US Patent Office Has Granted Patents for Perpetuum Mobile

[Omnibus]

How come the US Patent Office has granted patents for perpetuum mobile while the mainstream Science says it?s impossible. Either the US Patent Office are non-scientific or there is something wrong with mainstream Science (which is a public secret).

See the latest US patent for a perpetuum mobile that I know of: http://www.google.com/patents?id=LREWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=6,867,514#PPA1,M1

[shruggedatlas]

How come the US Patent Office has granted patents for perpetuum mobile while the mainstream Science says it?s impossible. Either the US Patent Office are non-scientific or there is something wrong with mainstream Science (which is a public secret).

See the latest US patent for a perpetuum mobile that I know of: http://www.google.com/patents?id=LREWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=6,867,514#PPA1,M1

You are quick to criticize the USPTO for something that is not its responsibility.

While it is true that the patent office has been reluctant to issue patents on perpetual motion machines, it has never been the primary purpose of the patent office to verify functionality of the applicants' inventions.  The purpose of patents is to provide protection for the inventor, and so the patent office works primarily to verify that there is no prior art.  And if the inventor ends up with a patent on an unworkable device, well, he is still protected at least, so the patent does its job.

Anyway, does this thing even claim to be perpetual motion?  I did not read it in entirety.

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlas,

The purpose of patents is to provide protection for the inventor

So you seem to call ?inventor? even someone who would propose nonsense. Unworkable devices are nonsense, correct?

And, it seems to be OK with you that such creators of nonsense are protected by the US Government?

I don?t believe that US Patent Office would agree that its primary business is to protect just anything, nonsense or not.

Anyway, does this thing even claim to be perpetual motion?  I did not read it in entirety.

Read the claims, Read the description of the proposed examples.

Read this: ?There are many instances where a motor action is required and no source of external power is available. Accordingly, a motor which relies solely on the energy stored in permanent magnets would be useful.? Do you still doubt that it?s a patent for perpetuum mobile?

[Omnibus]

There should be a way to smoke out the creators of nonsense who use the gullibility of some clerk to get the umbrella of the US Government.And, if it isn't nonsens there should be a way to make them prove it. These underhanded games are not in the best interest of the American people, don't you agree?

[shruggedatlas]

There should be a way to smoke out the creators of nonsense who use the gullibility of some clerk to get the umbrella of the US Government.And, if it isn't nonsens there should be a way to make them prove it. These underhanded games are not in the best interest of the American people, don't you agree?

First of all, I want to tell you that I respect your intentions.  Honesty and integrity are noble goals.

However, what you must realize is that the American people do not look to the patent system as a validation system, only a protection system.  If someone has an unworkable patent, who does he hurt besides himself?  There are private scientific journals and organizations for those who want to share proven theory - the patent office is not the place for that, and everyone knows it, at least everyone who needs to know.

In the end, what you propose is prohibitively expensive and time consuming.  It already takes years and thousands of dollars to get a patent approved, and that is only with the examiners doing prior art searches.  Can you imagine how much more costly and time consuming patents would be if the examiner had the burden of establishing beyond doubt that the invention actually works?  Would you be willing to pay 5 times more for a granted patent?

As far as I know, the American system is not unique but is fairly typical.  WIPO (www.wipo.int), for example, does not verify function.  How does it work in your country?