G'day all,
Something for you to look at, just found its way to my desk.
Hans von Lieven
Another interesting twist to the old story. Something to ponder tho. See how long before they deny it as a perpetual.
thaelin
Quote from: Thaelin on November 13, 2007, 07:37:15 PM
See how long before they deny it as a perpetual.
thaelin
Just bring along a working model, and they will not deny anything! :)
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 13, 2007, 08:31:00 PM
Quote from: Thaelin on November 13, 2007, 07:37:15 PM
See how long before they deny it as a perpetual.
thaelin
Just bring along a working model, and they will not deny anything! :)
Back to our old discussion. Did Frank Fecera bring a working model and that was the reason to be granted a patent for a perpetuum mobile? No. I verified it with the examiners of his patent. Now, the opposite has to occur. US Patent Office, not third party through the court system, must require that all the patentees who have perpetuum mobile patents granted by the USPTO bring working models, otherwise their patents will be revoked.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 13, 2007, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 13, 2007, 08:31:00 PM
Quote from: Thaelin on November 13, 2007, 07:37:15 PM
See how long before they deny it as a perpetual.
thaelin
Just bring along a working model, and they will not deny anything! :)
Back to our old discussion. Did Frank Fecera bring a working model and that was the reason to be granted a patent for a perpetuum mobile? No. I verified it with the examiners of his patent. Now, the opposite has to occur. US Patent Office, not third party through the court system, must require that all the patentees who have perpetuum mobile patents granted by the USPTO bring working models, otherwise their patents will be revoked.
The USPTO, as overworked as it is, has no motivation, but more importantly, no procedure to reexamine granted patents on its own. Someone must file a request for reexamination and then present evidence to persuade the USPTO to invalidate the patent in question. This is not as costly as litigation, but still costly. So there is your problem. Generally, nonworking inventions sit on the books unchallenged, because they present no threat to others, and hence there is no ecomonic motivation to have them reexamined.
As far as winning such an action, you were right in your original position that a perpetual motion invention can be denied on the basis of utility. Generally, utility is by far the easiest bar to meet when filing a patent, as compared with originality and non-obviousness, and outside of PPMs, I have never heard of a patent application denied on the basis of utility, but in this case, it is uniquely useful. So you should have a good reexamination case against any PPM invention. However, do expect the patent owner to present evidence as to why the invention is not a perpetual motion device. Patent lawyers are notoriously devious in drawing minor distinctions to win their case.
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
This is crazy. It is not perpetual motion but it runs on its own. What the heck does that mean? I think the USPO should require working models, as they do for other devices, on things such as this. If he has really done it, fine, prove it and get the patent. If it is just another idea that "might" work, sorry...patent denied. Just my opinion. I have even less faith in the USPO today than I had yesterday, and I didn't think that was possible. Open source is the only way to go, there is no doubt.
Bill
Opps.... I almost forgot.
Thanks Hans for bringing this to our attention.
Bill
G'day Bill,
According to a guy who is very close to the US patent office the trick is to use language that does not set off any warning bells in the patent office. I posted his letter to me in the Jesse Mc Queen thread in case you are interested,
From the correspondence with him I gathered that his wife is one of the examiners, though he never actually said this.
It would appear that most of the work examiners do is done with computer searches and looking for the right legal format in the applications. If certain keywords appear that are a no-no they demand proof of some sort, if not, the thing just goes through.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 13, 2007, 10:23:05 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 13, 2007, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 13, 2007, 08:31:00 PM
Quote from: Thaelin on November 13, 2007, 07:37:15 PM
See how long before they deny it as a perpetual.
thaelin
Just bring along a working model, and they will not deny anything! :)
Back to our old discussion. Did Frank Fecera bring a working model and that was the reason to be granted a patent for a perpetuum mobile? No. I verified it with the examiners of his patent. Now, the opposite has to occur. US Patent Office, not third party through the court system, must require that all the patentees who have perpetuum mobile patents granted by the USPTO bring working models, otherwise their patents will be revoked.
The USPTO, as overworked as it is, has no motivation, but more importantly, no procedure to reexamine granted patents on its own. Someone must file a request for reexamination and then present evidence to persuade the USPTO to invalidate the patent in question. This is not as costly as litigation, but still costly. So there is your problem. Generally, nonworking inventions sit on the books unchallenged, because they present no threat to others, and hence there is no ecomonic motivation to have them reexamined.
