Patent, monopoly, secrecy : how to ruin your chance to surf on a technology revolution

  • I've found this article about Wright Brothers and patents, taking the position that their secrecy, patent war, was at the origin of their moderate success.

    That idea is criticised by some, but anyway this is a reminder for LENR innovator, whatever Wright Brother did really .

    In 1905 the Wright brothers enjoyed a complete monopoly on heavier-than-air aviation. They had the world’s only working airplane, were the only two pilots able to fly it, and had applied for a formidable patent that would cover any plane with three-axis control. Yet within five years they would regularly be surpassed by competitors at home and abroad, and before what was remembered as the Golden Age of Aviation arrived in the 1920s, they would be out of the aircraft business entirely. What happened?

    The answer lies in the series of business decisions the brothers made once they had developed a plane that was suitable for the market. The prototype Flyer had first flown in December 1903, but not until late 1905 did they have a reliable aircraft design that could be mass-produced. They had spent the two-year interval at Huffman Prairie–an isolated field near Dayton, Ohio–building, flight-testing and modifying their engine, airframe, and wing-warping control system.


    This quote raise one key problem with patents


    But with the patent wars still in progress, Orville was reluctant to improve on the airplane’s basic design. That would have required adopting features from the very men he and Wilbur had accused of stealing. Pride compelled Orville to stick close to the original plan.

    Patents are fair and required, but defending them make you innovate less, forcing others to innovate more. (Eg: Curtiss invented modern "ailerons" to escape wing bending patent).

    Some studies have shown that owning patent make you innovate less, and strangely badly protected patents make your competitors innovate less giving you an advantage... (I've relayed those article there I think).

    Basically, one should file patent, but accept to license them to others, and license others patent himself. It should be considered social life in an industry to license and be licensed, not a loss. A bit like inviting neighbors to a barbecue. Especially today, you should focus more on innovating fast, exploiting others IP and paying it at fair price, promoting other's talent, licensing your innovations as soon as someone need it, at a price promoting it's wide usage, rather than playing Gollum with his Precious.


    It wasn’t until after Orville left that the patent wars were finally settled. In early 1917 Curtiss began threatening to sue other aircraft manufacturers to protect his own growing collection of patents. At the urging of the U.S. government after its entry into World War I, a consortium of aviation companies banded together and brokered an agreement by which all members could pay a fee to license the patented technology. In return, Curtiss and Wright-Martin each received two million dollars in a one-time settlement and agreed to lay the patent issue to rest.


    Two years after Lindbergh, in 1929, the Wright name became even more potent in aviation manufacturing. Wright Aeronautical merged with Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor, becoming Curtiss-Wright . Twenty years after the Wrights sold their first airplane, struggling into business while fighting their debilitating patent wars, the company they had started finally became the second-largest aircraft and engine manufacturer in the nation (after the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation). But it had had to merge with its archenemy, Curtiss, to achieve this stature. And put its name second.

    Note: JedRothwell have made a nice article on the Wright Brothers

    NatGeo have made a romantic doc on Curtiss vs Wright battles,


    that is criticized as biased…brothers-v_b_7481100.html…brothers-v_b_7513222.html

    anyway this raise interesting questions...

  • In dense aether model the acceptation of breakthrough finding can be understood like the analogy of the surface tension of society (dark matter effect of gravitating function of money), which prohibits the smooth merging of massive galaxies and black holes in astrophysics. The point here is, the people naturally follow the money in similar way, like the massive objects follow the gravitational field and they move toward their gradient, which considers the utilization of findings. But at the moment, when the gradient of money density is very pronounced (as it's common at the case of breakthrough findings, which promise huge incentives), then the opposite effect can be observed and such a gradient effectively slows down the smooth acceptation of such a finding. This effect has been recognize long time in microeconomy as so-called Gartner hype curve. This hype is the most pronounced, the more breaking its announcement gets. It corresponds the anti-kick of black holes before their merging. This analogy just illustrates, that the general emergent principles driving our human society and material world around it are geometrically similar each other.


    The important aspect of this analogy is, it manifest itself at both large, both small scales in symmetric way and it serves as a mechanism of censorship of information. The big monopoly companies just boycotts and censor information about LENR and overunity findings as effectively, as their inventors itself from the same reason: the fear of lost of profit. Except that the inventors fear the lost of FUTURE profit and the big companies fear the lost of PAST profit. Both mechanisms lead into establishing of information horizon, i.e. the censorship barrier which prohibits the free spreading of information about breakthrough findings and their implementation. It also increases the competition between inventors and it leads into duplicated research. Such a barrier occurs even during plain information exchange between two subjects which differ by their complexity and intelligence very much: once some person or idea is just a bit smarter than you, then you can learn and adopt it easily. But once the subject becomes substantially more complex, then the information will bounce from you with total reflection mechanism and you'll get not anything...

