No ideas are ingenious … can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

No ideas are ingenious can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?

All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are already around. A Human is just reordering them. Is patenting appropriate in these cases?

http://wp.me/p2JWH-4F

[casey]

On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> No ideas are ingenious can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?
>
> All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are already around. A Human is just reordering them. Is patenting appropriate in these cases?

Why can't there be ingenious ways of reordering things?

>
> http://wp.me/p2JWH-4F
>
>

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

A human is learning everything from the environment. Can you cite something that is foreign to what is already available?

>
> >
>
> > http://wp.me/p2JWH-4F
>
> >
>
> >

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

For example.

I started to write a book on Search Engine Marketing and suddenly tumbled with where did human get this idea of "Search Engine" from...

Now here I started to remember we already have a "search engine" very much built in our brains.

The modern search engines seem to be an emulations of the same.

The next level of Humans **could** be to try and figure out methods of reordering things and coming out newer inventions automatically is our brain is already doing the same??

So, what is ingenious here?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> No ideas are ingenious

Some are.

> can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?

If no one has patented them before, yes.

>
> All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are already around.

All inventions are based upon ideas that were around before. There
has something new in the invention, for a patent to be granted. That
new thingie is called a claim in patent-speak.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee (holder of a patent for superior energy transmissions)

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:51 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > No ideas are ingenious
>
>
>
> Some are.
>
>
>
> > can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?
>
>
>
> If no one has patented them before, yes.
>

What is the philosophy behind citing anonymous inventions "already existing" as our own? How is this ethical?

[TruthSlave]

Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:25:15 PM UTC+5:30, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:19:24 AM UTC+5:30, casey wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> No ideas are ingenious can HUMAN �patent� them as theirs?

>>>> All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are
>>>> already around. A Human is just reordering them.
>>>> Is patenting appropriate in these cases?
>>>
>>> Why can't there be ingenious ways of reordering things?
>>
>>
>> A human is learning everything from the environment.
>> Can you cite something that is foreign to what is already available?
>>
>
> For example.
>
> I started to write a book on Search Engine Marketing and suddenly tumbled
> with where did human get this idea of "Search Engine" from...
>
> Now here I started to remember we already have a "search engine" very much
> built in our brains.
>
> The modern search engines seem to be an emulations of the same.
>
> The next level of Humans **could** be to try and figure out methods of
> reordering things and coming out newer inventions automatically is our
> brain is already doing the same??
>
> So, what is ingenious here?

Is this about Solutions for its own sake? Is the invention not also
a recognition of a problem?

Sure you could in theory create a 'reordering machine' which would
spew out an exponential of hypothetical inventions, and then one
would be faced with recognizing what these inventions were, or were
for?

You might dismiss the invention, the way electric car, circa early
1900's, was dismissed into obscurity for the petrol engine, which
seemed so obviously the best solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#1890s_to_1900s:_Early_history

Allied to your machine there would have to be some way to recognize
the value of those newly discovered ideas. Champions for those ideas.

You could say the patenter is rewarded as recognizer of the idea.
Without a champion for the idea, vested interests would trample
the next advancement underfoot simply to maintain their status
quo.

Just think, if the-powers-that-be had recognized the longer term
worth of the early electric car, steps might have been taken to
promote development of better battery technology, which might have
lead to so many other advancements, instead mankind has had to wait
for portable computers to create this need for lighter batteries.

Where were the prizes, or challenges set to science for this next
think? I wonder how many other ideas and inventions have stalled
like this, waiting for the future to catch up with its necessity
as a worthy invention?

Having had the idea the question might then be, Can we afford the
idea, or can we afford not to advance this idea? Would market
force alone be any real kind of judge?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

If a search engine is already existing in our brain is that not already recognized?

[Dare]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:49f29fab-5d3e-49b5...@googlegroups.com...
>
> No ideas are ingenious can HUMAN �patent� them as theirs?

>
> All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are already around.
> A Human is just reordering them. Is patenting appropriate in these cases?

If no one had the idea of reordering them in that way before?
Maybe patenting ensures such new reorderings will be shared
and perhaps improved. It may appeal to human greed or the
need to be appreciated and rewarded, but it seems to work well
for encouraging new perspectives and sharing them with others.

>
> http://wp.me/p2JWH-4F

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:12:02 PM UTC+5:30, Dare wrote:
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:49f29fab-5d3e-49b5...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
>

> > No ideas are ingenious can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?

