An anti-gravity space vehicle?

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?