I don't understand your point, of course Rossi is faced with a difficult choice, and of course it is easy for us to say what we would do in his shoes, since we aren't, but ultimately, Rossi has no real choice. If he is ever going to make the fortune he obviously desires, he needs to risk no patent and prove and sell his product. His only other choice he seems to have passed up, prove cold fusion and live off the lecture tour.
Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:33 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > From the Washington Post: > > "Research money has dried up. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has > refused to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. According to > Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents, this is for the same > reason it wouldn't give one for a perpetual motion machine: It doesn't work." > > No one has yet countered my argument. Merely asserting what you think the > USPTO will do under various circumstances and merely asserting what you think > the relative risks are to the net present value of the intellectual property > of keeping it a trade secret is to skirt the issue. You aren't the one > responsible for the loss of value if it occurs. You can offer an opinion of > what you would do in Rossi's shoes but that is all you are doing. You aren't > there. He is. > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > We don't know yet if his catalyst is unprotected. There is a secret period of > 18months after filing. > > > 2012/2/3 Robert <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> > There are real problems with his patent. Not only is there a host of un-cited > prior art, patent and public domain, but his existing patent application has > limited application to even his current product line. > IANAL, but his patent application centers on the physical construction of his > early tube reactor construction, and seems to only gloss over the underlying > process. > He cannot patent the Ni-H by itself, because it's prior art. He refused to > divulge the catalyst, so he's unprotected. It's messy, but it is what it is. > > Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >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 > > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > >
