Yep, lawyers involved in what I call the 'scientific method' seems to be a bad idea.
See: ... In the 19th century, the invention of perpetual motion machines became an obsession for many scientists. Many machines were designed based on electricity. John Gamgee developed the Zeromotor, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Devising these machines is a favourite pastime of many eccentrics, who often devised elaborate machines in the style of Rube Goldberg or Heath Robinson. Such designs appeared to work on paper, though various flaws or obfuscated external energy sources are eventually understood to have been incorporated into the machine (unintentionally or intentionally). ... Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. ... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetuum_mobile ##################################### wrt 'scientific method': ... Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance). ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method With rare exceptions LENR researchers (not scientists) want to keep their magic sauce, and try to trick the patent-system to patent an aspect of their method/machinery, which maybe necessary, but not essential nor sufficient. This is understandable, but counter to the scientific method. And I would be very surprised if the public accepted a device on a wide scale in their basement, which has potential substiantial hazards To cite Feynman: ... warning against self-deception, the original sin of science, saying that "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." To avoid self-deception scientists must bend over backward to report data that cast doubt on their theories. Feynman applied this principle specifically to scientists ... ________________________________ Von: James Bowery <[email protected]> An: [email protected] Gesendet: 17:25 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work. On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Craig Haynie <[email protected]> wrote: I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The >criteria should be that the work is original, complex, and involved a >significant labor investment. Instead, we have Amazon patenting a 'point >a click' method of purchasing, and we have the 'cat and laser' patent. > >http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036 > >These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual >property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. > >Craig > >