As far as winning such an action, you were right in your original position that a perpetual motion invention can be denied on the basis of utility. Generally, utility is by far the easiest bar to meet when filing a patent, as compared with originality and non-obviousness, and outside of PPMs, I have never heard of a patent application denied on the basis of utility, but in this case, it is uniquely useful. So you should have a good reexamination case against any PPM invention. However, do expect the patent owner to present evidence as to why the invention is not a perpetual motion device. Patent lawyers are notoriously devious in drawing minor distinctions to win their case.
@shruggedatlas,
I think USPTO has the mother of all motivations to deny a patent on something new but not useful it has granted a patent by mistake. Because in this way USPTO has violated US Patent Law which requires that patents be granted only for new as well as useful devices, methods etc. This is a threat to the whole system, as any violation of the law which isn?t taken care of is.
As for the owner, he will be in no position to present evidence that a motor he?s granted paten for, working without spending of energy of any kind, isn?t a perpetuum mobile. If he, however, presents a model of a working motor which doesn?t spend energy of any kind, then Science must change. This is a cut and dry case, a yes or no situation, and no minor distinctions can ever be presented.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 13, 2007, 10:34:52 PM
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?
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 13, 2007, 10:46:32 PM
This is crazy. It is not perpetual motion but it runs on its own. What the heck does that mean? I think the USPO should require working models, as they do for other devices, on things such as this. If he has really done it, fine, prove it and get the patent. If it is just another idea that "might" work, sorry...patent denied. Just my opinion. I have even less faith in the USPO today than I had yesterday, and I didn't think that was possible. Open source is the only way to go, there is no doubt.
Bill
Can't agree more.
This was my original post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3130.0.html
and this is the guy close to the USPTO
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3130.45.html
Fascinating, isn't it?
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 13, 2007, 10:54:52 PM
G'day Bill,
According to a guy who is very close to the US patent office the trick is to use language that does not set off any warning bells in the patent office. I posted his letter to me in the Jesse Mc Queen thread in case you are interested,
From the correspondence with him I gathered that his wife is one of the examiners, though he never actually said this.
It would appear that most of the work examiners do is done with computer searches and looking for the right legal format in the applications. If certain keywords appear that are a no-no they demand proof of some sort, if not, the thing just goes through.
Hans von Lieven
@shriggedatlas was explaining something similar which shows that the patent system in the US must undergo serious changes. The way it is is a real threat to society because if these devices don't run then nonsense is allowed to prevail officially. It goes without saying that if they run then Science must change and stop standing in the way of the search for unlimited supply of energy.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 13, 2007, 11:08:12 PM
This was my original post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3130.0.html
and this is the guy close to the USPTO
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3130.45.html
Fascinating, isn't it?
Hans von Lieven
This whole thing is a joke. Travesty of reason. No wonder why true scientists really snub at anything having to do with patents.
@ 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
This is exactly what is happening Bill,
Some scam lawyers are systematically covering a lot of ground with scam patents with nothing else but this in mind. Inventors are paying up to these shysters because it is cheaper than suing them. Sad but only too true.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 13, 2007, 11:25:40 PM
@ 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
That's correct. We already discussed that possibility somewhere. Unbelievable, isn't it? This has to be fought and writing to our congressmen demanding USPTO legislation reform is a very good idea. The public should be informed of this through the media as well. I called a non-profit organization seemingly dedicated to deal with undeserved patents called Public Patent Foundation and spoke with its president. They are focusing, however, on undeserved patents granted to big corporations for things obvious. For instance, Monsanto shouldn't be allowed to patent the air we breathe and ask us to pay them for every breath we take. They (the Public Patent Foundation) didn't see too much of an economic threat in the fact that patents are issued for nonsense. He said that there are many, many such patents granted. The advice was if I'm so passionate about this to come out in the media and start alerting the public of this fact.
G'day Omnibus,
Have another look at the first post of mine about the Jesse McQueen patent. (referenced above in this thread) This is typical in a lot of applications of that ilk. It would be almost impossible to patent ANY overunity device without listing his patent as a prior since, it is nearly all encompassing. Any device launched by you or me that works can immediately be challenged with this patent alone.
This is exactly the reason I brought it up in the first place.
I have no idea how to fix this, this system seems to be very entrenched at the moment and there are a lot of vested interests one must trample on just to state one's case.
Hans von Lieven
Everyone,
I'm not sure if you are clear as to the status of the document Hans sent. This patent application is only in the "published" phase, it has not been issued any patent.
Also, this application has not been examined yet. See attached screenshot from PAIR - Status "Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination".
So, eventually this will get examined. It may be thrown out at that point. There is also the possibility for the inventor to make revisions at certain points in the process.
In any case, I can 100% agree that the USPTO needs serious improvement, but lets be careful not to jump too quickly to criticize without understanding the process.
