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

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

Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <Mddeming-at-aol-dot-com>

In a message dated 5/5/01 2:49:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com 

> 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, 
> Respectfully, 
> Richard Wall 

Richard & All, 

I DID read all 10 pages of the patent and went over all 19 pages of diagrams. 
(from the USPO link, not the promoters link). It contains absolutely nothing 
to support the claims made, other than it is a type of antenna. It also 
contains no way to verify the claims. (e.g. how do you know when you have 
punctured a hole into the "twilight zone"?) By making claims that would 
require hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in equipment to VERIFY, 
it's a fairly safe bet that those claims will not be tested by USPO examiners. 
        Like it or not, when someone makes a claim in the real world of 
science that is contrary to current understanding, the burden of proof is on 
the Claimant to make proof of their assertions available for peer review, not 
the other way around. The challenge to the Believers is, as it always has 
been, and always Must be: 
1. Build it. 
2. Operate and verify it. 
3. Provide the skeptics with actual verifiable data and specific methodology, 
not anecdotes and trestimonials. 

Until you can do this, I will have to agree only with the claim on page 5 of 
the patent: 
"Accelerated plant growth can occur using the present invention."  and I know 
a farmer that will sell my truckloads of the same stuff for a lot less. 

Matt D.