Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
Did not happen. http://20121221.tv/nasa-admits-cold-fusion-lenr-energy-revolution-2012-reupload-fast-do-not-let-this-be-covered-up/
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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. The very strange happenings in the patents world make me have to stay well tight about the industrial secret regarding the intellectual property: it appears that if you want to get an intellectual property you can only maintain the industrial secret about it. Nevertheless, I appreciate a lot your intellectull contributions. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 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 destruction of life as we know it. During the past, the negative effects were local. Now the effects are world-wide, with a place to hide no any longer available. Mankind is his own worst enemy. We all know this but now the evidence is accumulating and cannot be denied. Ed On Jan 22, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Friends, This time it was difficult- I had to write about something ugly, a document of envy and baseless ambition from the darkest side of LENR. But I believe in justice- i had to write this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-anomalous-overreaction-of-prof.html My very best wishes to you all, I hope tp write about good things next time Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CMNS group. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 incentive but it will also cause the eventual destruction of life as we know it. During the past, the negative effects were local. Now the effects are world-wide, with a place to hide no any longer available. Mankind is his own worst enemy. We all know this but now the evidence is accumulating and cannot be denied. Ed 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. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 patent anything. Ed On Jan 22, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: 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 incentive but it will also cause the eventual destruction of life as we know it. During the past, the negative effects were local. Now the effects are world- wide, with a place to hide no longer available. Mankind is his own worst enemy. We all know this but now the evidence is accumulating and cannot be denied. Ed 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. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 in the 1600s. That is the whole point of a patent. A patent has to teach a person skilled in the art how to replicate the invention. It has to make that knowledge fully public. If it fails to do this, and someone challenges the patent, it will be ruled invalid. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 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. A patent has to teach a person skilled in the art how to replicate the invention. It has to make that knowledge fully public. If it fails to do this, and someone challenges the patent, it will be ruled invalid. - Jed I know and yes you are right, but I guess I wasn't clear enough what I meant. Let me try to rephrase my thoughts. 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. 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. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.comwrote: Dear Jed et al, On 22-1-2013 20:47, Jed Rothwell wrote: 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 in the 1600s. That is the whole point of a patent. A patent has to teach a person skilled in the art how to replicate the invention. It has to make that knowledge fully public. If it fails to do this, and someone challenges the patent, it will be ruled invalid. - Jed I know and yes you are right, but I guess I wasn't clear enough what I meant. Let me try to rephrase my thoughts. 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. 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. Kind regards, Rob -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 ownership would prevent the thing being applied in general use. Every important invention in our society is owned by someone, at least initially until the patent runs out. Airplanes, semiconductors, Windows, Intel processors . . . You name it, someone owns it. This has never prevented that technology from coming into widespread use. I believe that if you patent an important technology and you do not make it widely available, the patent office and the government may interfere with your decision and overrule you. Mike Melich told me that. This is especially true when discoveries have an impact on national security. If the Navy decides they need your technology they will use it and pay you a royalty whether you want them to or not. The government will never expropriate intellectual property. But it will make use of it, and force you to accept a licensing agreement and royalty. I'm sure the Navy and the DoD would decide that anything related cold fusion is important and they must have it. They do not actually manufacture machines themselves, so when I say the Navy will use your technology I mean they will have corporations manufacture equipment using your technology, so the knowledge of how to use it will spread rapidly. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 where patent are uselss is when divulgation is necessary to allow sale (software?)... in that case you have to accept or refuse that innovation be paid, thus that it will be funded.