Regards,
jeffc
We know that Jeff,
This discussion just became wider because of the content.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 13, 2007, 11:50:02 PM
G'day Omnibus,
Have another look at the first post of mine about the Jesse McQueen patent. (referenced above in this thread) This is typical in a lot of applications of that ilk. It would be almost impossible to patent ANY overunity device without listing his patent as a prior since, it is nearly all encompassing. Any device launched by you or me that works can immediately be challenged with this patent alone.
This is exactly the reason I brought it up in the first place.
I have no idea how to fix this, this system seems to be very entrenched at the moment and there are a lot of vested interests one must trample on just to state one's case.
Hans von Lieven
Hans,
Fixing the system is going to take some serious work. Even if you are lucky enough to make it through the USPTO process and get granted a patent, its an expensive, time consuming path trying to defend it. Everything that happens after you get a patent is a legal process, which certainly is much easier for the large companies and wealthy people.
The initial goal of the patent system was to present an atmosphere to encourage innovation. Unfortunately, its not working as originally thought.
Regards,
jeffc
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 14, 2007, 12:02:42 AM
We know that Jeff,
This discussion just became wider because of the content.
Hans von Lieven
Sorry, missunderstood. I guess I can't see why everyone gets so angry about a simple application. Thousands of these are rejected every month. I know its POSSIBLE a bad one could get through, and then of course used to rip off investors. But in reality, even a good patent with a working model doesn't mean an investor is going to be rewarded. I've seen tons of great working ideas patented, find investors, and then fail for the 100's of other reasons that any new venture fails.
Anyway, just trying to help. Sorry if I didn't get it.
Regards,
jeffc
Quote
Hans,
Fixing the system is going to take some serious work. Even if you are lucky enough to make it through the USPTO process and get granted a patent, its an expensive, time consuming path trying to defend it. Everything that happens after you get a patent is a legal process, which certainly is much easier for the large companies and wealthy people.
The initial goal of the patent system was to present an atmosphere to encourage innovation. Unfortunately, its not working as originally thought.
Regards,
jeffc
@ Jeff,
Amen
Hans
Based on what you all have said, I guess there is no reason to even try to build one unless it is for personal use.
@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
G'day nightlife,
Open Source is the answer to these scams.
Perhaps not as lucrative to the inventor as a patent but even the scam merchants cannot sue thousands of people everywhere that are using open source technology no matter what their claims.
Take heart, in this regard we are on the right track!
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 13, 2007, 11:50:02 PM
G'day Omnibus,
Have another look at the first post of mine about the Jesse McQueen patent. (referenced above in this thread) This is typical in a lot of applications of that ilk. It would be almost impossible to patent ANY overunity device without listing his patent as a prior since, it is nearly all encompassing. Any device launched by you or me that works can immediately be challenged with this patent alone.
This is exactly the reason I brought it up in the first place.
I have no idea how to fix this, this system seems to be very entrenched at the moment and there are a lot of vested interests one must trample on just to state one's case.
Hans von Lieven
That's exactly why this person must be forced by the US Patent Office to demonstrate the viability of what he was granted a patent for. As a matter of fact, I don't think any of these patents for perpetuum mobile's, even the ones describing workable devices, can be sustained in the long run. These ideas have been known for centuries. There's nothing new there. The new thing is that USA is behind something which Science as we know it considers nonsense. This is serious. No one can play with the USA and belittle what it has decided to protect. The fact is dramatic--as of today, according to the USA perpetuum mobile is possible and any scientist who says it isn't is putting himself or herself in opposition to what this major world power has decided to protect. For known reasons I for one, however, happen to be on the side of Uncle Sam on this and not because it has happened so that patents have been granted by mistake and I'm using this fact to pounce on the non-believers. Just the opposite. It's because there will be some legitimate perpetuum mobile's out there which fact will be uncovered for the Science to see once US Patent Office takes proper actions. Now, having Uncle Sam involved, patentees cannot hide behind corporate secrecies and NDA's, neither can they play pranks such as Mike's phony claim to have reproduced Bedini's device or disappear without a trace as Danny form Ohio, Torbay, couple of Canadians, etc. etc.
Good point's but what if someone has and or creates a patent or copyright and they find one of us and or 100+ of us with one and or find out that we have, bought, sold, leased and or even gave one away, wouldn't that fall under a copyright infringement and possibly get us thrown in jail?
If it could get us in trouble, wouldn?t it be risky to even mention a idea to anyone? I would hate to get anyone in trouble over something I thought of and or something I hear of and told someone else about.
