10 ms·

> It makes sense to patent an idea based on what he's hoping will eventually become a fleshed out scientific theory with proofs and whatnot, it doesn't mean any

> It makes sense to patent an idea based on what he's hoping will eventually become a fleshed out scientific theory with proofs and whatnot, it doesn't mean any of it will turn out to be correct. It just means if it does find proof, he could get rich. It would just make him yet another patent troll. The US patent system is beyond absurd. Unless he can physically demonstrate a fully working 'gravitational wave generator', the patent shouldn't be granted.

ubertoop 6y ago
Maybe, but the patent is also owned by the US Navy. Why? And what does this have to do - if anything - with the same shape UFO reported by the US Navy in 2004?
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  It's owned by the Navy because the inventor is an employee of the Navy who wrote the patent on DOD time and used DOD resources. They almost have certainly have a policy requiring that under those circumstances the patent must be assigned to the Navy
ksaj 6y ago
There are a lot of patents for things that are not yet known to work, but are plausible. Things that are in study stage often get patents if they are novel enough, to avoid someone else coming in and getting rich off your research before you've even had a chance to pay back your investors (let alone yourself). It's not a patent troll thing. It's protecting your investment. A lot of money goes into research, and there is no reason to begrudge them the initial benefits. Yes there are patent trolls. But they are usually identified by their habit of buying other people's patents and then following up with legal threats on anything that appears to infringe. This isn't such a case, as far as I can tell. He has a novel theory. He's designed a theoretical device that is based on that theory. It might feel to people "not in the biz" to be on the crazy side, but absolutely everything about quantum computing was considered fringy only a couple years ago. The relevant patents in that area are now being put to use, and the holders are definitely not trolls for doing it.
- pontifier 6y ago
  This is exactly why I applied for patents on my novel fusion reactor design. I think it will work, I hope it will work, but it's still untested.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    If you can describe your reactor design and the specific parts that are novel in detail, you can get a patent on these specific details, and pull together 50k for a robust patent application and review, you should get it.
    - pontifier 6y ago
      My patents have already been approved. More info at http://www.DDproFusion.com http://www.DDproFusion.com
- dantheman 6y ago
  If you don't have a working implementation that is available for sale you're a patent troll.
  - pontifier 6y ago
    If you build and sell something publicly before you start on your patent your patent will be denied.
  - dbsmith83 6y ago
    Creating the infrastructure and business to manufacture the thing to sell takes time. If you created a proof of concept but it wasn't ready for sale you should still patent it so someone doesn't swoop in. Waiting for it to be on sale before patenting it is for the birds.
- mypalmike 6y ago
  If an invention cannot be "reduced to practice", it is not patentable. My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor, or that it is fully disclosed in a patent application such that a reasonably skilled person could construct the invention. If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people, it would be reasonable to question the validity of the patent.

ubertoop 6y ago

Maybe, but the patent is also owned by the US Navy. Why? And what does this have to do - if anything - with the same shape UFO reported by the US Navy in 2004?

Rebelgecko 6y ago
It's owned by the Navy because the inventor is an employee of the Navy who wrote the patent on DOD time and used DOD resources. They almost have certainly have a policy requiring that under those circumstances the patent must be assigned to the Navy

ksaj 6y ago

There are a lot of patents for things that are not yet known to work, but are plausible. Things that are in study stage often get patents if they are novel enough, to avoid someone else coming in and getting rich off your research before you've even had a chance to pay back your investors (let alone yourself). It's not a patent troll thing. It's protecting your investment. A lot of money goes into research, and there is no reason to begrudge them the initial benefits. Yes there are patent trolls. But they are usually identified by their habit of buying other people's patents and then following up with legal threats on anything that appears to infringe. This isn't such a case, as far as I can tell. He has a novel theory. He's designed a theoretical device that is based on that theory. It might feel to people "not in the biz" to be on the crazy side, but absolutely everything about quantum computing was considered fringy only a couple years ago. The relevant patents in that area are now being put to use, and the holders are definitely not trolls for doing it.

pontifier 6y ago
This is exactly why I applied for patents on my novel fusion reactor design. I think it will work, I hope it will work, but it's still untested.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  If you can describe your reactor design and the specific parts that are novel in detail, you can get a patent on these specific details, and pull together 50k for a robust patent application and review, you should get it.
  - pontifier 6y ago
    My patents have already been approved. More info at http://www.DDproFusion.com http://www.DDproFusion.com
dantheman 6y ago
If you don't have a working implementation that is available for sale you're a patent troll.
- pontifier 6y ago
  If you build and sell something publicly before you start on your patent your patent will be denied.
- dbsmith83 6y ago
  Creating the infrastructure and business to manufacture the thing to sell takes time. If you created a proof of concept but it wasn't ready for sale you should still patent it so someone doesn't swoop in. Waiting for it to be on sale before patenting it is for the birds.
mypalmike 6y ago
If an invention cannot be "reduced to practice", it is not patentable. My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor, or that it is fully disclosed in a patent application such that a reasonably skilled person could construct the invention. If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people, it would be reasonable to question the validity of the patent.