Replies

The State is planning on charging people for a service they do not really perform (the natural means by which atmospheric carbon is adsorbed). They exert no effort to manage those "services" because they're "Natural" (a bogus idea in the first place). They have no means of verification if those "services" are actually performed to contract. They have no plan to cover contractual failure. My system has all those features.

This is not a wacky idea in the sense that land management services toward environmental ends do cost money are are therefore (in theory) "worth" compensation. For example, how I manage my land does effect how much runoff there is and therefore can mitigate floods to a degree while storing water for late season release or human groundwater use. It might not be much in the aggregate sense, but automated transaction processing could make it worth the overhead by the time all such contracts were combined. Such a market would then optimize each property for its appropriate combination of uses.

There is a problem however: How do you measure (and more importantly VERIFY) what is or is not actually performed and how did it work? My patent covers that. Bartels does not.

Because I foresaw the potential for an enormous and corrupt market in bogus "services" (complete with university-determined price fixing), I filed for patent to preclude such a powerful monopoly. Because it was sitting in the USPTO for eight long years and I had no money to do much more than keep it going, the thugs of this world didn't know of my application while they got the fast track. Once I fired my lawyer (on his recommendation) I went pro-se, wrote my own claims, and gained that patent.

I hate like hell sitting on this thing because it gets weaker without me putting it into motion, but at least it could be cited as prior art, thus invalidating the claim for royalties under Bartels.

A FReeper throwing sand in those gears would be news, n'est ce pas?