A Personal Welcome from the Head Coach

Note: At the time of this writing, I am the sole active participant in PIFAM, but as quickly as possible I would like the PIFAM to mature into an organization that is not driven by a single person.

Eventually, policy will be set by the board, officers, and the members of PIFAM as set out in the bylaws, but for now it is my duty to explain what I am trying to accomplish with PIFAM, and what our initial policies will be.

I admire the altruistic inventor, of which America has produced some outstanding examples who have also championed the moral and ethical aspects of invention: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Buckminster Fuller, and Richard Stallman. (Einstein and Tesla were not born in America, but became part of the American fabric and died here.)

PIFAM supports the idea that they articulated: the main motor of human progress is invention, and so powerful an act cannot be entirely divorced from ethical consequences.

America has constructed a superb and sophisticated machinery for private invention. It harnesses the desire for profit to the chariot of human ingenuity.

We need only observe the tremendous accomplishments of the vast labor of the free and open source software movement, chaotically marshalled beneath Richard Stallman's standard, to prove that we are capable of tremendous endeavors which are not motivated by money.

PIFAM seeks to tap into that energy and direct it more effectively toward improving the world. We seek to say “yes!” to the inventor struggling to create something new whether it may be profitable or not. We seek to give help, encouragement, technical support, and financial support for direct expenses, to the inventor who for whatever reason is not working with a profit-driven firm. We want the successes, and equally importantly, the failures of those inventors to be openly accessible to the public, so that all mankind can be enriched directly by their experience. The “Public Inventor” is one who works for all mankind (the public), but also one who works in the light (publicly) and publicizes their experience.

We have no antipathy to making money. As Buckminster Fuller said, our aim should be a planet full of billions of billionaires. However, PIFAM itself is not about making money, or helping anybody to make money. Vast sums of money will be made from public inventions, just as vast sums of money are made from inventions that become public when patent monopoly expires. But the common good is often advanced tremendously without much money changing hands, of which the Wikipedia is the shining example at the time of this writing.

To further these goals we can state some direct policies.

1. The Public Inventor working with PIFAM works in the light. Anything done in cooperation with PIFAM is a public disclosure. This initiates a time-limit on patenting the invention. We do not oppose the patenting of an invention, but PIFAM is perfectly transparent; it keeps no secrets, and everything is public.
2. PIFAM may reimburse inventors for expenses, but nobody should make a direct profit from PIFAM. We do not pay Public Inventors a wage or a salary. Any reimbursement must be 100% accountable, in order to maintain the trust of our donors. PIFAM will fund many ideas that will fail, and we cannot expect perfect agreement on whether an idea is quackery or brilliance. By definition, if an idea is guaranteed to work, it is not really an invention. However, we demand perfect transparency and perfect accountability. PIFAM books will be publicly open, and the same will be true of any projects that we undertake.
3. We publicize everything. A significant fraction of our budget will be spent on producing educational materials. This means that projects we undertake will be reported on, even, and perhaps particularly, our failures.

We want to support the invention of “anything under the sun.” However, in order to say “yes” more effectively, we have to say “no” to some things.

1. We don't support art. We would, however, support the invention of a better tool for making art.
2. We don't support the invention of weaponry. We support the invention of “livingry”, a term coined by Buckminster Fuller.
3. We don't support the invention of toys. Toys make the world a better place, but we strive for more concrete results.
   We are not encumbered by any particular definition of the word “invention”. For example, there may be inventions that would not be considered novel or useful by the U.S. Patent office. If someone can solve a societal problem in a way that is not embodied in such a way that it would be patentable, that might still be a useful invention from our point of view.
   If forced to choose between two projects, we will support the one that does the most good for the most people in our imperfect judgment.
   Because we are fundamentally an educational organization, we impose a higher level of testing on inventions and projects than does the U.S. Patent Office. The Patent Office doesn't know or care if you invention has actually been constructed, and it is almost true that they don't know or care if it works, because it is very hard for them to evaluate that.
   However, we seek demonstrable, repeatable results. For example, if you are building a flying machine, a fundamental question is: does it fly? How fast? How far? It may be very valuable to work on a flying machine that fails to fly, but it is not valuable to work on a flying machine and not try to answer these questions.
   In general, every project should have written success or failure criteria before it is begun. Additionally, it needs to have a plan for how the results will be documented and publicized. One of the main helps that PIFAM can offer the Public Inventor is help with the publication of a project.