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. In which case the inventor gets nothing. Meanwhile the inventor has spent a lot of money trying to defend the patent and any application of the idea has been slowed or stopped. One of the rules imposed by the USPO is that the patent must show how the claim can be replicated by a person skilled in the art. I know of no granted patent in the CF field that gives enough information for this requirement to be satisfied. In addition, the described demonstrations of heat production and the explanations can be argued were based on imagination alone rather than facts. This being the case, I would expect a series of lawsuits between patent holders in the future as they fight over which patent is valid. So, I ask, what is the purpose of trying to get a patent when the understanding is so primitive? In the past, patents were generally obtained after the basic process was understood, with the patent being used to describe a novel APPLICATION of a known phenomenon. This is not the situation with CF. The basic mechanism is not known and the location in the material that is active has not been identified. The patents are essentially describing magic without showing how the magic was done. I would like to hear from some patent holders about how they view this situation. Ed Storms On Jan 22, 2013, at 1:58 PM, a.ashfield wrote: 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.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
Guys, I just hope that we are not going to bear witness to the patent troll type of activity that might just be beginning. The one where a continuous stream of lawsuits prevent progress. These developments are much too important to the future of man as well as the world for us to allow this. Open source would be a great idea, but there are many that are too greedy to share. So many years have gone by in pursuit of our goal that anyone now claiming to own much of the work is borrowing from many others. How do we reward PF for their contributions in a fair manner along with the large number of others that have made key contributions? Patents should be seriously restricted in the field and not allowed to slow down development. Rewards should come to those that make great products and improvements as long as they does not seriously impede progress. Dave -Original 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, 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 patent anything. Ed On Jan 22, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: 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 incentive but it will also cause the eventual destruction of life as we know it. During the past, the negative effects were local. Now the effects are world- wide, with a place to hide no longer available. Mankind is his own worst enemy. We all know this but now the evidence is accumulating and cannot be denied. Ed 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. Kind regards, Rob
RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
Hi Ed: Good to have your thoughts expressed here... I am on at least 4 or 5 patents and several pending... some from my startup efforts and some from my stint at a Fortune-500 company. RE: a patent being granted based on false claims, it can be ruled to be unenforceable Yes, that is true... I've had a fair amount of interaction with IP attorneys, and when reviewing their drafts of the patent applications, they wanted us to point out any possible 'stretching' of the truth or outright misunderstandings, and not just in the claims section. However, the burden of proof for false claims would be on the plaintiff, so proving false claims may be difficult to do to the satisfaction of the court. 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 absolutely NOT going to invest in a company that doesn't have patent protection, so the researchers are simply doing what the $ sources are telling them they have to do. Although your argument that none of the LENR patents are enforceable anyway makes sense to most savvy investors, there are plenty of non-savvy investors who won't do the research necessary to give them sound legal advice about a given researcher's patent protection; or the LENR technology is so new that a patent review would not be able to definitively conclude that the patent is NOT enforceable... If the patent office strictly enforced the requirement that one must have a functional prototype, the number of patent applications would plummet... There was some SCOTUS decision about patent legislation several years back that significantly changed the patent regs, and one of the changes had to do with the application of a novel idea not being novel when simply applied to other industries. I.e., it raised the bar for the 'novelty' requirement back to what was originally intended. Let's take the example of wireless computer networking being incorporated into wireless EKG (medical) or wireless SCADA (industrial). Prior to the SCOTUS decision, these two examples would have been regarded as novel and thus, patentable; 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. And they'd be correct... an engineer skilled in the art of wireless networking could easily adapt that novel technology to numerous other products from a plethora of different industries... I know... I've done it, and it is not novel. There may be some novelty in enhancements to the base wireless comms functionality, such as added security or noise-immunity, but only those enhancements would be patentable. This higher 'novelty-bar' can also be used by companies to argue for invalidation of a competitor's patent because it's not novel simply because it hasn't been done yet in their industry. In a previous life, Jones Beene was a patent attorney, so perhaps he can chime in here??? -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: 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. In which case the inventor gets nothing. Meanwhile the inventor has spent a lot of money trying to defend the patent and any application of the idea has been slowed or stopped. One of the rules imposed by the USPO is that the patent must show how the claim can be replicated by a person skilled in the art. I know of no granted patent in the CF field that gives enough information for this requirement to be satisfied. In addition, the described demonstrations of heat production and the explanations can be argued were based on imagination alone rather than facts. This being the case, I would expect a series of lawsuits between patent holders in the future as they fight over which patent is valid. So, I ask, what is the purpose of trying to get a patent when the understanding is so primitive? In the past, patents were generally obtained after the basic process was understood, with the patent being used to describe a novel APPLICATION of a known phenomenon. This is not the situation with CF. The basic mechanism is not known and the location in the material that is active has not been identified. The patents are essentially describing magic without showing how the magic was done. I would like to hear from some patent holders about how they view this situation. Ed Storms On Jan 22, 2013, at 1:58 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Rob Dingemans Of course an inventor is to be linked
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 absolutely NOT going to invest in a company that doesn't have patent protection, so the researchers are simply doing what the $ sources are telling them they have to do. This is were either crowd-(sourced)-funding or someone like a philanthropist (Bill Gates?) should come in handy. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 working. The described apparatuses, that we replicated with high fidelity after the publication of such patents to check their validity, actually do not work. Everybody can try... Every further comment is useless. It appears, then, that Andrea Rossi's technology is still safe, and his IP has not been stolen. These events however, justify Mr. Rossi's strict adherence to the confidentiality policies that have frustrated so many. He has been called a fraud because he won't reveal his processes to anyone. Now it becomes clear that he has been quite wise.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR
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 not claiming prior art with all of the silly software patents; those are surely obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the art. Eric
