Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: In Rossi's case, he hasn't delivered a product that could be evaluated for patent violation yet. So, Piantelli would not be able to build a case against Rossi until he releases a publicly available product that could be tested for violation. By reverse engineering, in other words. If the materials and operating techniques are the same as Piantelli's within the scope of the patent, it would be a violation. I believe the exact nature of the trade secret used to manufacture it would not matter. In other words, even if Rossi finds a secret alternative way to accomplish the same thing, if the patent is broad enough to cover the result, it is a violation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
Forget about patents. They are as obsolete as the pony-express. I have been involved on both sides. The winner is always the one with better financial support. In a few cases persistence has paid off. As an example a company has requested a patent for push button making two separate events start independently of each other. It should have been denied as just basic engineering. However, making claims of using special materials probably fooled the examiner at USPTO. I was sued for infringement. It cost $50,000 just to show it was invalid. Yes, I understand that one could have read the patent application and protested so the patent never became a reality, if one has the time to read all new applications. The only guys who won was the attorneys. They probably collected a couple of hundred thousand dollars. The patent still is valid. I could not afford to invalidate it. It was enough to just get out of the lawsuit. Hoyt I think your example is good enough to show the opposite situation. I assume AR has better financial backing than Piantelli. Then the outcome is given and you now who will benefit. Trade secrets are way better protection than patent and they are cheaper Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: Question about trade secrets and patent enforcement: How does a patent holder enforce his patents when a device with trade secrets is by definition unavailable for examination, especially if the device is leased and reverse engineering is forbidden? As an example, Piantelli has a nickel-hydrogen patent. How could he enforce that against Rossi if what's inside a Rossi device is a secret? Does a court have the power to force disclosure? Just curious. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale Arizona US -- [image: Avast logo] http://www.avast.com/ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
When I worked for a large corporation, I spent a lot of time with their internal patent system. A core criteria for deciding which invention disclosures to pursue as a patent had to do with the detect-ability of an infringement. Basically, if you couldn't detect that a competitor was using your patent, it was not worthwhile to patent it. Enforce-ability comes down to civil lawsuit. Courts award 1x damages for unknowing/accidental infringement and 3x damages for knowing/intentional infringement. But, it is an expensive process to litigate and the rewards of a positive outcome of the litigation must exceed the high cost of litigation by 1/risk. Most patent infringements don't get pursued for lack of sufficient return on the high cost of litigation. Those infringements that do get pursued usually end in settling out of court in a licensing arrangement. In Rossi's case, he hasn't delivered a product that could be evaluated for patent violation yet. So, Piantelli would not be able to build a case against Rossi until he releases a publicly available product that could be tested for violation. Normally, in important industries, you build patent portfolios to protect yourself against other company's portfolios - trading cross-licensing to keep yourself from being litigated. Rossi needs his own patent portfolio. Bob Higgins On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: Question about trade secrets and patent enforcement: How does a patent holder enforce his patents when a device with trade secrets is by definition unavailable for examination, especially if the device is leased and reverse engineering is forbidden? As an example, Piantelli has a nickel-hydrogen patent. How could he enforce that against Rossi if what's inside a Rossi device is a secret? Does a court have the power to force disclosure? Just curious. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale Arizona US -- [image: Avast logo] http://www.avast.com/ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Forget about patents. They are as obsolete as the pony-express. I do not see how cold fusion can succeed without patent protection. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
I guess a patent in Italy would be a little better than nothing. Although with something as big as cold fusion I doubt it would be enforceable. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
I agree actually, I have two on pressure jet helicopters -- useless except they look good on my resume, so I guess that's a + :-) . But my question was: Can a court in any country demand disclosure of trade secrets by subpoena or otherwise in pursuit of a patent infringement case? ( Thinking about it, I guess a court could subpoena anything it wants. ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:28 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question Forget about patents. They are as obsolete as the pony-express. I have been involved on both sides. The winner is always the one with better financial support. In a few cases persistence has paid off. As an example a company has requested a patent for push button making two separate events start independently of each other. It should have been denied as just basic engineering. However, making claims of using special materials probably fooled the examiner at USPTO. I was sued for infringement. It cost $50,000 just to show it was invalid. Yes, I understand that one could have read the patent application and protested so the patent never became a reality, if one has the time to read all new applications. The only guys who won was the attorneys. They probably collected a couple of hundred thousand dollars. The patent still is valid. I could not afford to invalidate it. It was enough to just get out of the lawsuit. Hoyt I think your example is good enough to show the opposite situation. I assume AR has better financial backing than Piantelli. Then the outcome is given and you now who will benefit. Trade secrets are way better protection than patent and they are cheaper Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: Question about trade secrets and patent enforcement: How does a patent holder enforce his patents when a device with trade secrets is by definition unavailable for examination, especially if the device is leased and reverse engineering is forbidden? As an example, Piantelli has a nickel-hydrogen patent. How could he enforce that against Rossi if what's inside a Rossi device is a secret? Does a court have the power to force disclosure? Just curious. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale Arizona US _ http://www.avast.com/ Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com http://www.avast.com/ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