    So it has no good meaning to criticize the greedy Big Oil lobby for boycotting the information about cold fusion or overunity findings at the moment, once their greedy inventors are doing the same and even from the very same reason. The possible solution is to provide incentives, which would make the spreading of information more palatable for both parties and which would smooth the money density gradient existing there: the big monopoly companies should get some compensation for the lost of existing profit and the inventors should get some incentive for revealing information about their findings.

  • A detail.

    Here it is clear that the censorship is not done (yet?) by big companies, but by big science.

    Thanks to Amoco and Shell for the tolerance they had toward their researchers and engineers to look into LENR.

    What I defend from the article is that the desperate desire to catch a monopoly, to get a big share of the revolution, that create a censorship of LENR actors to exploit and let be exploited their findings.

    I feel it is more important than external opposition, even if maybe the worst crime against innovation is probably done by USPTO to have prevented patenting.

    Anyway this time is over, and today secrecy and lack of sharing is slowing the evolution, from a nearly stall state.

    LENR does not need foreign influence to slow.

  • This article is correct in some ways. I made similar points in my paper. But the article is a little unfair to the Wrights. Their business strategy was not only their own. They were working with the Charles Flint Co., which was a gigantic arms dealer. Flint advised them and guided their dealings with the U.S. and European military organizations. In the end, they did get lucrative contracts. Also, they were funded by some of the biggest banks and the wealthiest people in the U.S., and for a few years they did some important, ground-breaking R&D. That ended in 1912 when Wilbur Wright died, at age 45. Orville was not interested in running a company, so he sold out.

  • Quote

    Here it is clear that the censorship is not done (yet?) by big companies, but by big science

    Yes, many people already noted it. Huw Price was not first, who realized it. George Miley describes his experience from cold fusion conference:

    "In a huge, grandiose convention center I found about 200 extremely conventional-looking scientists, almost all of them male and over 50. In fact some seemed over 70, and I realized why: The younger ones had bailed years ago, fearing career damage from the cold fusion stigma.

    "I have tenure, so I don't have to worry about my reputation," commented physicist George Miley, 65. "But if I were an assistant professor, I would think twice about getting involved."

    The fear of carrier has lead the young physicists into a collective dismissal of cold fusion. It's also the lack of life experience and tendency for schematic thinking, which leads younger people into distrust of breakthrough findings.

    Actually the cold fusion had been censored and boycotted with Big Science a well before the Big Oil Lobby has become aware of it (Wend & Irion 1923, Panneth & Patters 1926, Tandberg 1931).

    We can see it everywhere: Boeing company was what actually supported the EMDrive research, NASA already less - but what does the opposition all the time are the young postdocs and solely insignificant moderators at public forums all around internet.

  • but what does the opposition all the time are the young postdocs and solely insignificant moderators at public forums all around internet.

    Yes, that is it.

    To be sincere I've been contacted by many mainstream executives in industry, government agencies, as much as talk with gov or industry research.

    The non scientist, were ready to support real research, but needed some lab support.

    Researchers were lone, unable to exploit their lab except by "get around" methods.

    Anyway, there have been real findings, and many have been underexploited by fear of losing control and thus money.

    Other cause of failure, that is heavily denounced and practiced by scientist, is lack of exploitation of others findings, pet theories, denial of others experiments.

    The recent desperate outing by Jed that the domain is dying is founded in a way.

    I know there are supports, especially in non scientific domain (business, local gov), but they need support by solid scientific results.

    I'm furious.

    Our domain is ridiculed by scam artists, by deluded pseudo-scientist, by theorists, and this screen the population from seeing the mass of now quite old data... I don't see any recent reference experiment of the class of Oriani, of F&P, of McKubre, of Lonchampt, of Miles...

    Storms PdD cell is the prototype of what I would push for research, moving to dry cell as he proposes, and exploiting the modern imagery used by modern accumulators research... X-ray imagery, con-focal microscopy, electron microscopy, real-time imagery, MRI imagery, X-ray spectrometry,

    But if each LENR startup defend it's IP like did the Wright Brothers (Hopefully it seems it is no more possible to have a wide LENR patent), or worst by secrecy (as it seems common), then the domain will never develop.