>
> >
>
> > All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are already around.
>
> > A Human is just reordering them. Is patenting appropriate in these cases?
>
>
>
> If no one had the idea of reordering them in that way before?
>

Inventions in fact are discoveries. Can you show me 1 invention in which the idea is not taken from the available natural surroundings?

> Maybe patenting ensures such new reorderings will be shared
>

Patenting ensures further discoveries to happen from that route to delay? How does delaying further growth help?

> and perhaps improved. It may appeal to human greed or the
>

Which means Greed is being promoted by the system. Is that a good sign for the over all well being of Mankind?

[Immortalist]

On Feb 23, 9:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> No ideas are ingenious can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?
>
> All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are already around. A Human is just reordering them. Is patenting appropriate in these cases?
>
> http://wp.me/p2JWH-4F

Labor theory of value

The labor theories of value (LTV) are economic theories of value
according to which the values of commodities are related to the labor
needed to produce them...

...John Locke's notion, set out in the Second Treatise on Government
(1689), that property derives from labor through the act of "mixing"
one's labor with items in the common store of goods, though this has
alternatively been seen as a labor theory of property...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

For instance view this video to how stupid this all can get;

GMO A Go Go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGqQV6ObFCQ

[Dare]

On 2/24/2013 11:04 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:12:02 PM UTC+5:30, Dare wrote:
>> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:49f29fab-5d3e-49b5...@googlegroups.com...
>>>

>>> No ideas are ingenious can HUMAN �patent� them as theirs?

>>
>>> All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are already around.
>>
>>> A Human is just reordering them. Is patenting appropriate in these cases?
>>
>> If no one had the idea of reordering them in that way before?
>>
>
> Inventions in fact are discoveries. Can you show me 1 invention in which the idea
> is not taken from the available natural surroundings?
>
>> Maybe patenting ensures such new reorderings will be shared
>>
>
> Patenting ensures further discoveries to happen from that route to delay?
> How does delaying further growth help?
>
>> and perhaps improved. It may appeal to human greed or the
>>
> Which means Greed is being promoted by the system.
> Is that a good sign for the over all well being of Mankind?

Should anyone have the right to own anything?...
Or the right to the use of anything?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:53:15 PM UTC+5:30, Dare wrote:
> On 2/24/2013 11:04 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:12:02 PM UTC+5:30, Dare wrote:
>
> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:49f29fab-5d3e-49b5...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>
>

> >>> No ideas are ingenious can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?

>
> >>
>
> >>> All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are already around.
>
> >>
>
> >>> A Human is just reordering them. Is patenting appropriate in these cases?
>
> >>
>
> >> If no one had the idea of reordering them in that way before?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Inventions in fact are discoveries. Can you show me 1 invention in which the idea
>
> > is not taken from the available natural surroundings?
>
> >
>
> >> Maybe patenting ensures such new reorderings will be shared
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Patenting ensures further discoveries to happen from that route to delay?
>
> > How does delaying further growth help?
>
> >
>
> >> and perhaps improved. It may appeal to human greed or the
>
> >>
>
> > Which means Greed is being promoted by the system.
>
> > Is that a good sign for the over all well being of Mankind?
>
>
>
> Should anyone have the right to own anything?...
>

What ever one is producing ingeniously? But what is that?

A HUMAN get an idea of a new feature reordering the available tools. The idea in itself is something that is already invented by nature. If it was not one would not get an idea in itself.

Name one invention that is not adopted from mother nature??? So, all of them are discoveries?

> Or the right to the use of anything?
>

How to decide that?

>
>
> >
>
> >> need to be appreciated and rewarded, but it seems to work well
>
> >>

Yes there is no problem in appreciating and rewarding, but how to quantify the same?

Is quantifying the same not important? Should one always rely on the gut feelings?

>
> >> for encouraging new perspectives and sharing them with others.

Yes, but this the process continuously being monitored for its misuse?

Also, are misuses addressed appropriately?

[TruthSlave]

Surely you can't mean to declare an idea unpatentable simply because
a similar principle exist in nature. Patents aren't simple labels,
or coinage of expression, they are about proven worked examples of
technology.

You might have a case for examples such as DNA, which are taken from
nature, and declared the property of whoever discovers its significance.
Technology however has to be created. It often more than a founding
principle.

