[Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
For those who have a propensity towards understanding lawyer-speak. Jones? Mr. Carrell? http://lawbites.com/blacklight-power-sci-fi-science-rejected-by-uk-ipo/ http://tinyurl.com/5wwbvp and http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/p-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/076/08 http://tinyurl.com/439trx There is a 13 page PDF document that can be downloaded from the UK IPO that describes the reasoning behind rejecting Blacklight's attempts. What I'd like to know is whether UK IPO's final decision was due to a difference in scientific opinion or whether other factors may have been involved. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
After reading the decision of the patent examiner, my impression is that the patent was rejected for good reason. The rejection argument is not that the theory is wrong but that Mills is trying to patent a theory and its application to calculating electron states. This would be like having a patent for using the Laws of Thermodynamics to calculate reaction energies. Imagine having to pay a fee to the patent holder each time a person attempted to use the patented methods. It is my understanding that a theory can not be patented. Why do people keep trying? Patents are granted when a theory is reduced to practice in the form of a working device. When is Mills going to have a working device? Ed OrionWorks wrote: For those who have a propensity towards understanding lawyer-speak. Jones? Mr. Carrell? http://lawbites.com/blacklight-power-sci-fi-science-rejected-by-uk-ipo/ http://tinyurl.com/5wwbvp and http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/p-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/076/08 http://tinyurl.com/439trx There is a 13 page PDF document that can be downloaded from the UK IPO that describes the reasoning behind rejecting Blacklight's attempts. What I'd like to know is whether UK IPO's final decision was due to a difference in scientific opinion or whether other factors may have been involved. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:40 AM Subject: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO snip What I'd like to know is whether UK IPO's final decision was due to a difference in scientific opinion or whether other factors may have been involved. Having plowed through the decision, the bottom line is that the Millsian molecular modeling program is intrinsically not patentable under UK law because it is in essence a computer program. I have no idea about how other sofware, such as Windows, fares under the UK law. The descision has no bearing on the merits of Mills' CQM. The comment from lawbites about sci-fi science is utterly spurious and not supported by any remarks by the UK examiner. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
Reading Ed and Mike's comments makes me wonder why in the world BLP would attempt to patent a theoretical process involving the calculation of electron states via software simulations. Is this latest battle related to Randy's Millsian Molecular Modeling endeavors, or is this a follow-up to recent alleged breakthroughs involving excess heat using the new breakthrough solid fuel base. It's as if BLP is attempting to explore a different legal strategy: To establish a precedent, where they are trying to legitimize the CQM theory indirectly through software simulations that are presumably backed by physical evidence. ...Perhaps I should say, one better hope BLP can back up their computer simulations with real physical evidence!!! This is an interesting conundrum from my perspective as sharper minds than mine have always stressed the fact that a theory or an idea can not be patented, at least not within the United States. When dealing with the development of industrial processes, such as a novel way to generate excess heat as BLP hopes to cash in on, I was under the impression that only a process, a procedure, or improvement to a process or procedure can be patented. The theory explaining why the process or procedure seems to work should (in practice) take second stage to actual physical evidence. OTOH, I gather the theory in question has not always taken second stage to physical evidence such as when BLP attempted to explain the reasons behind some of their experimental evidence as modeled through CQM theory. I believe it has been suggested more than once that BLP would fare better if they would simply focus their finite resources on patenting procedures for which their experimental evidence reveals the generation of substantial amounts of excess heat. Perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture, because this recent UK endeavor gives me the impression that BLP continues to spend an inadvisable amount of time and effort on attempts to legitimize CQM rather than focusing on protecting the actual processes that are known to generate substantial amounts of heat. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
