AvWeb reported today that a patent has been issued for an anti-gravity space
ship. At first I thought it was a joke, but a little Googling came up with
this: (Sorry for the bizarre formatting):
**************************************************
USPTO issues anti-gravity patent
US 6,960,975 titled "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary
vacuum state," has a first claim

A space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state is
claimed comprising: a hollow superconductive shield, an inner shield, the
inner shield disposed inside said hollow superconductive shield, said inner
shield comprising an upper shell and a lower shell, a support structure, the
support structure disposed between said hollow superconductive shield and
said inner shield concentrically to said hollow superconductive shield, said
support structure comprised of an upper rotating element and a lower
rotating element, upper means for generating an electromagnetic field, the
upper means for generating an electromagnetic field disposed between said
hollow superconductive shield and said upper shell, affixed to said upper
rotating element at an electromagnetic field-penetrable distance to said
hollow superconductive shield, lower means for generating an electromagnetic
field, the lower means for generating an electromagnetic field disposed
between said hollow superconductive shield and said lower shell, affixed to
said lower rotating element at an electromagnetic field-penetrable distance
to said hollow superconductive shield, electric motors, the electric motors
disposed inside said hollow superconductive shield along the central axis of
said hollow superconductive shield, a power source, the power source
disposed inside said hollow superconductive shield, said power source
electrically connected with said upper means for generating an
electromagnetic field, said lower means for generating an electromagnetic
field, and said electric motors,
life-support equipment, the life-support equipment disposed inside said
inner shield, a flux modulation controller, the flux modulation controller
disposed inside said inner shield, said flux modulation controller in
communication with said upper means for generating an electromagnetic field,
said lower means for generating an electromagnetic field, said power source,
and said electric motors, and a crew, the crew disposed inside said inner
shield accessibly to said life-support and said flux modulation controller.

The patent derives from a continuation application: This is a continuation
of application Ser. No. 10/633,778 filed on Aug. 4, 2003, now abandoned.

The journal Nature and Robert Park have criticized the patent. Park notes it
effectively is a patent on a perpetual motion machine. More specifically,
Park writes: It uses a Podkletnov rotating superconducting gravity shield to
"change the curvature of space-time." Of course, he does not mention the
forbidden words "perpetual motion." The patent office rejects patent
applications that use those words under the 1985 ruling in Newman v Quigg.
These days you have to call it "zero-point energy." Ironically, the patent
was issued shortly after arbitration required the Patent Office to reinstate
Tom Valone, who lost his job in the fallout from the 1999 Conference on Free
Energy.

***from National Geographic -->

Robert Park, a consultant with the American Physical Society in Washington,
D.C., warns that such dubious patents aren't limited to the antigravity
concept.

"I might hear a complaint about a particular patent, and then I look into
it," he explained. "More often than not it's a screwball patent. It's an old
problem, but it has gotten worse in the last few years. The workload of the
patent office has gone up enormously."

Some people might consider patents on unworkable products to be relatively
harmless. Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland at College
Park, disagrees.
[LBE note: I have discussed some of the issues with the position of Bob Park
and David Voss in Intellectual Property Today. Many of the physicists who
complain about cold fusion publications were virtually silent about the
publication of fraudulent work by Jan-Hendrik Schon.]

"The problem, of course, it that this deceives a lot of investors," he said.
"You can't go out and find investors for a new invention until you can come
up with a patent to show that if you put all this money into a concept,
somebody else can't steal the idea. [Query: if the idea were truly
fraudulent, who would want to steal it, and who could possibly infringe
patent claims on something that does not exist?]

"[Approving these kind of patents can] make it easier for scam artists to
con people if they can get patents for screwball ideas."

But despite their best efforts, mistakes are inevitable and patents may be
granted to unworkable ideas. Some 5,000 examiners must currently handle a
load of 350,000 applications per year.

****************************************
Just when you think it can't get more bizarre...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:13:02 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<OX0ef.332265$084.204428@attbi_s22>::

>AvWeb reported today that a patent has been issued for an anti-gravity space
>ship.

Thanks for the report.

The full text of patent number 6,960,975 is available here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,960,975&OS=6,960,975&RS=6,960,975


>****************************************
>Just when you think it can't get more bizarre...

Ironically, the "invention" seems to have been granted to one of your
neighbors:

Boris Volfson
5707 W. Maple Grove Rd., Apt. 3046
Huntington, IN 46750

Maybe it something in the water. :-)

Actually, Jay is in Iowa, and the "inventor" is in Indiana, so they're
not really neighbors, but I suppose they could be depending on how much
this invention warps space-time around itself...

