OK, so in addition to the conflation of "the [criminally conspiratorial US --JAB] patent office" with *any reasonable patent office*, we have the conflation of research with development. Clearly, in the context of patent funding, discussion of research funding must be separated from discussion of development funding. The purpose of research is to discover laws of nature and laws of nature are not patentable by *any* patent office*.* The purpose of development is to create useful techniques -- and techniques *are potentially* patentable by *any* patent office. To *any reasonable patent office* these techniques have *only* to be useful and non-obvious; they do * not* have to be "scientific" except in the broad sense that reproducibility (the operational definition of effective "disclosure" in *reasonable* patent processes) is the sine qua non of "scientific" phenomena.
On the development funding side, Rossi and or Defkalion, assuming they have actually produced heat on the order they claim, could find *any reasonable patent office*, write a patent disclosure and obtain, within the jurisdiction of the reasonable patent office, protection for their investors. Given the high value of the technology, even a small jurisdiction would provide ample rewards for their investors and that is true even if the disclosure then allowed major players to, on the strength of the signal to noise ratio of the phenomenon, discover the (unpatentable) underlying laws of nature that, then, (possibly by being held as a trade secret for a time) recommended techniques to get around the original "unscientific" patent. On the research side, the critical event would be the disclosure and/or product which would motivate the major players to get off their butts. Everything would follow from that. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Let me see if I can be clearer. I believe the LENR situation is not like > any other. First of all, the basic explanation is not accepted. In > contrast, the basic explanation is accepted about other technologies. This > means that the patent office will not grant a patent based on the basic > mechanism or for claims based on nuclear energy being produced by such a > mechanism. Do you know of any such patent? All the granted patents seem to > apply to a method without any proof that the method actually works. In > contrast, Rossi does not even give the method. This opens the patent to > challenge later when the technology starts making money for someone else. > Second, a patent that actually describes a working device, such as what > Rossi might attempt to get, would apply only to the method used. Yes, it > would block use of that method, but nothing else. > > But, you seem to say that any method shown to reproduce the effect will be > blocking regardless of whether this method is understood and the > understanding is shown to apply. Presumably, Rossi could get such a patent > now if he trusted the system to actually grant and protect. Do you agree? > The electrolytic method can be reproduced by a person skilled in the art, > but not every time. How often must this replication be accomplished for > this rule to apply? Could this claim now be patented once a recipe is > described that can replicate nuclear energy? > > So, the problem is what do the rest of us do who are trying to get money > to support research? How does your propose approach help us? Rossi will do > what Rossi wants to do. The rest of us need advice. > > Ed > > On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: > > We have a conflation of issues getting in the way of communication: > First, I hope my introduction of the jurisdictional arbitrage tactic has > laid to rest the notion that the US patent office's criminal conspiracy is > blocking, even though its influence may pervade the much if not most of the > world, and that we may, therefore and henceforth focus solely on obtaining > backing for development of protected intellectual property -- protected > even if in only *one* jurisdiction that refuses to participate in the US > patent office's criminal conspiracy. > > Given the likely circumstance that such a jurisdiction can be found and > the patent obtained in that jurisdiction, the problem facing investors is > identical to that facing *any* investor in *any *technology development. > > Moreover, no one has yet disclosed how to obtain the LENR process > reproducibly by those "skilled in the art". The argument that someone > somewhere wrote something that might prove to have been such a disclosure > is irrelevant if the manifest practice is that, given the enormous motive, > there has been no generally accepted such replication. Therefore, the > first such disclosure will be blocking and subsequent derivative patents > must negotiate with the prior art. > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger >> problem. Since patent protection for the basic process is not possible, a >> patent for the best application is the only protection. This is similar to >> the situation in mature technologies. However, a great deal of money will >> be needed to apply CF in the best way, with no assurance that someone else >> might find a better way before any return on the investment can be >> realized. Consequently, no incentive is created for seed money from private >> sources to get involved. This means the seed money has to come from >> government, which has no interest in getting involved because of the threat >> to present energy sources. This leaves Rossi as the last man standing, >> i.e. until a big industry discovers the secret recipe, perhaps in China, >> and solves the engineering problems faster than Rossi can. After this >> happens, small companies will be able to get money to improve and patent >> the application to special markets, as is the case for the present mature >> technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are treated to a show of nonsense >> and irrationally. >> >> Ed >> >> On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, James Bowery wrote: >> >> Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his investors? >> >> >> I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having paid for a >> rocket engine patent <http://www.google.co.in/patents/US6212876>'s >> international filing. In my situation, there was no option but to obtain a >> patent in every jurisdiction in the world because it takes only *one un >> protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the >> profit stream from that technology: Set up a launch and manufacturing >> facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send their >> payloads to that jurisdiction. >> >> However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different. All it >> takes is *one* *protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to realize >> enormous profits. >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well >>> was poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept ANY >>> patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided conclusion, both >>> of which created a legal situation that doomed any serious study of CF. >>> Now the expected and natural consequences are being experienced. Rossi may >>> eventually be the last man standing because he found the secret recipe and >>> used his own money to start the process. His approach, while looking crazy >>> by conventional standards, might be the winning path for this technology. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >>> >>> You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to >>>> benefit >>>> from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that >>>> they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development. >>>> >>>> It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have >>>> available. >>>> Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that >>>> they >>>> must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to >>>> Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather >>>> keep silent about: >>>> >>>> books.google.com/books?isbn=**1553672070<http://books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070> >>>> >>>> Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the >>>> context of what we know to be historically true. >>>> >>>> We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate >>>> scam on >>>> top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and >>>> patented >>>> by someone else). >>>> >>>> Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in Italy >>>> was >>>> basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in >>>> November >>>> is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net >>>> negative >>>> for the rest of the field. It is called "poisoning the well". >>>> >>>> DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much >>>> longer >>>> from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to >>>> infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them. >>>> No >>>> VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the >>>> energy >>>> is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on. >>>> >>>> If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe that >>>> they >>>> do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they should >>>> proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a University >>>> or >>>> Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead business >>>> plan, >>>> which is most of the problem. >>>> >>>> It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a >>>> scientist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
