originally posted by: Pirvonen
The description of the inventions and even some of the "prior art" are somewhat in contradiction to known aerodynamics and hydrodynamics.
Can you elaborate on the physics?
If patents don't require some real evidence of them working, what is stopping me from patenting anything and everything that could potentially be
invented even those things outside my own ability to produce?
Nothing, other than time and money. A patent submission using typical attorneys used by technology companies is about $10,000.
Then there's the question of what is allowable by the examiners. I don't know what their standards are exactly, but I think if something seems too
bizarre and unjustified they may not allow it. The patent application needs to motivate the claims and cite related prior art.
This is a problem now as many mid-90's patents on really obvious things "But Now On The Internet" are subject of patent troll lawsuits. Now, the
examiners at the USPTO are more strict and are less likely to allow generic broad claims.
Nathan Myrhvold (former Microsoft) did exactly this, "think up generic things to patent, then sue 10 years later". Tech companies hate him.
It's the worst features of the academic & national lab world with the worst features of commercial world.
In academics, actually publishing interesting results matters and then you get a patent. Maybe somebody will use it in a technology later. But the
first priority is scientific insight and advancement.
Tech companies want to solve a specific problem and patent their solution. Their priority is a successful product, fine.
But this particular troll species seeks only to patent and doesn't publish (other than patents) in any interesting or insightful way, and then sues
other companies who think up the same thing when they finally have a market and actual production plans.
edit on 27-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason
given)
edit on 27-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason
given)