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Just when you think it can't get more bizarre...

Bizarre? How can you *know* that such a vehicle cannot exist? Can the
so-called scientists prove it? What, if HE just decided to "create" such
a vehicle? I think, this should be taught as a possibility in school!

Stefan

>>>>Bizarre? How can you *know* that such a vehicle cannot exist? Can the
so-called scientists prove it? What, if HE just decided to "create"
such
a vehicle? I think, this should be taught as a possibility in
school!<<<<

Dr. Sagan, you MUST stop masquerading online as this Stefan fellow...

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Ironically, the "invention" seems to have been granted to one of your
> neighbors:

You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a neighbor. Jay lives about 435
miles away from that guy.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"Wiz" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Actually, Jay is in Iowa, and the "inventor" is in Indiana, so they're
> not really neighbors, but I suppose they could be depending on how much
> this invention warps space-time around itself...
>

I'm in the neighborhood and haven't came up with any spacetime warping
machines, guess I need to quit drinking bottled water.

------------------------------------
DW

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>>>>Bizarre? How can you *know* that such a vehicle cannot exist? Can the
> so-called scientists prove it? What, if HE just decided to "create"
> such
> a vehicle? I think, this should be taught as a possibility in
> school!<<<<
>
> Dr. Sagan, you MUST stop masquerading online as this Stefan fellow...
>
>

I don't think you have to worry about Carl Sagan posting anything on Usenet
or anywhere for that matter....

----------------------------------
DW

>>>>I don't think you have to worry about Carl Sagan posting anything on Usenet
or anywhere for that matter...<<<<

You're right DW, maybe Stephen Hawking would have been more apropos?

Its actually quite easy to patent anything you want. I'm required to
produce 1 patent per year in my work in RND. Some years I've not had
too many good ideas. :) However, a good attorney can make just about
any patent happen. I'd say it has MUCH more to do with the quality of
the attorney than the quality of the invension. Also, remember that
once you see the patent on-line, its been in the system for about 5
years (so it may be old).
The true test of the patent is not whether the attorney is able to get
it past the examiner, but whether it holds up in court if challenged.
If this guy really did patent a 2x4 (as the saying goes) then it up be
up to the courts to test it if, indeed, he tries to exercise his patent
to prevent someone else from doing something. I'm probaly a bit
negative but in my opinion, today, patents are really used as amo in IP
lawsuites. It's a game of which company can throw more patents at the
wall. I've consulted on both sides of such lawsuits and always find its
much more a game of trying to find a way to get rid of competitors than
actually protecting true IP, although not always.
BTW: If the patent holder loses in court just once, the patent is null
and void for everyone. Its a risk not all patent holders are actually
willing to take.
-Robert

George Patterson wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > Ironically, the "invention" seems to have been granted to one of your
> > neighbors:
>
> You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a neighbor. Jay lives about 435
> miles away from that guy.

Just an instant away when you have the improbability drive :-)

"george" > wrote in message

>> You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a neighbor. Jay lives about
>> 435
>> miles away from that guy.
>
> Just an instant away when you have the improbability drive :-)

And a darned long crawl when you have the pangalactic gargleblaster.

-c

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I'm probaly a bit
> negative but in my opinion, today, patents are really used as amo in IP
> lawsuites. It's a game of which company can throw more patents at the
> wall. I've consulted on both sides of such lawsuits and always find its
> much more a game of trying to find a way to get rid of competitors than
> actually protecting true IP, although not always.

If you're not already familiar with it, you might find a case in the
Electronic Design industry interesting. Company B patented some work
that employee X developed. They sent a letter to company A
saying "you may be infringing on our patents." Company A checks their
records, finds out the material was developed by X when he worked for
them and files suit for IP theft. Company B is currently trying to
prove that the patents in question actually represent prior art and
therefore null and void.

Jay Honeck opined

>AvWeb reported today that a patent has been issued for an anti-gravity space
>ship. At first I thought it was a joke, but a little Googling came up with
>this: (Sorry for the bizarre formatting):
>**************************************************
>USPTO issues anti-gravity patent
>US 6,960,975 titled "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary
>vacuum state," has a first claim
<lots snipped>
>"[Approving these kind of patents can] make it easier for scam artists to
>con people if they can get patents for screwball ideas."

>But despite their best efforts, mistakes are inevitable and patents may be
>granted to unworkable ideas. Some 5,000 examiners must currently handle a
>load of 350,000 applications per year.

