4 ms·
> That term, and "inertial mass reduction" have never been used in a patent before so the inventor is free to define them however he likes. I'm apparently not
by delecti 7y ago
> That term, and "inertial mass reduction" have never been used in a patent before so the inventor is free to define them however he likes.
I'm apparently not familiar enough with the patent system. It seems like a pretty enormous flaw in the system if the first person to request a patent on the subject could completely redefine terms that have pretty unambiguous scientific meanings.
- jimktrains2 7y agoWhile I agree with you and I think parent's wording isn't the best, I think parent's point is that military tanks aren't liquid tankers or holding tanks like the term would have meant when the term was first used for military tanks, and military tanks were called that specifically to give little insight into what they did. Now no one takes issue with a military tank being called a tank.
- dangerface 7y ago> It seems like a pretty enormous flaw in the system if the first person to request a patent on the subject could completely redefine terms that have pretty unambiguous scientific meanings. Yup patent trolls make millions through this flaw they get the most vague patents they can and then sue everyone they see, they only need to win one case with a sleepy judge to make their money back.