    This is what we should panic on.

    I say PANIC.

    I'm sad.

    Many people here try to help, invest time, money, credibility, some struggle with huge problems, but it is time to build a war plan.

    I know my plan:

    "Wet-PdAg-D -> dry-PdAg-D -> modern nanotech Imagery -> theory -> nano-engineered Xx-H -> industry "

    is not popular, beside costing 10x of Mn$, of which I don't have the first cent.

  • We need to transfer from a world in which having letters at the end of your name means more than producing actual engineerable, repeatable results. In our day and age, except for the hands on usage of expensive lab equipment, individuals can study any science related topic from the comfort of their home: purchasing digital copies of text books, watching videos of lectures, digging for additional information via thousands of sources, and communicating with experts in the field anywhere on the globe. I'd give more credibility to a well studied, focused, and level headed garage tinkerer showing practical results than a know-it-all, holier than thou PhD any day of the week. It was only a couple decades ago that most PhD's boldly proclaimed that there was no water ice on Mars -- that 99.9% of it was simply carbon dioxide. Now we know there is an ABUNDANCE of water ice all over the planet and below the surface! In a similar manner, I remember arguing with teachers and watching PhDs claim that there were probably few exo-planets and if any existed they would all be gas giants and totally inhospitable to life. Guess what? Now, only a couple decades later, we've found THOUSANDS of exoplanets. In the TRAPPIST system we've found SEVEN orbiting ONE STAR, and they are all approximately Earth sized! Oh, and by the way, it looks like there is an Earth sized planet around PROXIMA CENTAURI as well. That's right -- the closest star to Earth other than our sun has at least one planet and the data indicated that there might be two!

    Naysaying and cynical PhDs are having their predictions fail repeatedly. Soon, they'll have to admit the truth about LENR and then the EM Drive. Then, before long, I'm pretty sure they'll have to admit the truth about complex extraterrestrial life. There could be all sorts of life forms swimming in the underground oceans of Europa and other moons in our solar system. And then, after that, they might just have to admit the truth about some of the very strange craft flying in our skies....

  • Big Science and public funding makes scientists submissive and lazy, despite their nature, but research like LENR ,and even EmDrive, need real budgets (Mn$) and good instruments to be convincing against skeptics, and then to be understood to build a real theory and thus a technology.

    Tycoons, like the one who funded Wright Brothers or Tesla, or like the kings who funded Da Vinci, are useful for science, and they are less toxic than government, not because they are more honest, more rational, but because they are more different, more crazy, more greedy, more incompetent, so they can think, and fund, the unthinkable.

  • Tycoons, like the one who funded Wright Brothers or Tesla, or like the kings who funded Da Vinci, are useful for science, and they are less toxic than government, not because they are more honest, more rational, but because they are more different, more crazy, more greedy, more incompetent, so they can think, and fund, the unthinkable.

    This is where maverick tinkerers can come in useful, despite the way some (in here too) look down upon them as meddling fools or worse. It is in many cases it is the mavericks who seize upon an idea and use it create something novel that a tycoon can buy - or steal- to either make more money, or suppress to protect their current source of funds. In some cases they may even develop it for the good of all.

  • I know there are supports, especially in non scientific domain (business, local gov), but they need support by solid scientific results.

    I am really holding out some hope for work being done at the Texas University. While I do not know Robert Duncan personally, I do have some contacts at the University of Missouri where he previously worked. He had a stellar reputation there and from what I understand, is a top notch scientist and not afraid to look outside the box. ( As is evidenced by his willingness to look at LENR.) Also, the SKINR program at the University of Mo., is still in operation. While we have not heard a lot out of them, hopefully they are making some good progress as well. Duncan would have set them on a proper course. I believe McKubre consults with the Texas group?

    I do not believe either of these institutions are looking to build "commercial reactors", but to build a working theory that can be tested and refined. Once that is established and confirmed, then real progress to a working commercial reactor can become a reality.

    LENR is probably complicated in many ways, or it would have been replicated at will and accepted by now. Like other nuclear programs, LENR may not be feasible to engineer in "a garage" setting. This is not to diminish the various projects being done by individuals. It may simply be that the equipment and manpower needed to fully develop this technology is very high. Thankfully nuclear bombs cannot really be made in a garage or this world would be in big, big trouble. Suicide bombers would not be packing a few sticks of dynamite! Sometimes things being complex is not bad!

