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)
