based on the results of her father’s work. Bessemer decided to pay Mushet an annual pension of £300, a very considerable sum, which he paid for 25 years.[24]
In 1866, Bessemer also provided finance for Zerah Colburn, the American locomotive engineer and journalist, to start a new weekly engineering newspaper called Engineering based in Bedford Street, London. It was not until many years later that the name of Colburn's benefactor was revealed. Before Engineering was launched, Colburn, through the pages of The Engineer, had given support to Bessemer's work on steel and steelmaking.[citation needed]
His generosity with Mushet appears to have been before the process was massively successful. He negotiated his way out of difficulties.The stories told in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bessemer show more. Bessemer was a prolific inventor, but also a cool-headed businessman. Rather than fight, he negotiated and was generous. The result: he became quite wealthy.
It is not clear that he was fair to Mushet. But legally, Mushet had apparently allowed his patent application to lapse. Bessemer could have blown Mushet's daughter off. I have seen no account of earlier dealings.
Paperwork matters, something Rossi has apparently not figured out. As well, trusting people and dealing openly and honestly with them is necessary. That people sometimes get away with not doing this does not prove that it is not important.
-
I think Rudolf Diesel is a better archetype.
-
I think Rudolf Diesel is a better archetype.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_DieselThat is quite strange. He was successful, but very likely committed suicide. (I consider his leaving the suitcase full of money for his wife, with instructions to open it a week later -- after his death -- as making this nearly certain, unless, of course she was in on a murder plot.)
-
The story of Edison, Tesla and Westinghouse complete Diesel and Bessemer. Note thay are of 19-early20th century, where patent were nominal way to innovate.
I've learned few things.
first innovating is done by many people and influence.
One secret is to motivate every part of that adventure, paying those who helped (even if law does not mandate you), giving space for coopetitors, creating ecosystem where people can develop solutions which gives value to your invention.
Windows OS was innovative, but it let room for application developers to make business. same for AppStore, google play....another is that the inventor does not own a big part of the added value.
To make trillions you have to invest a trillion.
You can expect a tip from the one who invest trillion, billion, something that he will concede to you for the reason told above, that you need to care of those who participate to the past and thus the future of your innovation.
You also have to care of your image, and that inventors work and cooperate with you, like investors, like authorities, media.It can be simply done if you have a deep ethical value, that you pay talent and work, respect people and laws, respect market laws, want to help your community.
If you have no ethic, you have to do the same but you have to be intelligent enough to understand it is your selfish interest.
Today all is faster and more complex.
Patent are in a way an absurd facade requirement for VC to fund you, but there is more an more reports that it slows your own innovation capacity, and that publishing weak patent slows your competitors. VC in fact don't invest in you IP, not even in your project (you can pivot), but in the team. For me, one key need to patent what you do is simply not to be annoyed by trolls trying to block you, but licensing your IP with people licensing theirs is best way to manage conflicts. File patents just to sleep quiet, and work with people who do the same...
