Bob, I believe the number of ‘inventors’ named on rejected cold fusion patents is far more than 30. Of course my effort is asking for people with such standing to participate in sharing some initial information is in part an effort to get some real data on this number! I know of more than half a dozen who are named as ‘inventors’ alongside me on rejected CF patents.
One always needs permission of the government to sue the government but in this case past and current events have them very well cornored and they’ll not be able to slither away. Of course they can, and might, declare this field secret at any time and cover their asses but then secret negotiations would follow. I think the government will choose to pay off we few surviving wronged inventors out of court rather than engage in a public stewing of the USTPO in a cannibal’s pot full of self-heating heavy water! In helping prepare the cannibal’s stew pot picnic you and many others can help without having ‘standing’ the more people supporting this by standing by to witness it and support the effort the better… they can be an ‘amicus curiae cannibali’ ;) From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR INFO- a smaller, bitter issue Russ, have you estimated the number of people that would have standing in such a case against the USPTO? I think, to have standing, an inventor would have had to make a LENR patent application that was rejected. They may be later found to have been rejected for reasons other than LENR, but forget that for now. How many inventors do you believe have actually submitted LENR patents and have been rejected? I suspect the number would be less than 30. While personally I would be sympathetic, I would have no standing in such a case for not ever having filed a patent application for LENR. >From what Mitchell Swartz told me at ICCF-13, he was very frustrated with what he believed was intentional subterfuge by the USPTO in his applications. It would be interesting to hear if there would be other conditions that would expand the group size that would have standing in such a suit. Also, because the USPTO is a government agency, don't you need some kind of congressional approval to sue them? On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote: Thanks Peter I do believe that this will ring some alarm bells in Washington. Hopefully no more SWAT teams appear to break down my door again. From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com> ] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 2:38 AM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR INFO- a smaller, bitter issue Thanks it is done.Your papers makes reader to think. peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote: Peter, You might publish something about my new idea. I am serious about this. http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/19/cold-fusion-class-action-lawsuit-puts-uspto-in-heavy-water/ Fusing as always Russ George Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:19 AM To: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Brian Ahern; CMNS; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett; doug marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; jeff aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter Mobberley; Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski; Sunwon Park; Valerio Ciampoli; vlad; VORTEX Subject: [Vo]:LENR INFO- a smaller, bitter issue http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-19-2016-lenr-info-smaller-bitter.html Let's prepare for good news, we are already familiar with the bad ones. Where is the heavy artillery of the Trolls? Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
