Thanks, Jones Too bad the patent system is such a winner-take-all contraption. I am reminded of a lecture on patent law that I attended years ago expecting the patent lawyer speaking to explain the virtues of the patent system - instead he lampooned it and went through a list of debacles he had witnessed - with plenty of sardonic humor.
I wonder if Ahern will give a theory on the absence of energetic nuclear products in his Dec 7 talk. > This patent (like several others in LENR) resulted in litigation and has > been abandoned - IIRC - essentially for nonpayment of fees. IOW there is > no > government issue. > > This means that it goes into the public domain - not that later inventors > can prevail if they essentially try to cover the same technology; and if > this patent would have invalidated part of Piantelli's (or anyone else's) > before it lapsed, that situation does not change. > > I am of the opinion that due to Thermacore, in combination with this one, > and the patent of P&F - that no basic patent in the field can prevail. > Rossi's claims are a joke. That is essentially why he has been forced to > remain secretive. > > The 'wild card' in the Intellectual Property situation is a later filing > by > Rossi (reported here some months ago) which was supposed to have gone to > publication by October (there is an 18 month lag). It would have named the > secret catalyst and that would be valuable, needless to say. > > As far as I know, this later application has not been published yet - it > could have been withdrawn or delayed. > > Jones > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com > > -------------------- > Lastly some recent results obtained with Ahern's nano-powders are in > abstracts "Mt-01", "Mt-02" and "GL-02" at the compilation of the Feb-2011 > ICCF-16 "16th Intl Conf on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Srinivasaniccfthinte.pdf > > It seems like the patent issue may be a problem, especially since there is > some U.S. government ownership. > > The patent seems to explain the enhanced fusion (or other nuclear > reaction) rates, but does not appear to account for the thermalization of > high-energy gammas or neutrons. > > I welcome others' impressions. > > Thanks, > Lou Pagnucco > > > > > >