[casey]

On Feb 25, 3:23 am, Dare <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [..]

> Should anyone have the right to own anything?...
> Or the right to the use of anything?

That is up to you to negotiate or fight over.

We come into the world, compete for resources, and
then leave the world, same as every other animal.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Feb 24, 10:42 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:51 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > No ideas are ingenious
>
> > Some are.
>
> > > can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?
>
> > If no one has patented them before, yes.
>
> What is the philosophy behind citing anonymous inventions "already existing" as our own?

God is that anonymous entity providing inspiration to the genuinely
original inventor. Obviously, that invention was not known to other
humans, or the patent office is not doing its job properly.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

Not quite, we don't have the same level of competition as is true for
other animals. Some humans have to compete more than others, for some
humans are born into happier circs.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Dare]

Yes, that's how I see it.
I was pushing the original question even farther...
If we don't have a right to own our ideas (or bodies),
then what rights do we have?

[me]

On Feb 23, 10:55 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:19:24 AM UTC+5:30, casey wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > No ideas are ingenious can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?
>
> > > All inventions are a collection of ideas those that are already around. A Human is just reordering them. Is patenting appropriate in these cases?
>
> > Why can't there be ingenious ways of reordering things?
>
> A human is learning everything from the environment. Can you cite something that is foreign to what is already available?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >http://wp.me/p2JWH-4F

Rational right to decide means alone that we have the human rights to
have free thoughts and to make associations only, that is..we do not
act them out, we only prefer to discuss them and debate
philosophically before any 'commital'.Philosophy is the auditorium
where free speaking and thought and ways to determine between
ourselves as 'brothers'. However there are auditoriums that are
'closed' and claim to be 'brotherly' without summons.

We do have the right to have respect for one anothers' hurt,
irrespective of race or community.

If you 'commit'

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Monday, February 25, 2013 3:48:16 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Feb 24, 10:42 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:51 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > No ideas are ingenious
>
> >
>
> > > Some are.
>
> >
>
> > > > can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?
>
> >
>
> > > If no one has patented them before, yes.
>
> >
>
> > What is the philosophy behind citing anonymous inventions "already existing" as our own?
>
>
>
> God is that anonymous entity providing inspiration to the genuinely
>
> original inventor.

Show me 1 incident where GOD said... here is the "idea"... now go and tell everyone it is "yours"?

Will GOD teach wrong, did the person put the question to GOD while GOD gave the idea?

For example.

I am sitting idea stuck with a scientific problem... and days pass away... but I get nothing... and then I pray to GOD... "Oh GOD please help me I am not getting a solution"

Now, some days later "A solution strike"

Now here should I ask GOD again "Dear GOD can I say to the public at large I am the original inventor of this solution you gave me?" which indirectly would mean I am to tell a lie??? Once again will posing such a question appropriate??

You mean to say GOD allowed people and inspired to tell a "lie"?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Feb 25, 1:17 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 3:48:16 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 10:42 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:51 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > No ideas are ingenious
>
> > > > Some are.
>
> > > > > can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?
>
> > > > If no one has patented them before, yes.
>
> > > What is the philosophy behind citing anonymous inventions "already existing" as our own?
>
> > God is that anonymous entity providing inspiration to the genuinely
>
> > original inventor.
>
> Show me 1 incident where GOD said... here is the "idea"... now go and tell everyone it is "yours"?

Moses, ten commandments, most famously. The commandments (important
ideas) are from God, but they are attributed to Moses as Moses was
chosen by God to receive the commandments.

> Will GOD teach wrong, did the person put the question to GOD while GOD gave the idea?

God always gives good ideas, but bad people with no use for God misuse
them for their own apparent benefit.

> For example.
>
> I am sitting idea stuck with a scientific problem... and days pass away... but I get nothing... and then I pray to GOD... "Oh GOD please help me I am not getting a solution"

These days, I do not wait.

> Now, some days later "A solution strike"

Good, good. You are blessed indeed!

> Now here should I ask GOD again "Dear GOD can I say to the public at large I am the original inventor of this solution you gave me?"

Of course, provided the patent office or equivalent declares that
someone else had not found the original solution before. So it is
ultimately up to the patent office, public opinion, academic scrutiny,
legal wrangling, Govt. approval etc. that go to deciding who has
originally invented what. Time is the major judge of who has done
what.