    It may very well take a better understanding of the theory to really get the field moving. Hopefully that is what the Texas and Missouri Universities are doing. :thumbup:

  • Tycoons, like the one who funded Wright Brothers

    Tycoons did not fund the Wrights until 1908, when much of their work was done. It was pretty much done when they got the 1906 patent.

    They did make important contributions after that, and the money did help, but the groundbreaking genius-level contributions were from 1900 to 1905. They spent little money on their research. About $1,000, which is about $20,000 today. On the other hand, they had a well equipped machine shop (for bicycle manufacturing), and an expert mechanic to assist them. I guess in modern terms that would be worth about $500,000 to $1 million.

    Their main instrument was the wind tunnel, which cost a few dollars and was mainly made from hacksaw blades. It produced excellent data. They used that data in complicated equations to design the airplane from first principles. No one would try to do such complicated mathematical modeling today without a computer.

    It is unlikely anyone could do such superb new engineering nowadays with such a small budget. I doubt there is any low hanging fruit. But there might be.

    They were not amateurs, as you see from Wilbur's 1901 paper:…library/Aeronautical.html

    I regret to say that in my opinion, small scale cold fusion experiments done by non-experts have contributing nothing to the field.

  • why LENR is rejected is now quite clear to me (an irrational and probably wrong feeling), it is because there is no theory. This is unacceptable for most academic, especially today. Some people even say Cold Fusion is a theory, not supported by facts, being so unable to conceive fact without a theory. I have longtime seen LENR supporters defend LENR with a theory and not with data. Even if I say there is no theory, I often give possible theories so that people can consider LENR evidences...

    I've seen today a documentary on geocentrism ending with Foucault Pendulum. What made the geocentrism accepted is Newtonian mechanic, and what make it possible is Tycho Brahe massive observation, with Kepler as the Data Scientist nerd.

    We need Tycho Brahe first, to feed Kepler and Newton.

    And when there will be a theory, people will accept the facts.

    This is what Thomas Kuhn explains

    no paradigm shift until the new theory explains all the past facts.

  • Quote

    why LENR is rejected is now quite clear to me, it is because there is no theory

    IMO it's rejected, because it's potentially dangerous and disruptive technology. The governments need to have technology, which will force the people into another spending money for distribution of energy from central sources (ala SunCell) - not the hideout neutron sources and potential initiators of cheap fusion bombs for terrorists. The lack of theory makes no obstacle for example in research of dark matter or high temperature superconductivity. After all, the problem of cold fusion isn't the lack of theory but exactly the opposite: there are too many of them.



    I know there are supports, especially in non scientific domain, but they need support by solid scientific results

    The last two years were rather disappointment for cold fusion progress, but IMO the cold fusion research doesn't stagnate, but it gets increasingly classified as it moves into domain of private, military and applied research.

  • Quote

    no paradigm shift until the new theory explains all the past facts

    IMO you missed the paradigm shift in our observation of Universe. In dense aether model its evolution resembles the observation of water surface with its own ripples into an increasing distance (which is essentially what the improvements in observational technology allow for us). At the small scales the water surface looks complex, hyperdimensional, noisy and turbulent. But with increasing distance the turbulences compensate mutually and the spreading of ripples gets determinist form of regular circles. Under such a situation isn't difficult to introduce a reductionist theories, which will make effective predictions, not just postdictions.

    bOuI1uL.gif QINo3yr.gif

    But with increasing distance scales the spreading of surface ripples becomes hyperdimensional, stochastic and indeterminist again, because their scattering in the additional dimension of underwater becomes dominant again. The determinist reductionist theories won't work anymore and every attempt for explanation of reality will bring another questions. Which is the emergent era of observable reality understanding, which we are entering by now. The problem of LENR theory is, there is no simple straightforward mechanism, which could be applied to all known examples of cold fusion and transmutations. So that general LENR theory is similar illusion, like the theory of everything in mainstream physics. We can only delimit more and less general mechanisms, which contribute to it.

  • We need each other (theorists & accidential experimenters) to bring about a successful outcome for LENR/Cold Fusion, advancements are just around the corner!

    Let's upgrade our vision of the future of LENR/Cold Fusion from the glass being half empty to the glass being half full.

    Some advancements are created by theory and then an experiment carried out to prove it.
    Some advancements are created by "accident' and then theory comes in to describe the advancement.

