6 ms·

Please note that one does not have to prove anything in regards to the actual functionality claimed. The patent office is perfectly happy approving your anti-gr

Please note that one does not have to prove anything in regards to the actual functionality claimed. The patent office is perfectly happy approving your anti-gravity device if it is novel. Keep this in mind (if you'll excuse the pun) when evaluating designs found there.

dboreham 9y ago
Is that totally true? I had always heard that for example applications for perpetual motion machines would always be denied. Perhaps that was the U.K. Patent Office? The USPTO really allows on the face impossible inventions??
- jacobolus 9y ago
  Wikipedia: Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states: > With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.[24] And, further, that: > A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[25] The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.[26] Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.[26] The USPTO maintains a collection of Perpetual Motion Gimmicks.
  - dboreham 9y ago
    Ok thanks so the parent was incorrect: the USPTO will not grant a patent on an anti-gravity machine.
- dom0 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_%28patent%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_%28patent%29
didibus 9y ago
I always felt like patents shouldn't exist for ideas, but only for implementations. Having the idea, while sometime novel, is always easier then coming up with the implementation of it.
- vqc 9y ago
  Isn't this what the enablement and written description requirements are for?
- gh02t 9y ago
  On the other hand, it can be hard to take an idea into production without some of the protection granted by a patent. Look at all the people who try to get their inventions manufactured in China, only to be beaten to market by a clone (not that a patent would help there, but ideally it would). An inventor can't develop their idea if they can't talk to manufacturers without fear of getting ripped off.
  - kutkloon7 9y ago
    Well, one could argue that this is how competition works. If someone else can manufacture the same thing at lower cost, they deserve the market advantage. Of course, this idea doesn't give credit to the inventors and benefits copycats. I just wanted to mention the idea.
    - tempay 9y ago
      It depends if they can manufacture it at a lower cost or if they can just sell it at lower price as they don't have subsidise the time spent doing research and development. Not to mention subsidising past projects that didn't come to fruition.
    - nhaehnle 9y ago
      You haven't really addressed gh02t's point. The original (professed) intent of patents was to protect individual inventors. If some other manufacturer finds a cheaper way to manufacture the same thing, they can get a patent on their improvement, and push for some licensing deal once they have that. (This doesn't change the fact that the modern de facto practice of patents is pretty messed up. I'm just saying that there's a good idea behind it.)
vqc 9y ago
W/r/t anti-gravity, what about written description and the enablement requirements?
acrefoot 9y ago
It might slip through the USPTO, but it would be a pretty flimsy patent, as it wouldn't pass the test for enablement. At least, that's my understanding when I was consulting our lawyers for a provisional patent. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html
CodeTheInternet 9y ago
We need better patent clerks like we did at the turn of last century.

dboreham 9y ago

Is that totally true? I had always heard that for example applications for perpetual motion machines would always be denied. Perhaps that was the U.K. Patent Office? The USPTO really allows on the face impossible inventions??

jacobolus 9y ago
Wikipedia: Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states: > With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.[24] And, further, that: > A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[25] The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.[26] Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.[26] The USPTO maintains a collection of Perpetual Motion Gimmicks.
- dboreham 9y ago
  Ok thanks so the parent was incorrect: the USPTO will not grant a patent on an anti-gravity machine.
dom0 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_%28patent%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_%28patent%29

didibus 9y ago

I always felt like patents shouldn't exist for ideas, but only for implementations. Having the idea, while sometime novel, is always easier then coming up with the implementation of it.

vqc 9y ago
Isn't this what the enablement and written description requirements are for?
gh02t 9y ago
On the other hand, it can be hard to take an idea into production without some of the protection granted by a patent. Look at all the people who try to get their inventions manufactured in China, only to be beaten to market by a clone (not that a patent would help there, but ideally it would). An inventor can't develop their idea if they can't talk to manufacturers without fear of getting ripped off.
- kutkloon7 9y ago
  Well, one could argue that this is how competition works. If someone else can manufacture the same thing at lower cost, they deserve the market advantage. Of course, this idea doesn't give credit to the inventors and benefits copycats. I just wanted to mention the idea.
  - tempay 9y ago
    It depends if they can manufacture it at a lower cost or if they can just sell it at lower price as they don't have subsidise the time spent doing research and development. Not to mention subsidising past projects that didn't come to fruition.
  - nhaehnle 9y ago
    You haven't really addressed gh02t's point. The original (professed) intent of patents was to protect individual inventors. If some other manufacturer finds a cheaper way to manufacture the same thing, they can get a patent on their improvement, and push for some licensing deal once they have that. (This doesn't change the fact that the modern de facto practice of patents is pretty messed up. I'm just saying that there's a good idea behind it.)

vqc 9y ago

W/r/t anti-gravity, what about written description and the enablement requirements?

acrefoot 9y ago

It might slip through the USPTO, but it would be a pretty flimsy patent, as it wouldn't pass the test for enablement. At least, that's my understanding when I was consulting our lawyers for a provisional patent. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html

CodeTheInternet 9y ago

We need better patent clerks like we did at the turn of last century.