[Vo]:Thoughts on NET article: "BlackLight Power—Yesterday and Today"

[OrionWorks]

Jones,

A lucid account of the history of BLP. Thank you very much for your
recent literary contribution!

Regarding BLP's on-going problems in getting its patents accepted, I
bring to our attention the following paragraph in Jones' article:

> Part of this lack of independence and openness may be the
> result of intellectual property and commercialization
> concerns, which are more problematic for BlackLight than
> for LENR. Mills has experienced continuing patent problems,
> first with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and
> more recently in the UK. This appears to be the result of an
> attempt to frame theory (which is not patentable, even if
> correct) as an all-encompassing blanket to cover many
> unspecified devices in which hydrogen anomalies are found.
> If that were allowed, any invention which is ever shown to
> employ the hydrino (even if the word "hydrino" is never used)
> would be an infringement.

A very odd thought ran across my mind when I read portions of this. Is
it conceivable that Mills strategically knew all along that he had
very little chance of patenting a number of recent applications that
involve discussing controversial aspects of his CQM THEORY? Perhaps
what Mills was REALLY attempting to do was establish (and, more
importantly: DOCUMENT) ground rules for the legitimacy and acceptance
of his theory. Seems to me that if Mills could get the patent office
to at least acknowledge the fact that his CQM theory is just as much a
legitimate theory as what SQM currently seems to hold within the
scientific community, perhaps Mills can then use that acknowledgement
as leverage in expediting what is sure to be a spate of future BLP
patents that are likely to be more focused on specific commercially
oriented applications. Seems to me that Mills might now be able to go
back and say:  Hey! Look! In your own arguments you are treating my
theory as a valid THEORY, just like anyone else's! Therefore you can't
deny me my patents simply based on an argument that CQM is considered
to be groundless theory!

If that had been one of Dr. Mills' intentions all along, I'd hate to
second-guess him in a strategic game of Go.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks