FRC+IEC ?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Kiteman, I think Chris wanted to express that patents were invented for an very different reason than what they are used for today.
If I understand Chris correctly, he means to say that patents will allow the public to reproduce the invention (thus allowing society to benefit from a wide spread of the invention), while the inventor is guaranteed his share, when they do.
Of course the IP stays with the inventor (nowadays they do and in the US, even that is not entirely true, actually, since IPs can be sold), but patents are meant to allow others to reproduce the invention, for a fee.
Otherwise, there will never be progress.
Some companies do not file patents and rely on so called trade secrets instead. That is, they keep their invention a secret. This way, they are making sure that nobody can copy their idea. However, this will not give them protection if someone figures out what they are doing and manages to reproduce it by himself.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Also, trade secrets apply when you're looking at a portion of a subject that would not qualify for patent. Many of the intricacies involved in M-E thruster research fall under this heading. Specific understandings of the "art" of gravinertial propulsion are lessons learned over the years which would not qualify for patent, but which form the greatest reasons for considering the Woodward group the "A-Team" when it comes to gravinertial research. These secrets are worth protecting because they were hard fought to learn and it would be silly to just hand them say, to the Chinese.

And for the record, I will state again the obvious: patents exist to protect intellectual property. It doesn't matter if you call the notion of IP a fiction, and disagree with it on some whacky principle. It doesn't matter what you think the history of patent is. Patents exist to protect IP. Without that protection, creativity and innovation lose most of their support. Make up whatever nonsense you like, patent exists for the obvious reasons and whining the law should be different is just sign of a rational disconnect with the world in which we live. If you honestly don't get how IP needs to be protected, I suggest you go out and create something valuable--you'll figure it all out.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote:Kiteman, I think Chris wanted to express that patents were invented for an very different reason than what they are used for today.
No argument. And if tse had expressed that I wouldn't have tweeked tser. My tweek was based on what tse DID experss and how it was expressed. :)

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

If you honestly don't get how IP needs to be protected, I suggest you go out and create something valuable--you'll figure it all out.
Uhm, both me and Chris do actually have GRANTED patents...
I do very well understand the need for IP to be protected, but patenting something emmediately makes the thing available to the public, if you want to, or not. In modern times, everyone can access them, from anywhere in the world. That means that the Chinese can do pretty much whatever they want with my IP...
Generally the patent system, as it is now, is broken. It makes things way to hard for small companies and even large corporations can get into expensive and pointless legal arguments. It is also very expensive for those that wish to file for patents.
Small garage inventors, usually can not afford filing a patent.
In addition to this, especially in the US, patents are granted for all sorts of crap that should have never gotten a patent. This is by far not as bad in Europe, though the US is using its influence to push the same crap on us as well.
Personally I would have sent them to hell, but nobody listens to what I say.
Anyway, software patents is a good example. In the US they are given out without any discrimination whatsoever. Stuff is being patented that has been around for many years prior and invented by someone completely different. Does this protect the inventor? No, it does not! All it does is cause trouble and costs.
A patent should not be for an idea, sorry. It should be for an invention. There is a huge difference. An idea is a mental construct. An invention is the realization and test of said mental construct. You can not patent something that does not work. It is nonsensical. If you start doing stuff like that, you will cause chaos in our societies repository of engineering knowledge.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Skip, it sounds like we agree on the essential points, I will however note 3 mistaken notions above.

People who patent software that has been around for ages are simply abusing the system. To qualify for patent, you have to pass the test of "novelty" and so what you're referring to is not a problem in the system's conception, it is a problem with enforcement by the ineptitude of the examiners. There' not much way to fix this. If we have more and better examiners, it will simply cost much more to file for patent.

You cannot ever patent an idea. Anyone who understands patent knows this. You can only patent inventions or kinds of inventions. The definition here is very specific and laborious but the law says just what you're hoping for: you cannot patent an idea.

You absolutely can patent things that do not work. There are hundreds if not thousands of patents on perpetual motion machines and the like. Again, if one were to change the law and require proof an invention will work, then the entire innovative process would come grinding to a halt. Patent is designed to protect IP. Protecting IP that obviously cannot work is kinda silly, but the benefit of the doubt always needs to go with the inventor; so we're much better off granting patents to perpetual motion machines that may work for some misunderstood reason like ZPF, than we are denying them on their face. The key to this decision is always suppose to be to protect the IP and make the inventor secure for his work.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

KitemanSA wrote:Chris,
It seems you have a bit of a problem with time. In the following exchange, GIT says "exists" (present tense) and then you say "is a" (also present tence) but use a definition about what WAS. GIT is correct.
Not at all. Patents 'exist' because during the Renaissance [particularly] there were monarchs sufficiently enlightened to issue patents to those they wished to bestow monopolies on due to those persons with curious skills and knowledge.

That is why "they exist", because of this history precedent which has evolved into the patent system known and hated today.

What they are used for now may well be for creating intellectual property, but that is not why they exist. Your argument sounds a bit like a politician saying that taxpayers exist to pay tax. This isn't exactly true, now, is it?!!....

The current primary 'use' of a thing doesn't demonstrate the reason for a thing's existence, so you cannot argue a thing exists because of its current use. This is clearly a non-sequitur.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

::groan::

Just FYI peeps, but this thread is full of obvious misunderstandings by people who claim to know. If you need to know about IP law, get a good book.

Claims like "you can't own words" are so woefully inaccurate that it staggers the imagination anyone would pen them. Of course you can't own words but you can own arrangements of them and these are protected by copyright. Fact is, anytime anyone pens anything in their own words, they own the copyright to those words. When you file for a legal copyright, you step through the formalities of legal recognition is all.

Just FYI. . .lots of ignorance boasting as knowledge in this thread.

IMHO, the patent system has troubles but there are few if any fixes. As I've mentioned, one could make sure less abuse happens in the system but then patents would cost more. One could likewise make them cost less, but then there would be more abuse of the system. People love to hate patent law because they don't understand these simple basic facts of life.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:You absolutely can patent things that do not work.
You absolutely are not mean to be able to do so.

Here is my evidence;
35 U.S.C. 112 Specification. - Patent Laws

35 U.S.C. 112 Specification.

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

____________________-

USPTO MPEP 2164.01(a)

2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors - 2100 Patentability

2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors

There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:

(A) The breadth of the claims;

(B) The nature of the invention;

(C) The state of the prior art;

(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;

(E) The level of predictability in the art;

(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;

(G) The existence of working examples; and

(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.

A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

The determination that "undue experimentation" would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the above noted factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404. These factual considerations are discussed more fully in MPEP § 2164.08 (scope or breadth of the claims), § 2164.05(a) (nature of the invention and state of the prior art), § 2164.05(b) (level of one of ordinary skill), § 2164.03 (level of predictability in the art and amount of direction provided by the inventor), § 2164.02 (the existence of working examples) and § 2164.06 (quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure).
Now show me what you have to contribute to the contrary.


...


Now a casual observer (who remains foolish enough not to see through your lack of knowledge and total fakery) may ask "OK, cmb, so why is it that there are patents that are gobbledigook, then?"

The answer lies in another bit of (US) patent law (there is nearly the exact same in other patent systems):

2164.04 Burden on the Examiner Under *>the< Enablement Requirement [R-1] - 2100 Patentability



In order to make a rejection, the examiner has the initial burden to establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (examiner must provide a reasonable explanation as to why the scope of protection provided by a claim is not adequately enabled by the disclosure).
This means that it is not up to the inventor to prove it is not a viable and enabled invention, but it is for the examiner to disprove it. The bias this 'prove it doesn't work' obligation puts on examiners means that if the patent specification is construed in such a way as to make it difficult for anyone to ultimately question its basis then the examiner may simply grant it that argue it - after all, the USPTO sends another fee of $1400 after they have granted it, so if some fool wants to patent something they know doesn't work, then charge the suckers!

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:Claims like "you can't own words" are so woefully inaccurate that it staggers the imagination anyone would pen them.
Who claimed this?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Chris, you are correct in your post 2 above though, it is good to recognize there are thousands of patents for inventions that do not work. You absolutely can patent things that do not work.

Who claimed "you can't own words"? I dunno. Was earlier in the thread and honestly, I don't see any reason to go back and check. I was just correcting a misunderstanding about IP law in general. I have no emotional stake in proving others right or wrong and would really enjoy we lose the atmosphere of contentiousness here.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Austrian patent law conains the exact same sentence, to the point.

The bias this 'prove it doesn't work' obligation puts on examiners means that if the patent specification is construed in such a way as to make it difficult for anyone to ultimately question its basis then the examiner may simply grant it that argue it - after all, the USPTO sends another fee of $1400 after they have granted it, so if some fool wants to patent something they know doesn't work, then charge the suckers!
Personally, I think that this is a problem. A real big problem.
Now please, I can not really give you my word for that, because I have personally only patented a software process (not an algorithm, big difference), but I do remember there having to be a working prototype for certain applications. I am almost 100% sure.
I know that my grandfather, who patented a new wind turbine design, had to build a prototype that was actually working and demonstrating the design.
In any case, I do think that having some sort of prototype, or at least some solid test setup that proofs that the thing can at least work in theory.
I find it ludicrous that you can just patent any sort of wild idea and then you hope that one day it will work, or someone else will make it work, so that you can get money for it.
Something that does not exist, not even as a test article that demonstrates some of the more important concepts, is not an invention, it is an idea.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Skip, there's a world of difference and a continuum of distinctions nested between an "idea" and a working model. This is where US patent law varies according to topic but in general, no one EVER gets a patent for an "idea". There must be something much more regardless of the field. There is all sorts of detail in the level of detail, but what one generally needs is something approaching "design".

