US Patent Office Has Granted Patents for Perpetuum Mobile

[shruggedatlas]

It started with the native Americans. They began dying, in droves. Blood from day one.

As far as the second world war, it started in 1939, not when Pearl Harbour was attacked, as allowed by the oval office, to create a fervor in the public, as in the same tactic, recently used, and called '9/11'.

(snipped to save precious monitor real estate)

Dude, I think you have been visiting boards like this too much, where fringe views like yours are accepted with little scrutiny.  I will not debate you point by point, but you use the common conspiracy technique of interleaving truth with fiction, thereby attempting to imbue fiction with the shine of truth.

All I can say is this: compare what the U.S. has done with its military might to what other nations in history have done.  Try to keep things in perspective.  No nation is perfect, but compared with many in the past who could field the relatively unstoppable military that the U.S. can field currently, the U.S. is a peaceful neighbor and a protector to the rest of the world.

The U.S. could, if it wished, simply invade the entire Middle East, bomb them into the Stone Age, and take their oil.  Would Russia and China object?  Cut them in on the action.  You trust their scruples?  This is the type of thing that the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and countless other past powers would not have hesitated to do if it was within their reach.  Be glad there is a U.S. on this globe to keep other major powers in check.

[shruggedatlas]

Like I said, that's exactly what shouldn't be done because it lets US Patent Office off the hook. This proposal makes it so that USPTO can do whatever they please without any accountability and everything wrong that they do is to be righted on the outside, somewhere else, not where it was committed. It is expecially important not to let it go when such a momentuous error has been made--to grant perpetuum mobile patents without any scientific or factual backing.

I really do not see what you are proposing.  Any method of review of the validity of a patent would entail a judge and perhaps a jury, so it would necessarily be "outside" of the PTO office.  The patent examiner already made his decision, and he is not just going to overrule himself most of the time, so you need some kind of court system to handle disputes.  The owner of the patent would need a chance to present his side of the case.

This is exactly what we already have, and you are welcome to use it, if it really bothers you that much that this patent is on the books.  Patent litigation is expensive because patent law is a difficult area of study, and lawyers can charge high rates.  You are welcome to go to law school yourself and then sit for the patent bar, and then you can do all this pro bono.  Otherwise, you need to hire representation.

[Omnibus]

Like I said, that's exactly what shouldn't be done because it lets US Patent Office off the hook. This proposal makes it so that USPTO can do whatever they please without any accountability and everything wrong that they do is to be righted on the outside, somewhere else, not where it was committed. It is expecially important not to let it go when such a momentuous error has been made--to grant perpetuum mobile patents without any scientific or factual backing.

I really do not see what you are proposing.  Any method of review of the validity of a patent would entail a judge and perhaps a jury, so it would necessarily be "outside" of the PTO office.  The patent examiner already made his decision, and he is not just going to overrule himself most of the time, so you need some kind of court system to handle disputes.  The owner of the patent would need a chance to present his side of the case.

This is exactly what we already have, and you are welcome to use it, if it really bothers you that much that this patent is on the books.  Patent litigation is expensive because patent law is a difficult area of study, and lawyers can charge high rates.  You are welcome to go to law school yourself and then sit for the patent bar, and then you can do all this pro bono.  Otherwise, you need to hire representation.

I'd expect that the examiner himself or herself or his or her supervisor would require the patentee to bring in a working model, in view of new circumstances, or else the patent will be revoked. It shouldn't be that a scammer who managed somehow to trick the examiner, would be allowed to set the deviously obtained decision in stone. No way. I can't believe that the system doesn't have these elementary protections.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day shruggedatlas,

In the main I agree with your assessment. I am not too familiar with US law, but basically it is the same as here in Australia, where I do have some knowledge.

The moment a patent is granted it has become PROPERTY. From that moment on the owner of the patent becomes a party to any dispute involving the patent as you quite rightly pointed out. This implies that any dispute has to come before an impartial arbiter and cannot be anymore resolved by the Patent Office. To do so after having granted the patent would leave the Patent Office open to litigation.

As to who can challenge the validity of a patent I am not so sure how this would work in the US. Here in Australia you would have to show an equitable interest in the matter, like a competing patent application or prior art or something like that in order to even get it to Court.

At least here in Australia you cannot challenge a patent in Court simply because you don't like it or because you have reason to believe it does not work. I would imagine it is similar in the US, otherwise the Courts would be even more clogged up than they are now.

Would you be so kind to explain to me how that would work in the US?

Hans von Lieven

[shruggedatlas]

G'day shruggedatlas,

In the main I agree with your assessment. I am not too familiar with US law, but basically it is the same as here in Australia, where I do have some knowledge.

The moment a patent is granted it has become PROPERTY. From that moment on the owner of the patent becomes a party to any dispute involving the patent as you quite rightly pointed out. This implies that any dispute has to come before an impartial arbiter and cannot be anymore resolved by the Patent Office. To do so after having granted the patent would leave the Patent Office open to litigation.

As to who can challenge the validity of a patent I am not so sure how this would work in the US. Here in Australia you would have to show an equitable interest in the matter, like a competing patent application or prior art or something like that in order to even get it to Court.

At least here in Australia you cannot challenge a patent in Court simply because you don't like it or because you have reason to believe it does not work. I would imagine it is similar in the US, otherwise the Courts would be even more clogged up than they are now.

Would you be so kind to explain to me how that would work in the US?

Hans von Lieven

You can basically defeat any patent if you can show prior art.  Obviousness is another avenue, though that can be hard to establish.  I have not heard of a patent being overturned simply because it does not work, but there are things I do not know.  So I may need to amend my previous statement about Omnibus being able to defeat the offending patent, because absent prior art, the patent will likely hold up.

The whole question is a little silly though.  Patents on nonworking devices have no commercial value - there are no license fees and no one sues over them.  That is why this issue is rarely brought up, and when it is, it is by those who have an unrealistic view of what the patent system is for.

I do think the USPTO is understaffed, and there are not enough examiners to handle the current load, and this needs to be fixed.  Stretched resources is probably how this PPM patent got granted.