So that we are clear, James, research is a term used to describe the
investigation of anything. The term research can be used to develop an
application or to seek commercial use, all of which can be described
as requiring research. The term "basic research" is generally used to
describe your definition.
Yes, a technique is potentially patentable unless the technique claims
to do something the patent office thinks is impossible, which is the
case with LENR. Consequently, the rest of the legal language does not
apply as long as the claim is considered to be impossible. Let's
assume a patent is obtained for a process that is considered by most
people to be impossible. How is that patent enforced? I suggest a
patent for LENR cannot be defended until the process has been proven
to occur and be accepted by the major scientists, i.e. those who might
be called on to testify in court.
As to your second point, suppose a patent is obtained within the
jurisdiction of a reasonable patent office, the information is now
available to anyone who wants to make the effect work better. Now I,
or other people, can discover how the process actually works, make a
change not anticipated in the original patent, and market a better
commercial device. This very likely possibility has to keep Rossi up
at night.
Yes, once the effect can be easy to reproduce, all the big companies
will be working hard while the rest of us are ignored. Not a pleasant
thought.
Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:47 PM, James Bowery wrote:
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'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 unprotected
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
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.
