[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: ....on the nature of patents... ...and recognition...

Original poster: "Richard Wayne Wall by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>

Quote from a friend,
"All too many times in history there are numerous "logical" and "rational" 
explanations for why a thing cannot work, or cannot be done based on the 
orthodox view at the time. (heavier than air flight, and exceeding the sound 
barrier are two that come to mind)  Yet with improved understanding and 
realizing that the orthodox view was flawed or mistaken, (or simply ignoring 
the orthodox yoke, and going for it) we accomplished those things, and more."
Terry, despite negativity, pessimism and ridicule, man planned and dreamed
for ~ millennia ~ before that first minute of heavier than air flight
occurred.  Patience and an open mind are a virtue. 
After Malcolms comments about just showing a device (paraphrased) that
supported Teslas ideas of world transmission, I posted the
hyper-light-speed antenna US patent link.  Subsequent posters, as usual,
are divided along two lines.  No real surprises in their responses.  
One line of posters takes the view that patents are useless words on paper
and are issued merely on an inventors claims.  Of course this is false and
misleading.  The USPO has the legal right and responsibility to require
working models support the inventors claims if they so choose.  They
usually do exercise their prerogative in certain patent types and there
have been Federal Court challenges from inventors who have been denied
patents.  Certain patent types requiring working models come to mind such
as free energy, OU and perpetual energy devices.  Most fall into violation
of accepted conservation laws or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Are any of
you aware of a US patent granted in these areas?  Ever wonder why none are
issued, if the only requirement for patent issuance is the inventors
claims?  Do any on the list truly believe that that USPO let a
"hyper-light-speed antenna" that was reviewed over two years in! t! he
patent process just slip through on the inventors claims?
It's amusing that the "patents are irrelevant" crowd immediately decries
the validity of this device without ever indicating they even went to the
patent link, let alone discussing the merits or their perceived problems
with the device.  And, it's a far cry they will ever build or test this
device to determine whether it functions or not as claimed.  They are
usually the first to demand someone else demonstrate to them a working
device, but when such a device is even suggested they dismiss it out of
hand as nonfunctional when they did not even build or experiment with it. 
Keeping an open mind,
Richard Wall