Need for correction. The patent I mentioned in the note is (from what I can tell through the US PTO) still only at the application stage. Here is the application.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDE0NTY3NTk0NzY2MTMxMzQ4MjEBMTA4OTQwNjMwMDE3Njk4OTIzMjYBQ0FLTlVYQzJtYW56TzB1Y0dSUy1xRGo5WFh1d01WZF9mcjZxdU1TcU1EcVZkVFF4WGNnQG1haWwuZ21haWwuY29tATQB&pli=1 Michael 'origionator/inventor' has already happened (Benford/diatomaceous earth)." What patent was this? I know of one filed, since I was on it. >>> >>> Gregory >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> From an inventors point of view, >>>> >>>> 1) What is the intellectual property ie. *legal * distinction between >>>> regional weather modification and geoengineering? >>>> >>>> 2) The declaration of one form of environmental modification being >>>> intentional and another being non-intentional has no ethical/legal >>>> relevance if there is 'reasonable knowability' of the effects of the >>>> action. Thus, should non-intentional SRM methods, such as FF use be subject >>>> to patent laws and/or other social restrictions? >>>> >>>> 3) The US standard for patentability is reduced to 3 basic concepts. *(A) >>>> New:* What about SRM is new? At this point of understanding....not >>>> much. *(B) Nonobvious:* What about SRM is not obvious to someone >>>> normally schooled in the prior art? At this point in our understanding of >>>> the 'prior art'.....not much. *(C) Useful:* In the case of GE, is >>>> that not largely an issue of policy as opposed to patentable technology? >>>> >>>> One last thought on patent restrictions for SRM and GE in general. *There >>>> is no global/universal patent and/or means of enforcement. * >>>> ** >>>> The need for global cooperation on the GE issue in general and the >>>> different technical forms of such will most likely be in the area of >>>> international policy and not that of patent rights. Consider that, under >>>> current US patent laws, a fringe group or individual can (at least) apply >>>> for a GE related patent for the sole purpose of keeping that technology >>>> from being used as a form of GE. *They do not need to be the inventor*, >>>> just the first to file an application. A few thousand dollars in >>>> application fees could materially influence the overall GE issue....one way >>>> or the other. >>>> >>>> (Side Note) The patenting of a SRM related concept by someone other >>>> than the recognized 'origionator/inventor' has already happened >>>> (Benford/diatomaceous earth). >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> * * >>>> * >>>> >>>> * >>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Ken Caldeira < >>>> kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In more practical terms, in most cases of interest it will be >>>>> extremely difficult to define what constitutes a "solar radiation >>>>> technology". >>>>> >>>>> Is a mirror on the ground or a white roof a "solar radiation >>>>> technology"? To some people *yes*, to others *no*. >>>>> >>>>> Most tools have multiple uses. What if I come up with a way of >>>>> producing fine aerosols and that technology also has industrial uses? >>>>> >>>>> I would like to see somebody try to come up with a clear scope of what >>>>> would be unpatentable in this domain. My feeling is that there is no clear >>>>> scope around which a consensus can form, unless that scope is extremely >>>>> limited. >>>>> >>>>> The same definitional problem plagues efforts to ban "geoengineering >>>>> experiments". >>>>> >>>>> Trying to ban things depending on whether they do or do not comprise >>>>> examples of "solar radiation technology" or "geoengineering" is likely to >>>>> produce a hopelessly twisted morass that will benefit no-one but the >>>>> lawyers. >>>>> >>>>> These are vague terms that different people use to refer to different >>>>> things. Let's define what we want to proscribe or have in the public >>>>> domain >>>>> without resorting to the use of words for which there is no consensus >>>>> definition. >>>>> >>>>> I challenge members of this group to come up with definitions of "SRM >>>>> experiment" or "SRM technology" that could be used to make determinations >>>>> in a court of law. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Ken Caldeira < >>>>> kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A key difference is the ability of a small number of actors to make a >>>>>> big difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many think that a primary risk with SRM is a small number of rogue >>>>>> actors acting without a broad consensus. >>>>>> >>>>>> With emissions reduction and most forms of CO2 removal from the >>>>>> atmosphere, the main concern is that nobody is acting sufficiently. >>>>>> >>>>>> Direct Air Capture does not present a significant "rogue actor risk". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Rau, Greg <r...@llnl.gov> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Should/could this logic extend to CDR? Why (not)? - Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Researchers warn that technology that could stop global warming must >>>>>>> stay out of private hands >>>>>>> Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter >>>>>>> Published: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 >>>>>>> LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. -- Researchers working on a technology they >>>>>>> say could stop global warming want the government to keep it out of >>>>>>> private >>>>>>> hands, a lead investigator said this week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Keith, a Harvard University professor and an adviser on energy >>>>>>> to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said he and his colleagues are >>>>>>> researching >>>>>>> whether the federal government could ban patents in the field of solar >>>>>>> radiation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The technology, also known as geoengineering, involves a kind of >>>>>>> manipulation of the climate. Shooting sulfur -- a reflective material -- >>>>>>> into the stratosphere could compensate for the warming effect of carbon >>>>>>> dioxide and cool the planet, Keith said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It could be very effective but also has the potential to provoke >>>>>>> conflict between nations, Keith said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "This is technology that allows any country to affect the whole >>>>>>> climate in gigantic ways, which has literally potential to lead to >>>>>>> wars," >>>>>>> Keith said. "It has this sort of giant and frightening leverage." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith spoke about the technology and his work on climate and energy >>>>>>> Monday at Fortune magazine's Brainstorm Green conference. The Harvard >>>>>>> professor of applied physics and public policy runs the philanthropic >>>>>>> Fund >>>>>>> for Innovative Energy and Climate Research. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gates began funding that group out of his personal wealth after >>>>>>> meeting with Keith and other advisers on climate. The fund, which has >>>>>>> spent >>>>>>> $4.6 million since 2007, is bankrolling the research into solar >>>>>>> radiation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith began studying solar radiation about 20 years ago, "when no >>>>>>> one else was working on it," he said. Now others are investigating it, >>>>>>> "the >>>>>>> taboo has been broken and there's suddenly a fair amount of research >>>>>>> happening and people are beginning to think more seriously about it." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could the government ban patents? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With people talking about it more openly, some researchers believe >>>>>>> it's time to make sure precautions are taken to prevent international >>>>>>> conflict. Some of his colleagues last week traveled to Washington, D.C., >>>>>>> where they discussed whether the U.S. Patent Office could ban patents on >>>>>>> the technology, Keith said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "We think it's very dangerous for these solar radiation >>>>>>> technologies, it's dangerous to have it be privatized," Keith said. "The >>>>>>> core technologies need to be public domain." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those familiar with patent rules, he said, described it as mostly >>>>>>> uncharted territory. "There's not much legal precedent," Keith said. >>>>>>> "Nuclear weapons are a partial precedent." The United States could not >>>>>>> ban >>>>>>> patents in other countries but has influence, he explained. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Patents are mostly symbolic in this area anyways," he said. "The >>>>>>> issue is to try and find ways to lower potential tensions between >>>>>>> countries >>>>>>> around these technologies by sending signals that it's going to be as >>>>>>> transparent as possible." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition to potentially stoking international political problems, >>>>>>> the technology carries other risks. The particles could hold the Earth's >>>>>>> temperatures constant, Keith said, but that has side effects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "If you keep increasing the amount of carbon dioxide, and you keep >>>>>>> also increasing the amount of sulfur in the stratosphere, you can hold >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> surface temperature constant," Keith said. "All sorts of other things >>>>>>> begin >>>>>>> to go more and more wrong as you have more and more CO2 in the >>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "So this is not a perfect substitute," Keith said, "but it might be >>>>>>> a very effective way to reduce risk over the next half-century." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The work on solar radiation is one part of energy research Keith is >>>>>>> involved in. He also runs a startup called Carbon Engineering, which is >>>>>>> trying to build the hardware to capture carbon out of the air. The >>>>>>> company >>>>>>> has received about $3.5 million from Gates and has spent about $6 >>>>>>> million >>>>>>> total. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lack of a broad social consensus >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the conference, where many are talking about innovations, Keith >>>>>>> warned that those won't be enough on their own to stop climate change >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> becoming a severe problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "No technical fix solves this problem without some sort of broad, >>>>>>> social consensus that the problem is worth solving," Keith said. "I >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> think we're there yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "It's not a question of if the politicians are screwing up," he >>>>>>> added. "Yes, they are, but really, we have not convinced enough of our >>>>>>> fellow citizens that they really should take this problem seriously." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That involves getting people to think about their >>>>>>> great-grandchildren as well as people in other countries, he said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith also spoke critically about what the country has done so far >>>>>>> on climate. People are involved in symbolic actions instead of >>>>>>> meaningful >>>>>>> ones, he said, like focusing on producing better plastic instead of >>>>>>> looking >>>>>>> at the really big sources of carbon emissions, like airplane travel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the United States, about $260 billion in public and private >>>>>>> dollars was spent last year on clean energy, which is about 0.4 percent >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> gross domestic product, Keith said. With that kind of spending, "you >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> expect to really see the brakes go on" greenhouse gas levels. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Except emissions were up 7 percent in 2010 and almost certainly >>>>>>> more last year," Keith said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That means either that the view that cutting emissions should be >>>>>>> easy is wrong, or that the way the money has been spent is not >>>>>>> effective, >>>>>>> he said, "or both." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Michael Hayes* >>>> *360-708-4976* >>>> http://www.voglerlake.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Michael Hayes* >> *360-708-4976* >> http://www.voglerlake.com >> >> >> > > > -- > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976* > http://www.voglerlake.com > > > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
