Magnet Motor Recent Patent Application

[Omnibus]

@nightlife:

No, I respectfully disagree.  For example, if you came up with a working design and published it here, and it was replicated by many, and, possibly improved by some...then, to my understanding (another reason I don't believe in patents) someone would have to not only sue you, they would have to defend their patent against all who "jumped" it.  If they could only afford to sue three of us, and there were like 100, then, their patent would be declared void as they did not defend it against everyone.  So, and Shruggedatlas hopefully may give us her opinion on this, I think there is hope.  The more people that build, use, and sell the device in question, the more expensive it would be to defend the patent.  This is also why I think the system is stacked against the lone inventor.  I believe Shrugged said that the average patent suit averages about $2,000,000.00 (USD)  Good luck for someone to attempt to file 100 suits.  Just my opinion based upon what a patent attorney told me once.

Bill

If we are still talking about the application Hans originally posted, then there's a long road ahead for that potental patent, and if the USPTO decides it is perpetual motion then it will be denied.  Also, unless there is a big company behind this patent, many inventors are just looking to settle these things via licensing agreement (% of your revenue for selling a product using the technology). 

So if you guys think this thing could work, why not give it a chance and build it?  It'll probably be a year before it would ever be granted a patent (IF EVER), and given that time, a new model could be designed based on same principles but with different configuration which wouldn't violate the patent (if it is granted).

Patents aren't complete dead ends for the opensource efforts.  In reality, it is hard (and should be impossible!) to patent a whole idea or scientific principle.  So if we can figure out the principles behind an invention like this, and build it in a significantly different way then it would not be an infrindgement on the patent.

Regards,
jeffc

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to contact that fellow Gary Minker and have him demonstrate his device rather than rediscovering the wheel?

[Paul-R]

Tell that to Jesse Mc. Queen Omnibus,

who has a US patent for a perpetual motion machine and is currently milking Australian investors at a record rate. Just the other day an investor got in contact with me since I was the one who exposed the scam on an old thread here. The poor guy is out of pocket 20,000 dollars and has nothing to show for it but empty promises. What makes it worse is that the poor bloke got all his mates into the scheme thinking they are all going to make millions.

It's an old story and one that many people would like to continue.

Hans von Lieven

That's why all this should be taken very seriously. Can't you do something to have this person's patent revoked if he doesn't demonstrate a working device?

You don't have to have a working prototype to get a patent.
A large proportion of US patents are under researched b*****it. See if there is a European
patent.

[jeffc]

@nightlife:

No, I respectfully disagree.  For example, if you came up with a working design and published it here, and it was replicated by many, and, possibly improved by some...then, to my understanding (another reason I don't believe in patents) someone would have to not only sue you, they would have to defend their patent against all who "jumped" it.  If they could only afford to sue three of us, and there were like 100, then, their patent would be declared void as they did not defend it against everyone.  So, and Shruggedatlas hopefully may give us her opinion on this, I think there is hope.  The more people that build, use, and sell the device in question, the more expensive it would be to defend the patent.  This is also why I think the system is stacked against the lone inventor.  I believe Shrugged said that the average patent suit averages about $2,000,000.00 (USD)  Good luck for someone to attempt to file 100 suits.  Just my opinion based upon what a patent attorney told me once.

Bill

If we are still talking about the application Hans originally posted, then there's a long road ahead for that potental patent, and if the USPTO decides it is perpetual motion then it will be denied.  Also, unless there is a big company behind this patent, many inventors are just looking to settle these things via licensing agreement (% of your revenue for selling a product using the technology). 

So if you guys think this thing could work, why not give it a chance and build it?  It'll probably be a year before it would ever be granted a patent (IF EVER), and given that time, a new model could be designed based on same principles but with different configuration which wouldn't violate the patent (if it is granted).

Patents aren't complete dead ends for the opensource efforts.  In reality, it is hard (and should be impossible!) to patent a whole idea or scientific principle.  So if we can figure out the principles behind an invention like this, and build it in a significantly different way then it would not be an infrindgement on the patent.

Regards,
jeffc

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to contact that fellow Gary Minker and have him demonstrate his device rather than rediscovering the wheel?

@Omnibus

It might be straightforward, but I would think Gary Minker would be unlikely to assist.  In my experience, people who seek a patent typically are seeking financial gain and aren't willing to show anyone without a nondisclosure agreement.  Once you contact him, if he does so "no" to you request, if you then build a version of his device you are definately building a legal chain of events in his favor.

Regards,
jeffc

[Omnibus]

@nightlife:

No, I respectfully disagree.  For example, if you came up with a working design and published it here, and it was replicated by many, and, possibly improved by some...then, to my understanding (another reason I don't believe in patents) someone would have to not only sue you, they would have to defend their patent against all who "jumped" it.  If they could only afford to sue three of us, and there were like 100, then, their patent would be declared void as they did not defend it against everyone.  So, and Shruggedatlas hopefully may give us her opinion on this, I think there is hope.  The more people that build, use, and sell the device in question, the more expensive it would be to defend the patent.  This is also why I think the system is stacked against the lone inventor.  I believe Shrugged said that the average patent suit averages about $2,000,000.00 (USD)  Good luck for someone to attempt to file 100 suits.  Just my opinion based upon what a patent attorney told me once.

Bill

If we are still talking about the application Hans originally posted, then there's a long road ahead for that potental patent, and if the USPTO decides it is perpetual motion then it will be denied.  Also, unless there is a big company behind this patent, many inventors are just looking to settle these things via licensing agreement (% of your revenue for selling a product using the technology). 

So if you guys think this thing could work, why not give it a chance and build it?  It'll probably be a year before it would ever be granted a patent (IF EVER), and given that time, a new model could be designed based on same principles but with different configuration which wouldn't violate the patent (if it is granted).

Patents aren't complete dead ends for the opensource efforts.  In reality, it is hard (and should be impossible!) to patent a whole idea or scientific principle.  So if we can figure out the principles behind an invention like this, and build it in a significantly different way then it would not be an infrindgement on the patent.

Regards,
jeffc

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to contact that fellow Gary Minker and have him demonstrate his device rather than rediscovering the wheel?

@Omnibus

It might be straightforward, but I would think Gary Minker would be unlikely to assist.  In my experience, people who seek a patent typically are seeking financial gain and aren't willing to show anyone without a nondisclosure agreement.  Once you contact him, if he does so "no" to you request, if you then build a version of his device you are definately building a legal chain of events in his favor.

Regards,
jeffc

I think you're right. You know, I tried to contact Frank Fecera who already has a granted patent on perpetuum mobile. This was after the advice of the examiners of his patent. First of all, it wasn't easy to find his phone number but I finally was able to find it. I've called him numerous times and all I'm getting is a phone message. Like an angler (nothing against anglers, though), waiting for this fantastic offer to  suddenly pop up at his doorstep and change his whole life. Pathetic.

[klicUK]

@ All:

I just thought of another downside.  What if, one of us on here actually makes a real, verified, replicated working device.  Maybe one of us provides all the info to everyone as per the open source approach.  Then, after a while we get sued because, 10 years ago some idiot was granted a patent on this "similar" idea, which they could not make work, but now that you have made it work, lawsuit.  This is terribly wrong.  Maybe we should all write our congressmen and demand USPO reform legislation.  Not that it would do any good, but, what else can we do?

Bill

@Bill,

I thought you could only be sued for selling a device, not for showing how it works. Is this wrong?

regards,
klicUK