    10 Inventions That Changed The World, But Were Made By Mistake


    The Accidental Inventor

    Christopher Columbus of chemists, set boldly forth to discover a new
    technology of refrigeration. Luckily, he screwed up and invented Teflon instead.
    Roy Plunkett was only 27 years old and had been working as a chemist at the
    Jackson Laboratory at E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company for just two years when,
    in the spring of 1938, he made a discovery that brought him lasting fame.
    He had been trying to invent a new type of Freon, a class of compounds that in
    the 1930s were proving to be immensely useful as the principal gases in
    refrigerators and air conditioners. Today we call them chlorofluorocarbons,
    or cfcs, and know them to be a major culprit in depleting the atmosphere’s
    ozone layer, but back then they were miracle substances--safe, nonflammable
    substitutes for toxic and even explosive refrigerants.

    On an April morning 58 years ago, the young chemist could not have suspected
    that he was about to discover a material with such strange and unexpected properties
    that they had hardly even been dreamed of, a material that would eventually
    become an indispensable part of everything from space capsules to heart valves
    to frying pans--and one that had absolutely nothing to do with refrigeration.
    Roy Plunkett was about to discover Teflon.

    The importance of Plunkett’s story, however, lies not so much in the triumph of
    invention and commercialization as in what it suggests about the nature of invention
    itself. Invention is often thought of as systematic problem solving, the kind that
    supposedly goes on at the well-manicured campuses of corporate research
    laboratories. In fact, many important inventions arose, and continue to arise,
    from the creative use of an accident or mistake. This is a unique and somewhat
    neglected form of creativity, every bit as ingenious and awesome as the more deliberate sort.

    Much of the act of invention is shrouded in mystery, to be sure.
    Even when people set out to act purposefully and rationally, they wind up
    doing things they did not intend. In principle, the accident or the unexpected
    obstacle that gives rise to a creative invention is not all that different from the
    unexpected traffic jam that forces us to drive through a new and interesting
    neighborhood, the pesky weed that turns out to enhance our garden’s variety,
    or the empty shelf at the supermarket that spurs us to improvise a new recipe.
    But in practice, events like Plunkett’s are far fewer, and we cannot help asking
    ourselves: What makes it possible to turn the unlooked-for chance into novel
    fortune? Not surprisingly, we find a subtle interplay of individual and
    surroundings: a mind supple enough to turn a screwup into a creative
    opportunity, and an environment that makes such creativity possible.............

    ................The knack for serendipity may turn out to be the investor's most important talent.
    To some degree, the contrasting reputations of these two scientists
    underscore how the prejudices and styles of science and technology
    were evolving in the middle of the twentieth century. Whereas
    Plunkett proceeded by luck and serendipity, Flory took the high road of
    theoretical and systematic methodology, upon which corporate
    research laboratories increasingly sought to rely. With his stature
    and influence in the scientific community, Flory embodied the
    growing prestige attached to theoretical science. Roy Plunkett’s
    relative obscurity showed how far technological creativity had come
    to be seen as an almost purely corporate, communal activity.

  • Good points, but in LENR we are no more in the serendipity stage.

    I propose that there is phase for breakthrough of that king:

    1. first you find a phenomenon by accident
    2. you make it quite replicable
    3. you characterize it
    4. you propose theories based on previous data
    5. you create experiments to refute theories, and get confident on others theories
    6. you derive the consequence of the working theory
    7. you engineer improved technology
    8. yo create a market and technology to work with your new technology

    Before 89, there was ignored serendipity that F&P decided to investigate.

    The problem is that today most people try to reinvent new process, expecting serendipity again, trying to improve reproducibility of new process, ignoring older that works.

    Beside that there are many theorist who are in the theorization phase, while we have not enough data to build a good theory, and by the way they refuse to enter the next stage of refutation.

    Beside that, without theory some innovators try to discover a industrial-grade technology without any thery.

    My opinion is that we are in the characterization phase. What SKINR, ENEA, Letts, Storms are doing is the good direction, even if they also try to improve replicability and performance, beside capturing data on the phenomenon (like RF signals, effect of crystallography, doping and nano-structure effect).

  • Quote

    you make it quite replicable .. today most people try to reinvent new process, expecting serendipity again

    The LENR community is guilty in this second point itself - because it simply avoids replications in similar way, like the mainstream physicists.

    Everyone is researching LENR under his own steam which would enable them to issue his own patents and he classifies just the experimental details, which would lead into successful replication.

