That is probably true. Another thing is that some patent attorneys are so good at camouflaging real inventive that they end of with a PM .-)
DagT Den 28. jul. 2006 kl. 17.24 skrev graywolf: > Interesting, since the US patent laws specifically says PM machines > are > not patentable, and any such are automatically rejected without > consideration. Now it is possible some things have been patented that > fall into that category, but the fact that they do has, in that case, > been cleverly concealed by the applicant. > > > -- > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > DagT wrote: > but in the US they do in fact have some granted >> patents on inventions being classified as perpetual motion >> machines... > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net DagT http://dag.foto.no Beware of internet links. You never know what is on the other side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
