4 ms·
Why don't you have to demonstrate that your device works to be granted patents, that the it actually does what you claim it does? (I know that's not how the pat
by mLuby 4y ago
Why don't you have to demonstrate that your device works to be granted patents, that the it actually does what you claim it does? (I know that's not how the patent system works; I'm asking if anyone knows what the reasons are for why it is the way it is.)
- cat_plus_plus 4y agoSo no Analytical Engine patent for Charles Babbage?
- ramoz 4y agoTechnically, you do have to prove an invention to be “useful” … and the USPTO examiner can require demonstration. This should happen in a case where the described invention breaks fundamental laws of physics. When briefly digging into the selected prior art (the Google Patents link), it’s not clear to me, non-physist, that the invention really describes a magical perpetual motion device, there are statements such as “requires flowing water source”