Did not happen.
http://20121221.tv/nasa-admits-cold-fusion-lenr-energy-revolution-2012-reupload-fast-do-not-let-this-be-covered-up/
Andrea Rossi
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Dear Steven N. Karels:
I am so glad of your comment! I was afraid you could be offended, but, as you
well understood, I just joked with you, not against you. It was just a
homouristic way to tell you I can’t explain what happens inside the reactor.
Of course Peter, this kind of reaction is expected. Patterson objected
to the F-P patent for the same reason - GREED. These fights will
become more common as the phenomenon gets closer to making money.
Greed is a two edge sword. It gives incentive but it will also cause
the eventual
Thanks! This is an especially nasty case. Remember please what I have told
about the Holy Grail in my former writing.
Peter
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Of course Peter, this kind of reaction is expected. Patterson objected to
the F-P patent for
Hi,
On 22-1-2013 20:16, Edmund Storms wrote:
Of course Peter, this kind of reaction is expected. Patterson objected
to the F-P patent for the same reason - GREED. These fights will
become more common as the phenomenon gets closer to making money.
Greed is a two edge sword. It gives
I agree Rob. No patent is defendable at this stage. I believe that
Piantelli, Rossi et al. are wasting their time and money fighting over
patents. The real value will come later after the process is
understood and can be applied in the most efficient way. We are too
far from this goal to
Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:
This exactly why this and associated patent(s) should be placed in the
Open source domain, so each and everyone can benefit from this knowledge.
All patents are open-source, by definition. They are made public. They have
been since they were invented
Dear Jed et al,
On 22-1-2013 20:47, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:
This exactly why this and associated patent(s) should be placed in
the Open source domain, so each and everyone can benefit from this
knowledge.
All
I ma sorry to disappoint you but in the real industrial practice around,
beyond, and above the
patent description there exist critical elements of Know What, Know How,
Know Why and in some cases Know Who. If you buy a licence you pay for the
patent but also for the other technical issues.
Peter
Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:
What I mean, is that no-one can claim whatever ownership and therefore
obtain money for the knowledge disclosed in the patent, as this knowledge
is way to important for humanity to be prevented from to be applied in
general use.
I do not see how
Rob Dingemans
Of course an inventor is to be linked to the patent(s), so this person
can be seen as someone that has brought a (great) contribution for the
field.'
Hard to live on your great contribution, particularly if you have spent
all your money and hocked your house to develop it.
2013/1/22 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
All patents are open-source, by definition. They are made public. They
have been since they were invented in the 1600s. That is the whole point of
a patent.
great remark.
without/before patent there is only NDA and trade secret.
only place
My understanding is that a patent is only valuable if it actually
follows the rules. If the patent can be shown to have been granted
based on false claims, it can be ruled to be unenforceable by the
courts. In which case the inventor gets nothing. Meanwhile the
inventor has spent a lot of
Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
I agree Rob. No patent is defendable at this stage. I believe that
Piantelli
: Edmund Storms; c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
My understanding is that a patent is only valuable if it actually follows
the rules. If the patent can be shown to have been granted based on false
claims, it can be ruled to be unenforceable by the courts
Hi,
On 23-1-2013 0:16, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Perhaps the motivation for the LENR researchers is more $ to continue the
research... there is no $ coming from govt which is typically where academia
gets research $. Thus, the researchers have to go to the private sector and
private investors are
From ecatreport
Andrea Rossi writes:
I receive many requests of opinion about the last patents granted
in matter of LENR: this comment answers to all. None of those
patents explains how the E-Cat can work. I read very shaky theories
in them that never produced anything really
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:16 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
after the
decision, the patent examiners are more likely to cite the wireless
networking as prior art and arguing that adapting it to other areas is
obvious to one skilled in the art.
Why are the patent examiners
18 matches
Mail list logo
