Brian Prothro
Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:27:23 -0700
I agree, thanks... and BLP will certainly be a test case. I know XOGEN http://www.xogentechnologies.ca/ left and came back without their previous power generation claims and is now directing their process towards treatment of wastewater instead. Maybe that was a smart work-around? Is anyone aware of why they moved in this direction? Brian -----Original Message----- From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:32 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Thoughts on NET article: "BlackLight Power-Yesterday and Today" 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 __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3259 (20080710) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com