If you haven't realized it yet, the Patent Office is severely broken. Almost
anything can be patented.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

We have strick reporting requirements here. We are required to save all
our "lab notes" (still never seen an actual lab:) ). We are required to
have peers sign our designs saying it was explained to them on this
date. We then forward that to our IP attorney. We are also required to
take IP law refresher training every 2 years (like a BFR! :))

-Robert
Software Designer

Patented, yes. Enforced, no. What good is an unenforceable patent??
-Robert

It gets you your moment of fame. Hmmmm, what will I patent???????




Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Patented, yes. Enforced, no. What good is an unenforceable patent??
> -Robert
>

> But despite their best efforts, mistakes are inevitable and patents may be
> granted to unworkable ideas. Some 5,000 examiners must currently handle a
> load of 350,000 applications per year

So? I'm not sure why anyone would care about a patent being issue for
an unworkable idea. So the inventor is out $15,000 in attorney fees, so
what? The problem with the patent office happens when a patent officer
accepts a patent for something that is not patentable or too similar to
an existing patent. When you submit your patent the examiner will
return similar patents and require you to reword yours so it doesn't
overlap the existing patent. However, worst case the examiner gets it
wrong. So what? You try to stop someone from using your idea, that
person takes you to court and shows your idea already existed somewhere
else, judge throws our your patent. I"m not seeing the danger here.

-Robert (holder 3 U.S. patents, additional patents pending)

> You try to stop someone from using your idea, that
> person takes you to court and shows your idea already existed somewhere
> else, judge throws our your patent. I"m not seeing the danger here.

There are several dangers, among them the effective awarding of rights
to the one with the biggest pocket. "Patenting everything - let the
courts decide" puts the onus on the general public to risk huge losses
by adopting an method which was inappropriately patented (such as the
method of using only one click to shop). It was dangerous enough so
that Borders and B&N have implemented "two click" methods just to avoid
lawyers.

If B&N won't take on a dumb patent, I doubt that mom and pop stores will
dare. So, Amazon inappropriately gets to use "just one click" to shop,
as if it were not only novel, but a significant feat (though it could be
a significant advantage).

Also, existing patents (defended or not) serve as a benchmark against
which other methods are evaluated for patentability. The ball keeps
rolling, and one day we may find ourselves paying royalties on the idea
of writing a book on a PDA.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Robert M. Gary opined

>Patented, yes. Enforced, no. What good is an unenforceable patent??
>-Robert

One of the things that have been patented is the xor cursor. SOmething that had
been in use for years before the patent was issued. It was/is a pain and
expensive to break such stupidities.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

("The Visitor" wrote)
>> Patented, yes. Enforced, no. What good is an unenforceable patent??

> It gets you your moment of fame. Hmmmm, what will I patent???????


Interesting (aviation!) patent history - both pages, 1 & 2.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V23D12A2C
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

Popular Mechanics - Jay Leno.
An Unknown American Classic
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/sub_coll_leno/1302921.html?page=1&c=y>

(From page 1)
[Morey received his first patent before 1800 for a rotating, steam-powered
cooking spit. It was one of the first patents ever issued in the United
States, and it was signed by George Washington. While his contemporary
inventors were being granted patents for handy things like "improvements in
windmills" (Joseph Pope, 1793) and "an improved way of making nails" (Jared
Byington, 1796), Morey took out a patent for a device that "raised water by
the use of wind."

Sadly, few people have ever heard of this guy.]


(From page 2)
[Morey was granted a patent for his "Gas or Vapor" engine in 1826. This time
it was signed by President John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, secretary of
state. That'd be like Bush and Powell signing a patent today.

Here's the best part: Samuel Morey had a strong premonition of the future
ramifications of his invention. "I see no reason," he wrote, "why it may not
be applied with the greatest advantage in drawing carriages on good roads
and railways and particularly for giving what seems to be much wanted
direction and velocity to balloons."]


Montblack

The Amazon "one-click" patent is folklore of the highest order. I've
read that patent, its certainly doesn't claim territory for any time
you can shop with one click. In fact, you can't even patent a result,
you can only patent a process (of which Amazon's one-click shopping is
extensive). Personally, I find Amazon's one-click shopping irritating
and annoying and I've ask to turn it off on my account. More than once
I've accidently ordered something I didn't want. Luckily I noticed it
and was able to cancel the order before it shipped.

Interesting trivia.

But:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:09:10 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>That'd be like Bush and Powell signing a patent today.

Actually, that would be like yesterday. Today it would be Rice not
Powell. :-)