In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 21 May 2013 08:13:14 -0700: Hi Jones,
You may be right. Time will tell. >----Original Message----- >From: mix...@bigpond.com <mailto:mix...@bigpond.com> > >> If you go to >https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805&lng=en&tab= >doclist >.... I get the distinct impression that Ni-62 was made specific in order to >distinguish this patent application from others, IOW in order to obtain a >patent at all.... I get the impression that Rossi is trying to get a patent >without disclosing his "secret sauce", and the patent office isn't happy >about it. > >Robin, > >The motivation you ascribe to Rossi makes little legal sense (not that we >can be assured that Rossi fits into the category of a rational person). > >Nickel-62 is the secret-sauce, now fully disclosed. > >Given that his wife is a lawyer and understands patent law and the >importance of enforceability, and that trade secrets cannot be kept anyway, >there is no attempt to manipulate the system here. She apparently handles >the business end of Rossi's endeavors - as evidenced by the sale of his >other business ventures, which she handled. Even if Rossi does not get good >outside advice on everything, we have to assume he is getting proper legal >advice from his wife. > >Having an unenforceable patent in the USA is almost worse than having none >at all, since you have wasted so much money in the process that you present >an aura of weakness to anyone who wishes to copy your product. Almost every >major product will have novelty - so that salient details can be protected - >but if you try to patent a non-existent feature, or over-extend your novelty >- then you are essentially telling the court: "I have no novelty worth >protecting". His wife has no doubt seen and studied the impressive BLP >portfolio of Intellectual Property - and she knows that it makes no sense to >challenge that prior art. This patent is very specific, and is probably >fully enforceable about the use of one isotope. > >Yet - for some reason, even Rossi's supporters balk at this suggestion, >despite its obviousness. They apparently resist the implications of a rare >isotope, because of a preconceived notion about the larger field of LENR >providing almost limitless and "free energy". > >This segment of Rossi supporters is so idealistic about going beyond what is >now becoming obvious in the public record that they can be called "isotope >deniers". In terms of psychology (human nature) the answer must be that they >(isotope deniers) want LENR to be not only proved, but also to be proved in >a way that makes all their other notions about its low cost and ability to >quash fossil fuel - true, as well. > >Nevertheless, the reality of the recent Levi paper in the context of the >recent final Rossi patent disclosure, appears to be: > >1) LENR is real and robust when an enriched isotope of nickel-62 is provided > > >2) LENR in therefore partially dependent on the availability of a rare >isotope, although the effect can be demonstrated less reliably without it >(using plain nickel). The bottom line: who wants an unreliable system? No >even BLP. > >3) Even though the nickel isotope will be brought down in cost, eventually, >in the same way that U235 was, LENR may not propel society as rapidly into >the lofty realms that supporters had forecast... which is to immediately and >drastically limit oil consumption. The advantage will be with LENR in the >long run, but it will be less apparent. > >4) The Rossi-effect can still make a huge - massive - qualitative difference >- 10 years down the road and beyond, but it will not be simple, nor will it >be as cheap as it once seemed. > >Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