Can theories be copyrighted? Harry On 12/5/2008 4:37 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Reading Ed and Mike's comments makes me wonder why in the world BLP would attempt to patent a theoretical process involving the calculation of electron states via software simulations. Is this latest battle related to Randy's Millsian Molecular Modeling endeavors, or is this a follow-up to recent alleged breakthroughs involving excess heat using the new breakthrough solid fuel base. It's as if BLP is attempting to explore a different legal strategy: To establish a precedent, where they are trying to legitimize the CQM theory indirectly through software simulations that are presumably backed by physical evidence. ...Perhaps I should say, one better hope BLP can back up their computer simulations with real physical evidence!!! This is an interesting conundrum from my perspective as sharper minds than mine have always stressed the fact that a theory or an idea can not be patented, at least not within the United States. When dealing with the development of industrial processes, such as a novel way to generate excess heat as BLP hopes to cash in on, I was under the impression that only a process, a procedure, or improvement to a process or procedure can be patented. The theory explaining why the process or procedure seems to work should (in practice) take second stage to actual physical evidence. OTOH, I gather the theory in question has not always taken second stage to physical evidence such as when BLP attempted to explain the reasons behind some of their experimental evidence as modeled through CQM theory. I believe it has been suggested more than once that BLP would fare better if they would simply focus their finite resources on patenting procedures for which their experimental evidence reveals the generation of substantial amounts of excess heat. Perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture, because this recent UK endeavor gives me the impression that BLP continues to spend an inadvisable amount of time and effort on attempts to legitimize CQM rather than focusing on protecting the actual processes that are known to generate substantial amounts of heat. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO Reading Ed and Mike's comments makes me wonder why in the world BLP would attempt to patent a theoretical process involving the calculation of electron states via software simulations. The calculation of properties of molecules is extremely computer intensive. 'for example, spider silk is stronger than steel, but is molecular configuration is not what a synthetic chemist would guess. Millsian software can do on a laptop what is noiw done on supercomputers. The US patent law may differ slightly. Is this latest battle related to Randy's Millsian Molecular Modeling endeavors, or is this a follow-up to recent alleged breakthroughs involving excess heat using the new breakthrough solid fuel base. Keep your eye on the solid fuel technology and read the website carefully. It's as if BLP is attempting to explore a different legal strategy: To establish a precedent, where they are trying to legitimize the CQM theory indirectly through software simulations that are presumably backed by physical evidence. ...Perhaps I should say, one better hope BLP can back up their computer simulations with real physical evidence!!! The market for Millsian is pharmaceutical and related companies. The product is the models with accurate calculations of key properties. This is an interesting conundrum from my perspective as sharper minds than mine have always stressed the fact that a theory or an idea can not be patented, at least not within the United States. When dealing with the development of industrial processes, such as a novel way to generate excess heat as BLP hopes to cash in on, I was under the impression that only a process, a procedure, or improvement to a process or procedure can be patented. The theory explaining why the process or procedure seems to work should (in practice) take second stage to actual physical evidence. OTOH, I gather the theory in question has not always taken second stage to physical evidence such as when BLP attempted to explain the reasons behind some of their experimental evidence as modeled through CQM theory. You can't patent a law of Nature, only a structure or process utilizing the law. For a long time software was not patentable, being classed as an idea. In some cases, copyright law is applied to intellectual property. There was a battle between Intel and AMD over microprocessors. AMD produced processors which would run programs written for Intel processors. In an elaborate negotiation, it was demonstrated that AMD did not use the same circuits or steal Intel's designs. You can't patent a hydrino, but you can patent compounds using hydrinos. You can patent a process for making hydrinos, and if you are clever enough you might sustain claims to all processes making hydrinos. DeForest invented the vacuum tube triode, the Audion, foundationn of the electronics industry. He tried to claim royalties for every circuit using the Audion, and failed. I believe it has been suggested more than once that BLP would fare better if they would simply focus their finite resources on patenting procedures for which their experimental evidence reveals the generation of substantial amounts of excess heat. Such a patent was filed, with hundreds of claims and clauses attempting to cover all themes and variations. It's much better to have a fundamental patent if you can get it. Perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture, because this recent UK endeavor gives me the impression that BLP continues to spend an inadvisable amount of time and effort on attempts to legitimize CQM rather than focusing on protecting the actual processes that are known to generate substantial amounts of heat. The UK patent is just one event in an elaborate dance. BLP is well financed. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
Howdy Mike, And thus we gain another glimpse of the new century strategies being used to capture revenue streams derived from intellectual property... or should I say properties. Actually the field remains open to a new legimate form of pirating ownership before discovery. hmmm Google concepualized an advertizing revenue stream could be created with a website. BLP appears to see a future revenue stream by pre-empting patents. Richard Mike Carrell wrote, The UK patent is just one event in an elaborate dance. BLP is well financed.
