4 ms·

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 enou

by 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.
- bdowling 6y ago
  > ... some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people... In that type of case, I would expect the patent to fail the utility requirement (§101). But attacking it on written description or enablement (§112(a)) might work as well.
  - erikerikson 6y ago
    What are these referencing? Ah... §101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html §112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html
    - bdowling 6y ago
      Proper citations would be prefixed with “35 USC”, for Title 35 of the United States Code. Title 35 contains most of the law regarding patents. Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112 are the most important ones concerning eligibility and validity.
- mokus 6y ago
  If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.
  - 6y ago
salawat 6y ago
So instead of only getting the patent when you yourself have a working implementation, you sit back and wait for someone else to solve your problems for you so you can jump on them and call it infringement? And these aresupposed to encourage invention? Yeah..... No.
- ksaj 6y ago
  Interesting way of wording this, but if I paid for research and the patent process, and someone beats me to production and I have the patent protecting my investment into the idea they are now making money on, then yes, they'd owe me for my research, which I may or may not license to them. If you think you've invented something, then you need to do your own research to see if what you invented hasn't already been invented. Otherwise your blinders cause you to waste your own time. That's never been new. It's the same with product names, and just about everything else (trademarks, copyrights, etc). There's even a saying for it: Why reinvent the wheel? Otherwise, absolutely everybody could claim they just didn't know it was patented, and steal anybody else's work as they wished, because "Sure I invented it after you did, but I also have a faster production line than you." You can't claim you invented Widget-A if I already did, and can prove it. Which I would through my patent of Widget-A. If you want to invent a competing Widget-B, then invent it, and don't use Widget-A without a license with me. You didn't invent it if I already did and have a patent as proof. That's what a patent is and what it does. It doesn't stop invention. It protects inventions from outright theft (or even accidental theft). Go ahead and invent, but if you weren't first, you aren't the inventor.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Ypu're missing the point. There is no way anyone can implement or disprove the merits of this patent. No one now has an incentive to even try, because it's already owned. Therefore, innovation not encouraged. When the legal construct becomes a method of financial speculation, I object to the assertion it does anything other than what it seems to do on the tin, which is provide a framework to front run people doing actual work. I don't buy it.

by ksaj 6y ago

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.

bdowling 6y ago
> ... some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people... In that type of case, I would expect the patent to fail the utility requirement (§101). But attacking it on written description or enablement (§112(a)) might work as well.
- erikerikson 6y ago
  What are these referencing? Ah... §101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html §112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html
  - bdowling 6y ago
    Proper citations would be prefixed with “35 USC”, for Title 35 of the United States Code. Title 35 contains most of the law regarding patents. Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112 are the most important ones concerning eligibility and validity.
mokus 6y ago
If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.
- 6y ago

salawat 6y ago

So instead of only getting the patent when you yourself have a working implementation, you sit back and wait for someone else to solve your problems for you so you can jump on them and call it infringement? And these aresupposed to encourage invention? Yeah..... No.

ksaj 6y ago
Interesting way of wording this, but if I paid for research and the patent process, and someone beats me to production and I have the patent protecting my investment into the idea they are now making money on, then yes, they'd owe me for my research, which I may or may not license to them. If you think you've invented something, then you need to do your own research to see if what you invented hasn't already been invented. Otherwise your blinders cause you to waste your own time. That's never been new. It's the same with product names, and just about everything else (trademarks, copyrights, etc). There's even a saying for it: Why reinvent the wheel? Otherwise, absolutely everybody could claim they just didn't know it was patented, and steal anybody else's work as they wished, because "Sure I invented it after you did, but I also have a faster production line than you." You can't claim you invented Widget-A if I already did, and can prove it. Which I would through my patent of Widget-A. If you want to invent a competing Widget-B, then invent it, and don't use Widget-A without a license with me. You didn't invent it if I already did and have a patent as proof. That's what a patent is and what it does. It doesn't stop invention. It protects inventions from outright theft (or even accidental theft). Go ahead and invent, but if you weren't first, you aren't the inventor.
- salawat 6y ago
  Ypu're missing the point. There is no way anyone can implement or disprove the merits of this patent. No one now has an incentive to even try, because it's already owned. Therefore, innovation not encouraged. When the legal construct becomes a method of financial speculation, I object to the assertion it does anything other than what it seems to do on the tin, which is provide a framework to front run people doing actual work. I don't buy it.