> which indirectly would mean I am to tell a lie???

Not at all. You can make honest mistakes about your originality;
mistakes when honest may be corrected by authority. When dishonest,
you can be charged for plagiarism. Of course if you have made an
original invention, with or without acknowledging Divine Help, you
have the right to declare it as your own.

> Once again will posing such a question appropriate??

If one wants to be silly.

> You mean to say GOD allowed people and inspired to tell a "lie"?

No, God granted God's blessing to those who asked for same. Those who
worked hard, thought clearly, ahd faith, achieved something, got the
rewards they deserved. God evidently values their humility in their
asking for help, and so, grants their desires in the form of such
intellectual gifts with which the receivers are forever associated.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Monday, February 25, 2013 11:09:27 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:17 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 25, 2013 3:48:16 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 10:42 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:51 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > No ideas are ingenious
>
> >
>
> > > > > Some are.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?
>
> >
>
> > > > > If no one has patented them before, yes.
>
> >
>
> > > > What is the philosophy behind citing anonymous inventions "already existing" as our own?
>
> >
>
> > > God is that anonymous entity providing inspiration to the genuinely
>
> >
>
> > > original inventor.
>
> >
>
> > Show me 1 incident where GOD said... here is the "idea"... now go and tell everyone it is "yours"?
>
>
>
> Moses, ten commandments, most famously. The commandments (important
>
> ideas) are from God, but they are attributed to Moses as Moses was
>
> chosen by God to receive the commandments.
>

Is it appropriate to say

"10 Commandments of MOSES?"

or is it appropriate to say and is it right to say it this way?

"10 Commandments told by GOD to MOSES?"

So the original inventor of the 10 commandments is GOD or MOSES?

Would it have been appropriate for MOSES to say the 10 commandments where from him without attributing GOD?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Feb 25, 5:31 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 11:09:27 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 1:17 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Monday, February 25, 2013 3:48:16 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 10:42 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:51 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > No ideas are ingenious
>
> > > > > > Some are.
>
> > > > > > > can HUMAN “patent” them as theirs?
>
> > > > > > If no one has patented them before, yes.
>
> > > > > What is the philosophy behind citing anonymous inventions "already existing" as our own?
>
> > > > God is that anonymous entity providing inspiration to the genuinely
>
> > > > original inventor.
>
> > > Show me 1 incident where GOD said... here is the "idea"... now go and tell everyone it is "yours"?
>
> > Moses, ten commandments, most famously. The commandments (important
>
> > ideas) are from God, but they are attributed to Moses as Moses was
>
> > chosen by God to receive the commandments.
>
> Is it appropriate to say
>
> "10 Commandments of MOSES?"

Loosely, yes, as the other Jews did not see God but they did see Moses
so any atheistic Jew had to say that the commandments were from Moses.

> or is it appropriate to say and is it right to say it this way?
>
> "10 Commandments told by GOD to MOSES?"

Yes, if you are a theistic Jew who believes that God told Moses the
ten commandments.

> So the original inventor of the 10 commandments is GOD or MOSES?

That depends upon whether you are a Jewish theist or a Jewish
atheist.
Since patenting is done for humans, not God or other Divine entities
Who are out of such scope, the idea of attibuting invention remains in
the province of humans only.

> Would it have been appropriate for MOSES to say the 10 commandments where from him without attributing GOD?

No, as God gave him the ten commandments, as he said. It would be
appropriate for any atheistic Jew to say that Moses was making them up
as there was no God to give commandments.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

No problem being an atheistic Jew, let go via science.

We have a brain and we get ideas.

Where are the ideas from? Are the ideas ours? We know the source?

So, why not keep the source "UNKNOWN" if one is unable to identify, is that not truth?

DO we know the functioning of idea-ting for certain???

Why take the product of "UNKNOWN" as ours?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Feb 25, 9:34 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

No problem for you, no doubt. If I too may ask a question, why do
atheistic Jews adopt Hindu identities in usenet these days? This
question may be considered rhetorical.

> We have a brain and we get ideas.
>
> Where are the ideas from?

From God, if they are good. If they are not, they are the products of
our own whims and egos, other peoples' manipulations, our
misunderstandings of nature, etc.

>Are the ideas ours?

Yes, if we adopt them. They are also original if no one thought of
them before, but that is up to the patent office, public opinion, etc.
to decide if it is so important.

> We know the source?

It is a question of attribution, and that depends upon the
individual's honesty and humility. To pass off another's idea as
one's own, is very common indeed in this our world of lies, run by
einsteinian liars. The honest and humble person of faith, will
acknowledge his good ideas to come from the Divine.

> So, why not keep the source "UNKNOWN" if one is unable to identify,

Because that would be an atheistic ploy, for the spiritual person of
faith. And so, impossible for him. The theistic person of ideas,
jolly well identifies God or the Divine to be responsible for all the
good ideas, and the good resulting from same.

> is that not truth?

What is truth to the believer, the spiritual person of faith, is
untruth to the atheist.

> DO we know the functioning of idea-ting for certain???

With faith, certainly. All good ideas come from God by definition,
and in practice from prayer and work. Without faith, there is always
doubt. Now, faith in God moves mountains, does enormous good, creates
the golden ages of history while doubt creates chaos and monsters
arising from them.

> Why take the product of "UNKNOWN" as ours?

Because it *is* ours, as we got it with a mixture of God's blessing
for our own hard work and clear thought, good morals etc. Atheists can
never have any good original ideas, for no atheist ever had a really
good original idea - but being parasites they use the good ideas from
God's blessed, twisting and turning them somehow, to satisfy some
destructive or pointless whim or ego of their own. That much shallow
wit, they do possess, and spend upon various sorts of sarcasms,
backbiting, caricaturing, etc.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Feb 27, 8:52 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

btw talking of patents, new ideas cannot be patented, but
copyrighted. However methods and products (which should show
originality, that amounting to implementation of new ideas) are
patented.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

"New ideas" ... but what are they?

An idea gets produced by the brain but how? 1. Brain picks them up from the surroundings? 2. And at times an unknown inner voice prompts them on persistently questioning? What else can be the source for any new idea? 3. Methods are accidentally discovered (Discoveries cannot be patented?).

Assuming the following 2 possible permutations

Q.1. Can methods originally present in Nature be patented?
Q.2. Can methods via unknown anonymous sources i.e. inner voice prompts etc be registered without acknowledging the unknown inner voice prompts?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

"atheistic ploy"? How come? The atheistic is not believing what is being told by elders is truth and is testing? But then would not then tell a lie at-least. Why let them acknowledge from "UNKNOWN"?

So, then the question arises who is this "UNKNOWN"? and then answers are to be found? So, here they automatically quest GOD and they would change?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

So, is it a good moral to not acknowledge GOD while patenting?

I questioned before

Q.1. Is a question then to be asked to GOD, "do I tell everyone this idea (method) is mine without acknowledging you"?

Q.2. Did GOD in-return tell... "GO tell a lie, tell this idea (method) is yours without acknowledging me"?

So, you mean GOD advises using "lie" for simple reasons such as these?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Feb 28, 4:17 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:22:33 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 9:34 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
> > > Why take the product of "UNKNOWN" as ours?
>
> > Because it *is* ours, as we got it with a mixture of God's blessing
>
> > for our own hard work and clear thought, good morals etc.
>
> So, is it a good moral to not acknowledge GOD while patenting?

The theist acknowledges God in all his personal actions, including
patenting. But this is a personal matter, and so nothing to do with
official or secular formalites of clerical nature.

>
> I questioned before
>
> Q.1. Is a question then to be asked to GOD, "do I tell everyone this idea (method) is mine without acknowledging you"?

It is implictly understood among theists that the original idea given
to one is a blessing or gift from God, for one's hard work and faith
and good morals. AMDG (All my deeds to God) is what Catholics are
expected to write quite often. Other faiths may have similar
practices.

> Q.2. Did GOD in-return tell... "GO tell a lie, tell this idea (method) is yours without acknowledging me"?

No, God knows that the theist will always acknowledge God, so the
question of lies does not exist. For the atheist who never gets any
good original ideas (naturally!) and so has no idea about how they are
obtained, there is always doubt and questioning.

> So, you mean GOD advises using "lie" for simple reasons such as these?

