Sure, Rossi is basically cornering himself. He could license and protect right now his invention, given that patents, unlike trademarks, are granted provisional protection from the day it was filed.
2012/2/3 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote: > >> IAAL, does that stand for "I am a lawyer", anyway, I am not a patent >> lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your >> intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi >> is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual >> property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will >> likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a >> product. >> > > This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an > assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that > claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual > motion machines are impossible. > > However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed > cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. > > My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to > be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there > is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be > claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device > clearly has the major claimed use. > > It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible, > but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the > USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes > used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not > mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. > > It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means "I'm not a > lawyer." But I do have some idea of the legal issues. > > The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The > USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection. > If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the > inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court. > > But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which > is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he > thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. > > I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know > things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less > knowledge.... > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