It is getting to the point were we are all just slaves for the rich and our government and the only way to succeed is to lie, cheat, steal and take advantage of people like our rich and governments do.
I do know there are members here from other country's and I cant say the same about their governments but I would like to know if something could be done in other county's and if so, which ones and how can we do it?
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 14, 2007, 12:29:26 AM
@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
Quote from: jeffc on November 14, 2007, 01:30:37 AM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 14, 2007, 12:29:26 AM
@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?
Quote from: Omnibus on November 13, 2007, 10:57:56 PM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 13, 2007, 10:34:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 14, 2007, 01:37:45 AM
Quote from: jeffc on November 14, 2007, 01:30:37 AM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 14, 2007, 12:29:26 AM
@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
Quote from: jeffc on November 14, 2007, 11:12:22 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 14, 2007, 01:37:45 AM
Quote from: jeffc on November 14, 2007, 01:30:37 AM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 14, 2007, 12:29:26 AM
@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.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 13, 2007, 11:25:40 PM
@ 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
@klickUK:
What I meant was if we were all building and testing and possibly selling/distributing something that had been granted a patent, then we could be sued. I did not mean to imply that if we were just talking or posting about a design then we might get in trouble. I am not always as clear on expressing my thoughts as I intend to be. Also, I am not an attorney and I was just repeating what an attorney told me at one time in relation to patents. In the meantime, I say the heck with the patent office, let us just continue to research and experiment and exchange information under open source.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 14, 2007, 12:42:17 PM
@klickUK:
What I meant was if we were all building and testing and possibly selling/distributing something that had been granted a patent, then we could be sued. I did not mean to imply that if we were just talking or posting about a design then we might get in trouble. I am not always as clear on expressing my thoughts as I intend to be. Also, I am not an attorney and I was just repeating what an attorney told me at one time in relation to patents. In the meantime, I say the heck with the patent office, let us just continue to research and experiment and exchange information under open source.
Bill
@Bill,
Thanks for clearing that up, I completely agree.
The trouble is if you did make such a device, you would want it in the public forum AND make some money as well in order to finance further R&D.
klicUK
One thing I would like to add is that people often overlook the value of patents in spurring innovation. While it is true that patent trolls can use an existing patent to extract licensing fees or shut down a competitor, what often happens in response to this is that the competitor makes a small improvement to the competing device to get around the patent. So this is what I would urge in this situation. Of course, the whole invention may be junk, who knows.
In the corporate world patents have also become bargaining chips. You want to have a big portfolio of things to trade, so if another company comes after you for one of their patents, you can make a deal to cross-license one of your holding chips that they want.
I believe the company that by far has the most patents granted each year is IBM, some of these in very esoteric areas.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 14, 2007, 02:09:17 PM
One thing I would like to add is that people often overlook the value of patents in spurring innovation. While it is true that patent trolls can use an existing patent to extract licensing fees or shut down a competitor, what often happens in response to this is that the competitor makes a small improvement to the competing device to get around the patent. So this is what I would urge in this situation. Of course, the whole invention may be junk, who knows.
I would have to agree. When one patent results in many improvements that are also patented, then the system is working according to the original concept. One thing that would be interesting, is to see if opensource could have a team of inventors submit a patent (completely original or improvement), while executing assignments to the public domain. (assignments executed at same time of patent application submission).
Regards,
jeffc
I have been helping out an old patent attorney friend for many years on the side. He will have me get involved when a client walks in with an idea or even a crude prototype. These clients usually do not have a clue.
First let me perform some c. y. a. as the information I am posting should not be consider as any legal advise.
The patent attorney I work with is quite anal. When he files he wants every detail in the patent application required for anyone with common knowledge in the art to replicate it and perform as specified. This scares some clients. They do not want their intellectual property displayed out in the public domain. Many times they are better off with nondisclosures or noncompetes. Copyrights are another consideration. But some 'inventors' will hide little details that do not allow a successfull replication offerred in the embodiment of the patent.
It has been my experience that one can build a physical model offerred in a patent. It is when you start using the replicated model is where you potentially expose yourself to a suit. If you get caught using it that is. Similar to running a stop sign. In my state you can blow by a stop sign as long as no one sees you do it.
You definitely cross the line of exposure when you use the item in a commercial environment or start selling it. Most likely, however, an attorney will not file a suit if there is no financial reward either from his client or the potential defendant.
However, if the replicator had to make modifications on a particular item in a patent to get it to perform as specified the replicator has a good defence. But this defence can be painfull for the one that gets sued first. These improvements could then be patentable. I would consider this to be poetic justice.
