Patenting is almost perfect for a mechanism, device, product, programme, however for a PROCESS it is always more imperfect and less talkative- usually there are vital know-how elements that are absolutely necessary to be... known. What I say is based on my long and very dynamic experience from the chemical industry. This situation is based on legal and pragmatical reasons- a mechanism is tangible you can see when a patented one was stolen and reproduced. A process is not tangible, and it has to be protected against theft, copyying, imitation by lack of information- secrets. Ask a patent lawyer about this. Peter
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Michel Jullian <[email protected]>wrote: > 2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: > > Michel Jullian wrote: > > > >> If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black > >> box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it > > > > I do not think there is any chance that would work. I have never seen a > cold > > fusion experiment that did require disassembling the cell. As McKubre put > > it, "a wire always breaks." > > I guess you meant didn't. So what, I would take the cell to my hotel > room nearby, disassemble it, fix the wire or whatever has broken, and > come back. Or I would have a replacement cell handy if I was lucky > enough to have two working cells. > > > Also, why would you want to preserve secrets? > > Just file for a patent and you are covered. > > I might have secrets to preserve, e.g. before I file a patent. > > My point is that one can have one's CF cell's excess heat certified > without revealing any secrets. > > So why hasn't this be done in 21 years? Am I the only one to think > that failure to do so, i.e. failure to make reality of cold fusion > indisputable, seriously harms the researcher himself, the field at > large, and mankind at large? > > Michel > >
