Suppressed technology. Fact or fiction?

Omegaboy13 said:
I’ve spoken of it before on here, but could never find the video again. I was watching a documentary on the progression of technology. One of the high ranking officials for Hoover was speaking. He stated that if they would have known that the bagless tech would have taken off, that they would have bought all the patents and shelved them. Hoover and other vacuum companies made all their money on the bags.

If a well known company ever disparages new tech, start buying stock in the new tech.
Click to expand...

this makes no sense. You don't have to patent something to sell it. What would prevent someone from just marketing a bagless system as a fuck you to Hoover, and a market advantage?

In addition, patents protection is only 20yrs for the first filing date. So what would Hoover do with all of these patents that would eventually expire? Anyone could make a device using all of the patent information after the patent expires.

Lastly, patents are public. The point of the patent system is to protect *AND* publish intellectual property.
 
Smoke Detector Battery said:
this makes no sense. You don't have to patent something to sell it. What would prevent someone from just marketing a bagless system as a fuck you to Hoover, and a market advantage?

In addition, patents protection is only 20yrs for the first filing date. So what would Hoover do with all of these patents that would eventually expire? Anyone could make a device using all of the patent information after the patent expires.

Lastly, patents are public. The point of the patent system is to protect *AND* publish intellectual property.
Click to expand...

I'd respond to your statements, but I think it's only fair that I be given 2 years and 3 months to think about it.
 
BearGrounds said:
BTW, planned obsolescence is a concept that sort of ties into this thread.

Making tech less effective and designed for eventual failure so as to ensure return consumerism.

xplannedobsolescence.jpg.pagespeed.ic.vAoQr378K9.jpg


Click to expand...

Far from a secret or conspiracy. I’m an engineer and we were taught about planned obsolescence in college, and that was back in the early 2000s. The fact that a lot people are seemingly unaware of it I think is more willful ignorance than corporations trying to be secretive about it.
 
Smoke Detector Battery said:
this makes no sense. You don't have to patent something to sell it. What would prevent someone from just marketing a bagless system as a fuck you to Hoover, and a market advantage?

In addition, patents protection is only 20yrs for the first filing date. So what would Hoover do with all of these patents that would eventually expire? Anyone could make a device using all of the patent information after the patent expires.

Lastly, patents are public. The point of the patent system is to protect *AND* publish intellectual property.
Click to expand...
Had Hoover owned a patent on the design of the bagless vacuum, it would require any other company looking to sell bagless vacuums to license the rights from Hoover, which Hoover could choose to decline.

As far as a 20 year expiration, I’m confused as to why you see that as a reason preventing them from doing such a thing. First of all, you have 20 years of high margin profit from selling replacement bags, that’s probably worth billions alone. For what reason would a company turn that down? Because the money faucet might turn off in 20 years? That doesn’t make much sense.

Then you have the fact that the executives in charge making these decisions are focused on quarterly and yearly profitability, as they are beholden to their investors to show growth. They’re not thinking 20 years into the future.
 
Suppressed tech or medicine?? Sure. Maybe not to diabolical levels, but enough to maintain profit margins.
 
jericksen5 said:
Had Hoover owned a patent on the design of the bagless vacuum, it would require any other company looking to sell bagless vacuums to license the rights from Hoover, which Hoover could choose to decline.

As far as a 20 year expiration, I’m confused as to why you see that as a reason preventing them from doing such a thing. First of all, you have 20 years of high margin profit from selling replacement bags, that’s probably worth billions alone. For what reason would a company turn that down? Because the money faucet might turn off in 20 years? That doesn’t make much sense.

Then you have the fact that the executives in charge making these decisions are focused on quarterly and yearly profitability, as they are beholden to their investors to show growth. They’re not thinking 20 years into the future.
Click to expand...


There is a simple answer to this, you cannot patent 'not using something' or a process that does not use one or more elements of an existing art.

Secondly, as soon as a patent for bagless systems was published someone would innovate a solution that does not violate all of the elements of the independent claims. A claim is composed of a number of elements (steps). If you develop a product that uses 5 out of 6 elements of a valid patent's claim, you are not violating that patent and required no patent rights to sell your product.

Lastly, I actually took the 30secs to search 'bagless vacuum' patents. The earliest patent that I found was from 1930 from the QUADREX corp.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US1954416

Here is claim 1:

I claim:

1. In a suction cleaner, the combination of a perforate-walled main-housing; a nozzle connected with the lower end of the main-"housing; a hollow handle connected with its upper end and having a manually operable port; a filter located within the main-housing; a motor-housing within said filter and main-housing spaced therefrom at the sides, the space between the main and motor-housings being longitudinally divided into two compartments, one of which is an upper compartment relatively to the other when the cleaner is positioned for use, the compr ments communicating with each other at the top, the upper compartment being open at the bottom and the lower compartment being closed at the bottom; an electric motor within the aforesaid motor-housing, a fan driven by said motor located in the main-housing below the motorhousing and adapted to suck dirt-laden air through the nozzle and deliver it up through the aforesaid upper compartment into the filter and over into the lower compartment; and means for at will delivering air from the fan upwardly through the lower compartment to blow the dirt from said compartment out of the cleaner through the manually operable port of the hollow handle.
Click to expand...

If you read this^^^ even casually you'll see that it is very specific as to how the component structures are arranged relative to each other. One would only need to integrate 2, or more, of these individual structures together into a single structure to engineer around this patent. You would then file your own patent referencing this one from QUADREX and then specifically describe how your new patent is different from the prior art.

A quick look at the history products shows that Hoover wasn't even the company to invent, or market, powered vacuum cleaners first. p\Patents for canisters go back to the late 1800s.
 
The best case that I know of where there was an effort to defeat a better technology was Edison and his war on AC power to protect his interests in DC power.

Among other things he put on live demonstration where he electrocuted animals with AC power, and paid thugs to beat up inventors, that he suspected of filing patents problematic for his own technologies, while they lined up at the patent office.

Other good, more recent examples are Intel (theft of tech) and microsoft's strangle hold on PC hardware to only run their own OSs which worked very well until Linus wrote the Linux kernal.
 
BearGrounds said:
Do you believe that certain tech with the potential to be humanity-advancing, has ever been shelved, kept secret, and/or suppressed by existing power groups in order to maintain certain power structures and control?

This sentiment is common among CT crowds, but even plenty of your regular everyday folk seem keen to the proposition.

Here's a YT video with some proposed examples to help illustrate the idea of the thread:





Personally, I think you'd have to be pretty naive to think it hasn't happened at some level, and likely more than once. But with that said, whether or not an actual water powered car or free energy device was ever truly created and suppressed, I couldn't say. Maybe, maybe not.
Click to expand...

I think that it is pretty established that the car industry was fueled by the oil industry, which eliminated early alternatives to the combustion engine.
 
BearGrounds said:
Reich is an interesting case. A lot of people do not realize that the FDA actually engaged in the supervision of the destruction of his research material (aka book burning) and accumulators. Shady stuff, to say the least.

He was imprisoned for contempt and coincidentally died of heart failure just days before he was up for a parole application.



http://www.orgonelab.org/wrhistory.htm



Royal Rife and his cancer research (shattering cancer cells with coordinated resonance) seems to be a perfect example of what you're talking about. It's a treatment method that doesn't beat people down like current radiation techniques.



See post number #15, as I included a Tedtalk video about more recent research that lends credence to his claims.



"Romke Jan Bernhard Sloot (27 August 1945, Groningen – 11 July 1999[1], Nieuwegein) was a Dutch electronics engineer[2], who in 1995 claimed to have developed a revolutionary data compression technique, the Sloot Digital Coding System, which could allegedly compress a complete movie down to 8 kilobytes of data — this is orders of magnitude greater compression than the best currently available technology in the 2010s. He died suddenly on July 11, 1999 of a heart attack, just days before the conclusion of a contract to sell the invention. The full source code was never recovered, and the technique and claim has since never been reproduced or verified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Sloot
Click to expand...


He's like Pied Piper.
 
Pfft...
Apple does that with every launch of a new model. Android phones are usually "3+ models" ahead of Apple.

And Apple does that deliberately. They use "design and marketing" to keep Apple fanboiz happy while litetally being behind, technology-wise.

Nothing fictional about that. Do other companies do that? Possibly, even most likely.
 
KBE6EKCTAH_CCP said:
I think that it is pretty established that the car industry was fueled by the oil industry, which eliminated early alternatives to the combustion engine.
Click to expand...

Yea, oil barons are also responsible for suppressing natural remedies to promote petrochemicals (aka pharmaceuticals).



How Rockefeller Founded Big Pharma And Waged War On Natural Cures
 
BearGrounds said:
Which fella?
Click to expand...
On Silicon Valley, the company the main character ran was called Pied Piper and it was a compression model that was so much better than any other existing one that it would have massive application to the internet and file storage. Great show if you haven't seen it.
 
dc007 said:
On Silicon Valley, the company the main character ran was called Pied Piper and it was a compression model that was so much better than any other existing one that it would have massive application to the internet and file storage. Great show if you haven't seen it.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. Might check it out!
 
Fluffernutter said:
On the flipside, don't the oil giants have enough clout to invent and patent the next generation of alternative energy?

Oil isn't going to last forever, Big Oil certainly knows that. One would think they have a backup plan to ensure their billions of dollars companies will survive.
Click to expand...

It's more plentiful than people are led to believe.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,704
Messages
58,312,491
Members
175,998
Latest member
Fitboy485

Share this page

Back
Top