Why not start with what already exists?

[carlprad]

Hello

I'm new to this forum and wanted to ask a  couple of question that seems obvious to me, but I'm sure its an oversimplification on my part.

So, I ask that everyone please have a little tolerance for this newbie:

question:

1) If someone is granted a patent for a Permanent Magnet Motor, does that mean that the motor is legit?

2) if so, then there already exist several Overunity PM motors with patents.

3) finally, if the above two are true, then why don't we just use the existing, patented, motors as our starting points and build our own variants from them?

Thanks everyone.

[e2matrix]

Hello

I'm new to this forum and wanted to ask a  couple of question that seems obvious to me, but I'm sure its an oversimplification on my part.

So, I ask that everyone please have a little tolerance for this newbie:

question:

1) If someone is granted a patent for a Permanent Magnet Motor, does that mean that the motor is legit?

2) if so, then there already exist several Overunity PM motors with patents.

3) finally, if the above two are true, then why don't we just use the existing, patented, motors as our starting points and build our own variants from them?

Thanks everyone.

Getting a patent does not mean anyone has actually built a working unit.   In come cases someone gets an idea and patents it based on research and theory but they have not even built a prototype.   It's a way of saying "I thought of it first" so no one else can claim it or build it without paying me something for it.  The patent office has an official memo about any overunity or free energy devices which basically says they will not allow them (if they think they are real) for national security reasons.   So I think most patents that you might think you could easily build an OU motor from you will find are not likely to be working. 

[conradelektro]

The patent office has an official memo about any overunity or free energy devices which basically says they will not allow them (if they think they are real) for national security reasons.

I have to object to the "national security" rumour. The US Patent Office will refuse a patent for the following reasons:

What cannot be patented:
http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp

Laws of nature
Physical phenomena
Abstract ideas
Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected). Go to the Copyright Office .
Inventions which are: Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or
Offensive to public morality

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/comments/ab98/hickman.pdf (on pages 2 and 3 you will find many arguments used by the USPTO based on "utility")

The argument of the USPTO against an "overunity machine" or a "perpetuum mobile" or "any exotic machine" will be "it is not useful", because it is assumed that it will not work (contradicts common knowledge and today's accepted science).

____________________________________________________________________________________________

A basic requirement of any patent is that the subject matter is "useful" in industry and commerce. And something that according to common knowledge or according to accepted science will not work can not be useful.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

There is no "national security" involved.

If one likes to criticise this practice of the USPTO one could argue that it is not possible to patent anything beyond today's generally accepted science. In other words, something has to be within generally accepted science before one can refer to it in a patent.

Is this good or bad? At least it helps to refuse a huge number of crackpot patents.

But note this: If you make a new discovery (develop a "new science"), it could not be patented anyway. See above: "Laws of Nature", "Physical phenomena" and "Abstract Ideas" can not be patented.

I hope this clarifies the workings of the USPTO.

Greetings, Conrad

[Liberty]

I have to object to the "national security" rumour. The US Patent Office will refuse a patent for the following reasons:

What cannot be patented:
http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp

Laws of nature
Physical phenomena
Abstract ideas
Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected). Go to the Copyright Office .
Inventions which are: Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or
Offensive to public morality

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/comments/ab98/hickman.pdf (on pages 2 and 3 you will find many arguments used by the USPTO based on "utility")

The argument of the USPTO against an "overunity machine" or a "perpetuum mobile" or "any exotic machine" will be "it is not useful", because it is assumed that it will not work (contradicts common knowledge and today's accepted science).

____________________________________________________________________________________________

A basic requirement of any patent is that the subject matter is "useful" in industry and commerce. And something that according to common knowledge or according to accepted science will not work can not be useful.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

There is no "national security" involved.

If one likes to criticise this practice of the USPTO one could argue that it is not possible to patent anything beyond today's generally accepted science. In other words, something has to be within generally accepted science before one can refer to it in a patent.

Is this good or bad? At least it helps to refuse a huge number of crackpot patents.

But note this: If you make a new discovery (develop a "new science"), it could not be patented anyway. See above: "Laws of Nature", "Physical phenomena" and "Abstract Ideas" can not be patented.

I hope this clarifies the workings of the USPTO.

Greetings, Conrad

"If one likes to criticise this practice of the USPTO one could argue that it is not possible to patent anything beyond today's generally accepted science. In other words, something has to be within generally accepted science before one can refer to it in a patent."

The current policy assures that government looses out on the next level of new technology (which present science won't support or is ignorant about, because government doesn't fund them to look into such things), and that it will not be patented.   

[carlprad]

thanks everyone.