Hi Folks,
To add to Dr. Salter's astute observations; 1) Operation in international waters would negate all patent protection. Patents are territorial. 2) The SPICE Team could use the P. Syringea enzyme within distilled water, which would create cloud streets, and simply call the experiment an effort to carry out local weather modification much like current, non-tethered, aircraft based efforts while gathering engineering data. 3) Patents are never considered enforceable (at the practical level) until they are legally challenged. Many times the patent office will issue a questionable patent and let the courts figure out the strength of the claims. I have personal knowledge of this happening. 4) A mere "application" is not "enforceable". 5) The term "Routine Engineering" would be applicable to the SPICE Project. Sound patent claims are an issue of reduction not addition. A patent claim which has distinct attributes of A, B and C technologies, which results in a Z effect, can not be superseded by adding an additional attribute of, lets say, technology D. However, if a claim reduces A,B & C down to A and B, that represents a new and useful claim. Adding a balloon to stepped pumps is "Routine Engineering". It is no more patentable than if I were to nail the stepped pumps to a tree! There is no conceivably patentable distinction between release at tropospheric and stratospheric altitudes. Patent claims can not be based upon 'size' or 'length'. To conclude: The SPICE Team should go forward as they are not just leading the way in a potentially important "Routine Engineering" development, but are also (hopefully) leading the way in meeting the non-engineering challenges. International governance is simply not applicable to local weather modification or routine engineering. Best, Michael > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> This does not make sense on at least five grounds. >> >> 1. A patent allows you to stop other people making a profit from your >> ideas but does not stop them doing reseach. >> >> 2. The patent mentions 'dispersing solid particles into the Earth's >> atmosphere by balloon.' The SPICE project was going to use a liquid. >> >> 3. The team would have learned lots of good things about balloons and >> hoses by pumping water up to the balloon but not letting it come out of the >> nozzle at the end of the hose. >> >> 4. The holder of a patent would be delighted to have somebody test it >> and would give a free licence for this purpose, maybe even chip in some of >> the cost. >> >> 5. Lowell Wood was talking about this many years ago so the basic idea is >> already in the public domain. >> >> On Tuesday Peter Davidson did webinar for our Institute of Chemical >> Engineers. He is keen on Titanium dioxide rather than SO2. You can get a >> set of slides, an article and a replay from www.tcetoday.com/webinars >> >> Stephen >> >> >> >> >> On 16/05/2012 13:10, O Morton wrote: >> >> http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.de/2012/05/testbed-news.html >> >> SPICE personal statement. >> >> It is with some regret that today the SPICE team has announced we’ve >> decided to call off the outdoor ‘1km testbed’ experiment that was scheduled >> for later this year. The reasons for this are complex and I will try to >> explain the decision here. It should be noted that these views are my own >> and do not necessarily imply consensus within SPICE. Where a range of >> opinions exist I will try to make that clear. Importantly however, the >> decision to call of the experiment was made by all the project partners in >> agreement. >> >> Firstly, there are issues of *governance*. Despite receiving >> considerable attention no international agreements exist. Whilst it is hard >> to imagine a more environmentally benign experiment, which sought to only >> pump 150 litres (2 bath loads) of pure water into the atmosphere to a >> height of one kilometre over a deserted field, in terms of SRMGI >> nomenclature, it represented a transition from stage 2 to stage 3 research. >> Most experts agree that governance architecture is needed and, to me >> personally, a technology demonstrator, even a benign 1/20 scale model, >> feels somewhat premature, though many in SPICE would disagree. Counter to >> my personal feelings is the argument that technologies that could inject SO >> 2 into the stratosphere, particularly aircraft, already exist and that >> process could, but obviously should not, begin tomorrow. It is therefore >> wrong to consider the tested experiment as an enabling technology and that >> various delivery mechanisms should be tested given there is minimal, well >> managed proximal (e.g. health and safety) risk and no impacts on climate or >> biodiversity. >> >> Secondly, there are issues of *intellectual property*. SPICE, as a >> team, is committed to researching climate engineering carefully with the >> profound belief that all such research should be done, as per the Oxford >> Principles, for the greater good. We have