No, It is not necessary for any honest theist to lie, especially when
he considers himself blessed. If I give someone a present, that
present belongs to that person, no longer to me. It is usual practice
for that person to say who gave the present, when directly asked. It
is not necessary to advertise the name of the giver that on the
present.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:10:36 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Feb 28, 4:17 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:22:33 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 9:34 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Why take the product of "UNKNOWN" as ours?
>
> >
>
> > > Because it *is* ours, as we got it with a mixture of God's blessing
>
> >
>
> > > for our own hard work and clear thought, good morals etc.
>
> >
>
> > So, is it a good moral to not acknowledge GOD while patenting?
>
>
>
> The theist acknowledges God in all his personal actions, including
>
> patenting. But this is a personal matter,

:)

> and so nothing to do with
>
> official or secular formalites of clerical nature.
>

????

> >
>
> > I questioned before
>
> >
>
> > Q.1. Is a question then to be asked to GOD, "do I tell everyone this idea (method) is mine without acknowledging you"?
>
>
>
> It is implictly understood among theists that the original idea given
>
> to one is a blessing or gift from God, for one's hard work and faith
>
> and good morals. AMDG (All my deeds to God) is what Catholics are
>
> expected to write quite often. Other faiths may have similar
>
> practices.
>
>

"AMDG (All my deeds to God)"

Nice, but to be precise, it is not still acknowledging the deeds of GOD.

e.g.

On being stuck asking GOD, "GOD, what is the answer to this problem?" is a deed by man
The an inner voice citing "Solution is ABC", is a deed by GOD

here man is not still acknowledging the deeds of GOD. "AMDG (All my deeds to God)" here man is doing half good no doubt, but then is not acknowledging the inner voice.

which now gives birth to "doubt"?

skeptics-atheists would have not noticed GOD, but would have noticed "Unknown" for 100% and would have tried to find answers towards the "Unknown". Again they would have been automatically aligned in the "right path at-least".

obviously they would have noticed "they only question", and "how does the answer produce inside?" would have remained a question?

>
> > Q.2. Did GOD in-return tell... "GO tell a lie, tell this idea (method) is yours without acknowledging me"?
>
>
>
> No, God knows that the theist will always acknowledge God, so the
>
> question of lies does not exist.

Explained above.

> For the atheist who never gets any
>
> good original ideas (naturally!) and so has no idea about how they are
>
> obtained, there is always doubt and questioning.
>
>
>
> > So, you mean GOD advises using "lie" for simple reasons such as these?
>
>
>
> No, It is not necessary for any honest theist to lie, especially when
>
> he considers himself blessed.

"he considers himself blessed." but then what is the harm to acknowledge the same?

> If I give someone a present, that
>
> present belongs to that person, no longer to me.

Oh, I agree about the present. But when I borrow a tool it is not a present, I can keep that with me but the same is not mine?

If it was a present you must be able to go with that to the next realm after the physical death? But does your presents follow you?

> It is usual practice
>

Borrowing is a usual practice as well.

> for that person to say who gave the present, when directly asked. It
>
> is not necessary to advertise the name of the giver that on the
>
> present.
>

The discussion is about who originally invented?

>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 1, 1:19 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

It is acknowledging the particular deed FROM God.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

You wrote it "All my deeds to God"

and didn't write "All my deeds from God"

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Also it's originally

"Ad maiorem Dei gloriam"

The motto is translated into English as "For the greater glory of God". (src english wikipedia)

Still it is not being precise.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 1, 1:57 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

Which means acknowledging the relevance of God as the judge and
recipient of deeds, for the Catholic and similar theistic sorts.
Laborare est orare, or work is prayer, is another good saying of Roman
Catholic origin.

> and didn't write "All my deeds from God"

No, because that would be making the Catholic a prophet or some proxy
for the Divine, and thus he/she would become a very rare person
indeed. So I was talking of a PARTICULAR deed relating to getting a
new idea, making an invention, etc., as coming from God, not ALL deeds
for any run of the mill theist.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

No not at all. This is something that happens with everyone.

One might face a problem owning to ones "deeds" but to get a solution from the infinite permutations is near to impossible. But then eventually every person seems to find precise solutions?

I asked this question to a yogi. He said GOD talks to everyone.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

I had asked him an indirectly related question, not the exact one above.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 1, 2:38 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

Then we should be so lucky.

> One might face a problem owning to ones "deeds" but to get a solution from the infinite permutations is near to impossible. But then eventually every person seems to find precise solutions?

If they are original and good they have to come from God.

> I asked this question to a yogi. He said GOD talks to everyone.

In different ways, through various means.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Well the same yogi said: "...But not all follows them, though they hear them" :)