4 ms·
> One could argue that such patents are ultimately harmless. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine such a patent being used as a perpetual fundraising machin
by Ansil849 4y ago
> One could argue that such patents are ultimately harmless. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine such a patent being used as a perpetual fundraising machine, with the imprimatur of the USPTO lending credibility to the scam.
It is precisely the latter. This will allow the con artist to go all out advertising that their sham device is patented. It will also open the flood gates to have more kooks start patenting their nonsense.
- HWR_14 4y agoThe other agency that gets this a lot is the FDA. FDA registered means nothing, and various levels of cleared, approved and authorized are also often misinterpreted.
- sdoering 4y agoThere are whole sites dedicated to publishing (let's be generous here) weak scientific papers as preprint stating that the peer review process has finished. They don't tell readers the result or if peer review discovered flaws. They use this non-label to give credibility to papers that failed at credible journals. I stumbled upon this in videos of the more intelligent anti-mRNA vaccine people that used this subtle trick to con their believers I to more strongly believing them and at the same time arm them with another well sounding argument against one of the best medical and scientific achievements in the last decades. Also approved Health Claims on food (as regulated in the EU) are often not understood by consumers as intended by the regulation. The literate consumer (me too often included) is imho more often than not a myth from the same pantheon as the homo oeconomicus.