Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 17:16 -0500, Michael Marsh escreveu: > On 1/11/06, Jochen Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But you definitely have to come up with some soft of working > > implementation, be it hard- or software, I agree. > > Actually, that requirement was dropped awhile ago. You only have to > roughly describe an implementation. There are actually a lot of > patents that have been issued for "inventions" that won't work. The > USPTO specifically disallows patents on alleged perpetual motion > machines, but has been known in recent years to grant patents on > perpetual motion machines masquerading under different names. > "Zero-point energy" is a particularly popular one. > > Rest assured, software isn't the only area in which the US patent > system is somewhat askew.
Yep, there are a lot of "mystic" Patents on water, which make no sense at all. Something patented does in no way mean that it works and even less that the explication makes a sense at all. Michel.