RE: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
From: Jed Rothwell The Italian Patent Office granted a patent for the E-Cat in 2011, valid until 2028 but only in Italy. Ø Of what POSSIBLE use is a patent valid only in Italy?!? Ø It sounds like a patent valid on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in months with R in them. Well – Italy is a country of 60 million citizens with no natural gas, little coal, the third largest economy in the Europe (eighth-largest in the world). Plus they have shown a lot of interest in LENR and would probably actively support any technology which makes them less dependent on OPEC, the USA and big oil… with one notable exception which is called ENI. This is the large petro-co in Rome which is partly owned by the government, and known for corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eni
RE: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
Hoyt - Has a LENR patent actually been granted to him in the USA? Piantelli has a recent PATENT APPLICATION and many older ones, but not a granted LENR patent in the USA, as far as I know. http://www.google.com/patents/US20140098917 He will not likely ever get one either, given the stance of the USPTO on this subject. In Italy Piantelli has several which are granted, as does Rossi. The Italian Patent Office granted a patent for the E-Cat in 2011, valid until 2028 but only in Italy. Rossi's wife Maddalena Pascucci is the patent owner. From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Question about trade secrets and patent enforcement: How does a patent holder enforce his patents when a device with trade secrets is by definition unavailable for examination, especially if the device is leased and reverse engineering is forbidden? As an example, Piantelli has a nickel-hydrogen patent. How could he enforce that against Rossi if what's inside a Rossi device is a secret? Does a court have the power to force disclosure? Just curious. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale Arizona US _ http://www.avast.com/ Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com http://www.avast.com/
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Italian Patent Office granted a patent for the E-Cat in 2011, valid until 2028 but only in Italy. Of what POSSIBLE use is a patent valid only in Italy?!? It sounds like a patent valid on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in months with R in them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
Jed, you think I do not see how cold fusion can succeed without patent protection. I might not fully understand the theoretical discussions. However, it sounds to me that there are many ways LENT might work. To participate in a lawsuit about who has what patented will just resources away from development of the technology. I think that Rossi for example is providing enough information that a patent can be denied for anyone who tries to get a broad patent. All others who want to patent misc. engineering can probably be circumvented or bought. Thus I think LENR can survive just fine. To me the real catastrophe as I see it is if there is a patent and a strong financial arm holding off the development and implementation of a new energy source. That could delay LENR for a long time. My hope is that there is enough common knowledge that a patent will be hard (a general LENR patent that is.) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Forget about patents. They are as obsolete as the pony-express. I do not see how cold fusion can succeed without patent protection. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
I wrote: Someone who knows a great deal about patents and the U.S. military told me the USPO would not allow that. You cannot use a patent to suppress a technology or prevent it from reaching the market. There are regulations forbidding that. Not just regulations; it would be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. If the law were used to suppress technology it would not promote the progress of science and useful arts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: When I worked for a large corporation, I spent a lot of time with their internal patent system. A core criteria for deciding which invention disclosures to pursue as a patent had to do with the detect-ability of an infringement. Basically, if you couldn't detect that a competitor was using your patent, it was not worthwhile to patent it. Bob, that is, without doubt, the best description of the granularity of intellectual property that I have ever seen. Excellent!
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
Terry and Bob I agree. That is reality and you need capital and soup is ready. Your reasoning is perfect for deep pockets, which is what you say. It is not a protection for a sol inventor. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: That is only partly right. I am not so good at the different tactics. However, if it was my patent and my interest was to give my big oil company (BP,Shell, etc. . ) an advantage I would severely increase the price of LENR units and then sell licences at a HIGH price. Possibly one needs to be even more devious but I am sure there are ways around that paragraph. I have said so before when we had different opinions that the USPTO or any other arm of the government cannot create rules that will not be abused and as there are so many different rules it is soon impossible to determine what is correct and not. Keep the government to a minimum and make sure that all things that does not HAVE TO be detrmined in DC (or Sacramento) is decided locally with only one government office involved. The constitution is totally fogged in at this state of the game. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: Someone who knows a great deal about patents and the U.S. military told me the USPO would not allow that. You cannot use a patent to suppress a technology or prevent it from reaching the market. There are regulations forbidding that. Not just regulations; it would be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. If the law were used to suppress technology it would not promote the progress of science and useful arts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Patent question
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: To me the real catastrophe as I see it is if there is a patent and a strong financial arm holding off the development and implementation of a new energy source. Someone who knows a great deal about patents and the U.S. military told me the USPO would not allow that. You cannot use a patent to suppress a technology or prevent it from reaching the market. There are regulations forbidding that. They are enforced vigorously when the technology has military value, as cold fusion clearly does. - Jed
