"Introducing CMR-10 SHIELD™: a breakthrough technology that eradicates seismic damage by 100%, absorbs 92% of earthquake energy, and can withstand forces up to 10g. We are looking for partners to help us unleash this innovation worldwide."

This is a dilemma many independent researchers face—especially in emerging fields where the cost of IP protection is disproportionately high compared to available funding. As someone currently filing utility patents in AI and security domains, I understand the tension between disclosure for societal benefit and safeguarding personal innovation.

In my own journey, I've strategically paired targeted patent filings (focused on commercialization readiness) with selective publication to build visibility while protecting core methods. One approach is to publish high-level architectural insights while reserving algorithmic or deployment-specific details for a patent. It's not perfect, but it can create both impact and leverage

Dear Saisuman Singamsetty

Thank you sincerely for your honest and thoughtful response. Indeed, the dilemma between disclosing research for the greater good and safeguarding our intellectual rights is a daily psychological and financial burden for any independent researcher.

After 17 years of personal research in the field of earthquake engineering—at great cost in time, money, and personal sacrifices—I have developed a system that can truly save lives and drastically reduce infrastructure losses during earthquakes. I previously held an international patent, which has since expired, and now I stand at a crossroads: either protect the knowledge or release it immediately for the benefit of society.

What you described—the strategy of publishing general principles while withholding critical technical details for future patenting—is a path I deeply respect and will likely follow. However, for independent researchers without institutional support or access to funding, even this approach carries risks.

Perhaps it is time for a new international framework to support and protect independent researchers—some kind of "innovation trust fund" or a "public interest protection platform" for critical technologies.

Thank you again for your support and valuable insights.

Sincerely, Ioannis Lymberis Independent Researcher in Earthquake Engineering Creator of the CMR-7 SHIELD™ System

After 17 years of independent research and self-funded experimentation, I have decided to publicly share my innovative earthquake-resistant system without pursuing immediate patent protection. However, should the method be adopted or requested for implementation, I am prepared to intervene technically by providing the necessary anchoring mechanism, which is essential for the system’s safe and effective performance.

Innovation must ultimately serve humanity. If this decision helps save even a single life, it will have been more than justified.

Dear Ioannis Lymperis ,

Your decision to share life-saving innovation despite IP challenges is truly commendable. I agree—there’s a need for a global framework to protect independent researchers while enabling societal impact.

In my case, I’ve used limited patent filings combined with selective publication to balance visibility and protection.

Your story is inspiring and reflects the core spirit of ethical innovation.

Wishing you great reach and recognition.

Proposal for a Combined Scientific Publication and Intellectual Property Protection System with Social Benefit

Introduction

In modern innovation, the patent system and scientific publication operate as two distinct processes. Patent protection safeguards inventors' rights but often delays the broad dissemination of knowledge and requires significant financial resources. Conversely, scientific publication promotes rapid knowledge sharing but fails to provide sufficient legal protection for commercial exploitation.

Proposed Model

We propose the creation of a new legal and institutional framework in which the publication of an original invention in a recognized scientific journal will simultaneously serve as a form of intellectual property protection. This approach achieves:

• Rapid and public dissemination of innovation, contributing to faster technological and scientific progress in society.
• Protection of inventors' rights against unauthorized use, through documentation of originality and the publication’s timestamp.
• Transparency and public access to knowledge, preventing monopolistic practices and hidden patents that do not serve the public interest.

Compensation Mechanism

For commercial exploitation of the invention by third parties, a mandatory royalty fee of 5% of net revenues is proposed, paid to the inventor or rights holders as fair compensation for their creative contribution. This percentage:

• Ensures incentives for continuous innovation and research.
• Allows widespread commercial use without complex and costly licensing procedures.
• Balances public interest with creator rights.

Advantages of the Model

• Reduced bureaucracy and costs compared to traditional patents.
• Accelerated innovation and adoption of new technologies in critical fields such as healthcare, energy, and environmental protection.
• Increased trust and ethics in research, with clear documentation of intellectual property through publicly accessible publications.
• Social benefit through broad knowledge diffusion while ensuring fair financial recognition for creators.

Implementation and Future Prospects

Implementing this proposal requires:

• Collaboration among international organizations, academic publishers, and legal bodies to establish and recognize the new framework.
• Development of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for royalty collection.
• Pilot programs in selected research fields to evaluate and refine the system.

Social and Economic Significance

• Boosts innovation.
• Recognizes and protects small inventors.
• Prevents knowledge loss.
• Society benefits without the costly bureaucracy of current patent systems.

Comment on Publication Practices The journal Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, despite its high reputation, has become practically inaccessible to independent researchers. The excessive article processing charges (around €6000) create an economic barrier that excludes innovative contributions from those without institutional funding. Moreover, the journal prioritizes strict formatting and writing rules over the actual practical value and originality of ideas. In this sense, it fails in its scientific mission, especially when compared with more accessible open-access venues (e.g., the Open Journal of Civil Engineering, with charges around €300), where research is judged primarily on its merit rather than the author’s financial capacity.