Because all the various "arts" have so many different details that form significant issues, what is necessary for a wind tunnel will be different from a piece of software, and from a power generator (based upon generally well accepted physics or not!) and a thruster.

The devil is in the details.

I can tell you, I've read hundreds if not thousands of patents over the years, and you'd be amazed at the wide variety of what is required based upon the specific details of the situation, including the temperament of the examiner!
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Skipjack wrote:Now please, I can not really give you my word for that, because I have personally only patented a software process (not an algorithm, big difference), but I do remember there having to be a working prototype for certain applications. I am almost 100% sure.
Yes, that is quite possible.

(To those with enough interest thus far..) The further detail on this, for US patents at least, is that the examiner need only present reasonable substantiation of doubt over the viability of the patent, it need not be a 'rigorous' proof, but one based only on a reasonable argument. It is very much like any Court proceedings - you have to proove guilt, but it is sufficient to show prima facie and the defendant must then argue the converse. (Just as with patents, you could argue over the moral correctness of this, but this is how it is...)
2164.05 Determination of Enablement Based on Evidence as a Whole - 2100 Patentability

2164.05 Determination of Enablement Based on Evidence as a Whole

Once the examiner has weighed all the evidence and established a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention, the burden falls on applicant to present persuasive arguments, supported by suitable proofs where necessary, that one skilled in the art would be able to make and use the claimed invention using the application as a guide. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1406-07, 179 USPQ 286, 294 (CCPA 1973). The evidence provided by applicant need not be conclusive but merely convincing to one skilled in the art.
As a response, the applicant may be asked to present a working example as cast-in-iron proof that it is viable. However, as far as I read US law, an examiner doesn't have the power to obligate a working example - but, clearly, that in itself must cast a doubt because why would someone seeking commercial rights not want to build a prototype? But, anyhow, the following get-out appears to offer the terminally lazy the chance to come up with a patent without ever lifting a tool:
2164.02 Working Example - 2100 Patentability

2164.02 Working Example

Compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, does not turn on whether an example is disclosed. An example may be "working" or "prophetic." A working example is based on work actually performed. A prophetic example describes an embodiment of the invention based on predicted results rather than work actually conducted or results actually achieved.

An applicant need not have actually reduced the invention to practice prior to filing. In Gould v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1074, 1078, 3 USPQ 2d 1302, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1987), as of Gould's filing date, no person had built a light amplifier or measured a population inversion in a gas discharge. The Court held that "The mere fact that something has not previously been done clearly is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for rejecting all applications purporting to disclose how to do it." 822 F.2d at 1078, 3 USPQ2d at 1304 (quoting In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 461, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956)).

The specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970).

Lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art. But because only an enabling disclosure is required, applicant need not describe all actual embodiments.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

chrismb wrote:
As a response, the applicant may be asked to present a working example as cast-in-iron proof that it is viable. However, as far as I read US law, an examiner doesn't have the power to obligate a working example - but, clearly, that in itself must cast a doubt because why would someone seeking commercial rights not want to build a prototype? But, anyhow, the following get-out appears to offer the terminally lazy the chance to come up with a patent without ever lifting a tool:
There's much more involved here than laziness. There are often economic concerns for example, that make it impractical to build a working model without the funds that could not be secured without the patent. I'm sure there are lots of other examples we might multiply, but the obvious is that lifting a tool is not what is required by US law.

As far as defense against an objection an examiner might offer--let me take a current issue. . .

There are currently lots of free energy devices being patented. Almost all of them make reference to "ZPF" as the source of the free energy. There is no cogent theory of ZPF that can stand examination. We don't have any reasons to suppose ZPF can be harvested according to current theory. This does not stop the flood of ZPF power generators making their way into the patent office. Why? Because it is the examiner's place to say there appears to be a conservation violation, and the simplest answer is to say that this conservation issue is solved by the Zero Point Field, where the supposed energy will come from.

There is no onus upon the inventor to show evidence of such a field. This one single answer is why there are so many spurious inventions getting patents right now.

How should this be different? It shouldn't because we simply don't KNOW there is no ZPF that can be harvested for seemingly free energy. So the best solution is to allow all these oddball patents.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:There are currently lots of free energy devices being patented. Almost all of them make reference to "ZPF" as the source of the free energy.
I presume you mean "being applied for", which means nothing. If you mean, "being granted", then show me an example. I would like to see one that got through.

Post Reply