>From the perspective of IP strategy, Rossi was in a catch-22 in 2010. If he fully disclosed in a patent application, he risked having the application denied while simultaneously letting his trade secrets out into the wild, where others could copy him without his having legal protection.
In light of this conundrum, I see the 2010 patent application either as something that was half-baked and drawn up without the benefit of competent counsel, or possibly without heeding counsel; or, alternatively, like Jones suggests, as a diversion. It would have been one of these two, because the application itself is obviously inadequate, with misspellings and meanderings into theory and so on. With regard to the possibility of diversion, one question I have is whether a patent application that is filed in bad faith (i.e., without the intention of really disclosing something) will land you into difficulties later on, if you want to file a bona fide application. My best bet at this point: Rossi decided to go it on his own and didn't consult a good attorney and ended up improvising the patent application with Focardi's help. He wanted to be coy, avoiding giving away too much information, fully aware of the conundrum he was in, but he didn't understand patent law enough at the time to avoid common pitfalls and put together a solid application. Personally, I think the details of Rossi's 2010 patent application remind me most of Piantelli's EU patent. Eric On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > The “noise” at USPTO on Rossi’s behalf could be designed to both to keep > “something” in play, but additionally to also provide a high level of > disinformation to patent trolls who have already tried to “claim jump” > Rossi. On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: I also agree that Rossi has failed to completely disclose his invention. > He is in a real catch-22.
