Alain and Alan--

I also found the item very interesting.  Vortex folks need to request 
legislative action from their representatives to updated the patent laws in the 
US and elsewhere to reflect improvements this legal  researcher has suggested. 

 Especially the laws should provide for priority associated with serendipity 
discovery and subsequent  investigations.

 In addition credit for working/research to explain the invention should be 
considered in granting a patent..  I think this should be in addition to the 
other two main criteria relating to a working device and instruction in the 
application as to how to make a working device. 

 The issue of who is qualified in the state of the associated  art and could 
replicate an invention should  be subject to challenge in a court of law.  The 
onus of  proof should be on the PO to prove to a judge that such a criteria is 
warranted, if a working device is available with easy to demonstrate 
workability.  There may be no art established regarding certain details of  its 
construction.  In fact a key process may be subject to a separate patent which 
is in part subject to a trade secret.  Nano Ni powder production  may fall into 
this area.  The inventor may only depend upon a natural source of the material 
and not understand how it is produced.  In former times the use of diamonds 
because of their hardness in an invention would be such an example of a 
material for which the process of fabrication was not known.  Electronic chip 
manufacturing is another area where unknown materials may come into play in the 
workability of an invention.  An inventor may not really understand what he 
does to get his invention to work.   Maybe only 10% of the material he makes as 
a component in his invention leads to a workable unit.  

The period for commercialization before patent application  should be extended 
to 5 years to protect trade secrets and give added incentive to inventors to 
establish a market, without assisting in reverse engineering by people in 
countries where such action is allowed and encouraged.  Criteria considering 
licensed use of an invention to protect from reverse engineering should 
probably be addressed in patent law.   

Thanks to Alan for finding this item.

Bob
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alain Sepeda 
  To: Vortex List 
  Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 6:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan book : An Impossible Invention


  very interesting article , not only for patent laws evolution, but it cite 
many articles and quotes about conservatism, pathological peer-review (even 
talk of jealousy), about serendipity...


  it question the concept itself of current patent, which matched the 1900 
period, not today.



  2014-04-07 2:34 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com>:

    A didn't realize that "impossible invention" has a long history.

    Google gave me an interesting article on patenting them : 
http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Seymore.pdf
    (Cold fusion is listed in the introduction)



Reply via email to