all agreed, through a >> partner-wide collaboration agreement to (a) put all results into the public >> domain in a timely manner and (b) not to exploit (i.e. profit from or >> patent) results from the SPICE project. However, a patent application >> exists that was filed prior to the SPICE project being proposed, describing >> the delivery technology, presenting a potentially significant conflict of >> interest. The details of this application were only reported to the project >> team a year into the project and caused many members, including me, >> significant discomfort. Information regarding the patent application was >> immediately reported to the research councils, who have initiated an >> external investigation. Efforts are underway to make the patent >> application’s intentions unambiguous: to protect intellectual property and >> not for commercial purposes. >> >> Thirdly, it will take time to explore these issues through *deliberation >> * and *stakeholder engagement*. This means that any postponement of the >> 1km tested would be a *de facto*cancellation as the experiment’s value, >> to elucidate balloon and tether dynamics to inform computer models, >> diminishes over the project lifetime. The SPICE team sincerely hopes that >> this decision will facilitate rational, unrushed discussion on issues that >> include both governance and intellectual property but span broader issues >> surrounding SRM. >> Posted by matt watson <http://www.blogger.com/profile/14583012320357403299> >> at >> 00:43<http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.de/2012/05/testbed-news.html> >> >> On Wednesday, 16 May 2012 03:13:47 UTC+1, Sam Carana wrote: >>> >>> Nature News - 15 May 2012 - by Daniel Cressey >>> Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row. >>> Balloon-based ‘testbed’ for climate-change mitigation abandoned. >>> http://www.nature.com/news/**geoengineering-experiment-** >>> cancelled-amid-patent-row-1.**10645<http://www.nature.com/news/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled-amid-patent-row-1.10645> >>> >>> Let me also repeat my April 2012 contribution to this discussion, >>> which one of the moderators of this group didn't want groupmembers to >>> read: >>> >>> David Keith, a Harvard University professor and an adviser on energy >>> to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said he and his colleagues are >>> researching whether the federal government could ban patents in the >>> field of solar radiation, according to a report in Scientific >>> American. >>> >>> Some of his colleagues last week traveled to Washington, D.C., where >>> they discussed whether the U.S. Patent Office could ban patents on the >>> technology, Keith said. >>> >>> "We think it's very dangerous for these solar radiation technologies, >>> it's dangerous to have it be privatized," Keith said. "The core >>> technologies need to be public domain." >>> >>> As suggested by Sam Carana, a declaration of emergency, as called for >>> by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG), could be another way to >>> deal with this issue. >>> >>> A declaration of Emergency could give governments the power to >>> overrule patents, where they stand in the way of fast-tracking geo- >>> engineering projects proposed under emergency rules.Thus, patents >>> don't need to be banned, prohibited or taken away; instead, patent >>> will continue to apply in all situations other than the emergency >>> situation, while new patents could also continue to be lodged during >>> the emergency period. >>> >>> Even where patent are directly applicable to proposed projects, patent >>> law would still continue to apply, the emergency rules would merely >>> allow governments to proceed in specific situations, avoiding that >>> projects are being held up by legal action, exorbitant prices or >>> withholding of crucial information. >>> >>> A declaration of emergency could also speed up projects by removing >>> the need to comply with all kinds of time-consuming bureaucratic >>> procedures, such as the need to get formal approvals and permits from >>> various departments, etc. This brings us to the need to comply with >>> international protocols and agreements. If declared internationally, a >>> declaration of emergency could overrule parts of such agreements where >>> they pose unacceptable delays and cannot be resolved through >>> diplomacy. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Sam Carana >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/VGZplsYC_voJ. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> >> >> >> -- >> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University >> of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.ukTel >> +44 >> (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs >> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> >> >> > > > -- > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976* > http://www.voglerlake.com > > > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
