I think I will send without an attachment
> Found this recent 2011 patent application for an inertial drive similar to > the TerraWatt drive and attached the google patent version and another link > > http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2011044588 > > Filed by this guy: > Joseph P. Firmage, 28, founded USWeb, a leading Internet consulting firm, > in 1995. Like his previous ventures, the company prospered wildly. For > fiscal 1998, USWeb posted revenue of $228 million - a 100% increase over > the previous year. > > He referenced one of the early magnetic motor developers, Bruce De Palma > MIT/Harvard grad (Brian's brother - Scarface Director). Bruce evidently > had a working demo unit & filed a patent application back in the 1990's > before succumbing to stomach cancer and/or internal bleeding at age 52. > The motor was never brought to market. > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/86710207/Bruce-Depalma-History > http://www.brucedepalma.com/ > > Just food for thought. > > I wish some of these guys stayed healthier. > > Stewart > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Jeff Berkowitz <pdx...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> A patent is not the only way to protect an idea. In practice, trade >> secret law may be more important. This is particularly true when the idea >> to be protected is not the product itself, but the process used to produce >> it. >> >> Consider the high-K metal gate process used by Intel at the 45nm and 32nm >> nodes. Intel published a small amount of information about the process when >> they introduced it. And competitors have undoubtedly reverse engineered the >> results, determining the precise geometries and elemental makeup of the >> devices. >> >> But they do not know the process used to produce them. They are forced to >> hypothesize about the process technology and then test each hypothesis. >> Certainly, knowing the final result is a huge advantage over having to >> dream it up in the first place. But reverse engineering the manufacturing >> process is still daunting, even for engineers already "skilled in the art". >> >> I think there may be analogies in LENR. Now frankly in the long run, I >> don't expect this fact to be especially significant. If this stuff plays >> out as some of us hope, the economic incentive will ensure that what can be >> done, will be done, and quickly. If it doesn't play out, there are no >> useful secrets to protect. >> >> But trade secrecy may have a large effect on the likelihood of people >> like me, a curious non-specialist, ever being able to satisfy my curiosity >> about what the heck is going on. Bummer. ;-) >> >> Jeff, speaking for myself. >> I have never been employed by Intel or had access to any Intel >> trade-secret information through NDA or anything like that. >> >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is >>>> inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it. >>>> >>> >>> I am not being cynical. Well, not completely cynical. In technology, >>> when you make an important claim you file a patent. A patent must reveal >>> everything or it is invalid. In pure science, when you make an important >>> breakthrough you rush to publish it as soon as possible to establish >>> priority. >>> >>> Sometimes, foolish people make what they think is an important >>> breakthrough and they try to keep it secret. These "breakthroughs" are >>> usually mistakes or stuff that everyone knows already. >>> >>> Howard Aiken's dictum applies: "Don't worry about people stealing your >>> ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's >>> throats." >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
