I would argue that the law of nature known as the conservation of momentum is a specific implementation of the "force of nature" known as the property of inertia.
Of course, since the law of CoM has been in the public domain since the 19th century, it would not be patentable today. The question is really about future laws. (Notice, I placed "force of nature" in quotes because I do not want to become embroiled in an argument about the proper use of the term "force" in regards to inertia. On occassion, Newton himself likened the property of inertia to an innate force. Today it is extremely difficult to pose new physical ideas, when the meaning of words for expressing those ideas is controlled by correct thinking physicists.) Harry On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > By the way, the U.S.P.O. jargon for this is "a force of nature." You cannot > patent a force of nature, meaning a newly discovered law of physics or > physical effect, such as the Seebeck effect, Peltier effect and Thomson > effect. In other words, Seebeck, Peltier and Thomson would not be allowed > to patent thermoelectric devices in general. They could have patented > specific implementations. > Einstein could not patent relativity, but he could patent > the Einstein-Szilard refrigerator. He knew a lot about patents. He did a > superb job at the Swiss P.O. and was missed when he became full time prof. > - Jed >