    At the case of overunity research it leads into picturesque situation, when all results are presented at blurry and shaky youtube videos only.

    Even the biggest authorities of this research (Searl, Johnson, Meyl etc.) never leaved the usable schemes of their devices, only ambiguous patents.

    The "greedy" fossil fuel lobby has an easy work under such a circumstances.


    here was ignored serendipity that F&P decided to investigate

    It should be noted, that F&P just replicated the fifty years old research of Tandberg. The secret of geniality is in hiding the sources. The intentional hiding of continuity of research is also trait, which doesn't help the progress in cold fusion research.

    As we can see, there are multiple socioeconomic mechanisms, which keep the research of breakthrough finding (i.e. these ones based on dual paradigm) fragmented and isolated - in both time, both space. In similar way the dark matter particles are kept itself at distance, being formed with "bubbles" of space-time of negative energy which are repelling mutually like real bubbles. From the same reason the dark matter not only is kept from mainstream (i.e. massive bodies) at distance, but it also remains diluted. Only at the moment, when it reaches the critical density, the new material phase gets formed in a singular event (in socioeconomic this event correspond so-called technological singularity, which materializes breakthrough findings, compare also Structure of scientific revolutions).

    The reason why I'm talking about emergent geometry here is the predictive power of this analogy, which would enable us to utilize the potential of breakthrough findings better. Only when we understand well, why the research of these findings gets systematically delayed we can develop an effective approach for solving this situation for future.

  • It also depends on what you call media. The peer-reviewed journals aren't media, where the LENR research gets usually published and the scientific journals aren't pop-sci media. So here still persist a deep barrier between mainstream physics and its medial reporting, not to say scientific blogs - despite thanks to internet neutrality both worlds remain relatively accessible and connected each other.

    Except that at the case of mainstream science the information are actively pushed to masses and multimedia - whereas the alternative physics relies on social network and community sites like this one - i.e. on the pull model. I'm monitoring this situation closely and it just seems for me, that the worlds of alternative and mainstream physics not only remain separated each other - but this barrier even deepens. The mainstream physicists ostentatiously demonstrate, that they have quite different ("serious") interests, than the EMDrive, LENR and overunity research - despite they're undoubtedly informed about alternative research as well.

  • New Energy treasure make a well written article on that question…ment-page-1/#comment-3461


    Be open with public and the media. Be quick to quench the public’s thirst for information and welcome their curiosity. Hurry your product to market and avoid holding back because you think somebody might steal your ideas. Carefully safeguard your secrets but avoid being so secretive to the point where everybody thinks you’re a fraud. And finally, always remember that it’s better to have sales than a court case.

  • On my freebox subscription I recently could benefit from few episodes of that Serie "american genius" made by NatGeo.

    First is Wright Brothers vs Curtiss


    this one was discussed here...

    Edison vs Tesla is well known


    One point I notice is that emotion are important, and can endanger your technology.

    Economic model is important too, but it may prevent you to accept alterative technology (Edison was dependent on his short range distributed power, in DC, and disrupted by far-centralized AC disruption).

    And being too greedy with a licensing model is not good either (Tesla nearly killed Westinghous, until he irrationaly dumped all - there should be a middle position).

    For me this battle here was a double failure. TV should be presente before the war, and was delayed after.

    Farnsworth vs Sarnoff (RCA)


    is very interesting as it shows how you can make busiess with technology, with royalties, but also be stubborn to the point to refuse to partner and share, delaying a revolution.

    At the same time you may fight to keep your autonomy on a technology to the point you lose all.

    this one


    is less matching our problems, but we see few few interesting points

    • science and technology is not morality (Von Braun made V2 missiles just as a job, but have a space colonisation dream).
    • Human are important, and death of a program leader (Korolev) may kill a program
    • Admitting you are wrong and following the one who is right, is sign of great spirit : Von Braun accepting rendez-vous around the moon , and not in Earth orbit.

    There are others episodes I missed, so I wait.

    Jobs vs Gates, may be very interesting for us .

    my conclusion is that human factor is key, and basically pride and greed are worst enemy of wealth and recognition.

  • Farnsworth vs Sarnoff (RCA)


    is very interesting as it shows how you can make busiess with technology, with royalties, but also be stubborn to the point to refuse to partner and share, delaying a revolution.

    At the same time you may fight to keep your autonomy on a technology to the point you lose all.

    I have seen this many times, I call it 'inventors disease'.