Please keep in mind that anything deemed common knowledge in an art is not patentable in the states according to what I have been led to understand.
I do believe there are many times that one needs protection. It is my humble opinion, however, that the topics in this forum should be open source public domain. Getting protection on a free energy device leads a path the absolutely no where but a big black hole. It does not do the originator any service to try to leverage any intellectual property in this area as they are going to be faced with a substantial amount of challenges and end up with a hugh amount of expenses and grief. Even if successfull in getting a financial reward, it most likely get shelved or exploited and there will exist a limit in creativity. Meanwhile, protection does not do the public any service as well.
This being said I will not come down on anyone who feels that they should seek legal protection or financial gain with their hard earned work.
I apologize for my venting.
Take care.
nap
@slapper,
Just wondering about this. What if you were to sell your invention in kit form? say selling two halves seperatley. If you had infringed some ecoteric patent wouldn't this be a way around it?
Also, what about gifting your invention with the sale of something else. A bit like when you buy a Mcdonald's kids meal you sometimes get a free toy. Sell a happy meal get free overunity device! ;)
regards,
klicUK
I think you are allowed to make one device for your own use, for a given patent.
If this is true, then what you have to spread is the knowledge of how to make one, and everyone just makes their own.
Of course first we have to find a working design.
You can build a patented device but when you start using it is where the legal exposure may begin. It becomes open for an argument in a suit. It really does not come down to actually using it however. If you do not allow anyone to know you are using it you should not get into any trouble. Much like the tree falling in the woods. Again, this is only my laymens oppinion based on some of may patent attorney friend tirades as I am not an attorney and nothing I say should be considered as any leagal advice.
Did you notice how I just snuck that c. y. a. in there :)
In response to klicUK:
Please keep in mind that I am referring to my experience here in the states. Complete kits with plans expose you almost as much as out right selling the complete patented item. The plans themselves could be considered illegal. The patent is much like a copyright on steroids. Of coarse this opens up the other area you brought up. If the patent was accurate in its detail you could refer end users to the patent number. The kits themselves can be a source for exposure. The point is that you need to consider how attractive is the item and how deep are the pockets of the patent holder. Anyone can be sued for anything. It does not have to take a hole heck of a lot to get suit filed against you. It depends on a lot of fractures and what your potential pain tolerance is. Much has to be considered.
By the way klicUK., you did an awesome job on the screw motor. Mine failed miserably. Did not do a direct replication though. I have not given up on it yet. I will probably post my results after I have more time to play.
Quote from: slapper on November 14, 2007, 11:31:35 PM
You can build a patented device but when you start using it is where the legal exposure may begin. It becomes open for an argument in a suit. It really does not come down to actually using it however. If you do not allow anyone to know you are using it you should not get into any trouble. Much like the tree falling in the woods. Again, this is only my laymens oppinion based on some of may patent attorney friend tirades as I am not an attorney and nothing I say should be considered as any leagal advice.
Did you notice how I just snuck that c. y. a. in there :)
In response to klicUK:
Please keep in mind that I am referring to my experience here in the states. Complete kits with plans expose you almost as much as out right selling the complete patented item. The plans themselves could be considered illegal. The patent is much like a copyright on steroids. Of coarse this opens up the other area you brought up. If the patent was accurate in its detail you could refer end users to the patent number. The kits themselves can be a source for exposure. The point is that you need to consider how attractive is the item and how deep are the pockets of the patent holder. Anyone can be sued for anything. It does not have to take a hole heck of a lot to get suit filed against you. It depends on a lot of fractures and what your potential pain tolerance is. Much has to be considered.
By the way klicUK., you did an awesome job on the screw motor. Mine failed miserably. Did not do a direct replication though. I have not given up on it yet. I will probably post my results after I have more time to play.
@slapper,
Thanks for the reply. I was really just trying to think of a legal way around being sued by someone holding a bogus "catch all" patent, rather than stinging a genuine inventor with a patent. Specifically about OU devices, surely if the bogus patent holder can not demonstrate a working device, then the working device must be differentiated in some way. This differentiation is what would need to be patented. Kind of jumping the gun a tad though. ;D
"...you did an awesome job on the screw motor. ..." Thanks for that.
klicUK
@ klickUK:
"Screw Motor"...that's a great name for it. Ha ha. Very appropriate don't you think?
Bill
@ klickUK:
"Screw Motor"...that's a great name for it. Ha ha. Very appropriate don't you think?
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 15, 2007, 04:46:28 PM
@ klickUK:
"Screw Motor"...that's a great name for it. Ha ha. Very appropriate don't you think?
Bill
screwy ::)