----- Original Message -----
From: "OrionWorks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
Reading Ed and Mike's comments makes me wonder why in the world BLP
would attempt to patent a theoretical process involving the
calculation of electron states via software simulations.
The calculation of properties of molecules is extremely computer intensive.
'for example, spider silk is stronger than steel, but is molecular
configuration is not what a synthetic chemist would guess. Millsian software
can do on a laptop what is noiw done on supercomputers. The US patent law
may differ slightly.
Is this latest battle related to Randy's Millsian Molecular Modeling
endeavors, or is this a follow-up to recent alleged "breakthroughs"
involving excess heat using the new "breakthrough" solid fuel base.
Keep your eye on the solid fuel technology and read the website carefully.
It's as if BLP is attempting to explore a different legal strategy: To
establish a precedent, where they are trying to legitimize the CQM
theory indirectly through software simulations that are presumably
backed by physical evidence. ...Perhaps I should say, one better hope
BLP can back up their computer simulations with real physical
evidence!!!
The market for Millsian is pharmaceutical and related companies. The product
is the models with accurate calculations of key properties.
This is an interesting conundrum from my perspective as sharper minds
than mine have always stressed the fact that a theory or an idea can
not be patented, at least not within the United States. When dealing
with the development of industrial processes, such as a novel way to
generate excess heat as BLP hopes to cash in on, I was under the
impression that only a process, a procedure, or improvement to a
process or procedure can be patented. The theory explaining why the
process or procedure seems to work should (in practice) take second
stage to actual physical evidence. OTOH, I gather the "theory" in
question has not always taken second stage to physical evidence such
as when BLP attempted to explain the reasons behind some of their
experimental evidence as modeled through CQM theory.
You can't patent a law of Nature, only a structure or process utilizing the
law. For a long time software was not patentable, being classed as an
"idea". In some cases, copyright law is applied to "intellectual property".
There was a battle between Intel and AMD over microprocessors. AMD produced
processors which would run programs written for Intel processors. In an
elaborate negotiation, it was demonstrated that AMD did not use the same
circuits or steal Intel's designs. You can't patent a hydrino, but you can
patent compounds using hydrinos. You can patent a process for making
hydrinos, and if you are clever enough you might sustain claims to all
processes making hydrinos. DeForest invented the vacuum tube triode, the
Audion, foundationn of the electronics industry. He tried to claim royalties
for every circuit using the Audion, and failed.
I believe it has been suggested more than once that BLP would fare
better if they would simply focus their finite resources on patenting
procedures for which their experimental evidence reveals the
generation of substantial amounts of excess heat.
Such a patent was filed, with hundreds of claims and clauses attempting to
cover all themes and variations. It's much better to have a fundamental
patent if you can get it.
Perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture, because this recent UK
endeavor gives me the impression that BLP continues to spend an
inadvisable amount of time and effort on attempts to legitimize CQM
rather than focusing on protecting the actual processes that are known
to generate substantial amounts of heat.
The UK patent is just one event in an elaborate dance. BLP is well financed.
Mike Carrell
