Let me see if I can be clearer. I believe the LENR situation is not
like any other. First of all, the basic explanation is not accepted.
In contrast, the basic explanation is accepted about other
technologies. This means that the patent office will not grant a
patent based on the basic mechanism or for claims based on nuclear
energy being produced by such a mechanism. Do you know of any such
patent? All the granted patents seem to apply to a method without any
proof that the method actually works. In contrast, Rossi does not even
give the method. This opens the patent to challenge later when the
technology starts making money for someone else. Second, a patent that
actually describes a working device, such as what Rossi might attempt
to get, would apply only to the method used. Yes, it would block use
of that method, but nothing else.
But, you seem to say that any method shown to reproduce the effect
will be blocking regardless of whether this method is understood and
the understanding is shown to apply. Presumably, Rossi could get such
a patent now if he trusted the system to actually grant and protect.
Do you agree? The electrolytic method can be reproduced by a person
skilled in the art, but not every time. How often must this
replication be accomplished for this rule to apply? Could this claim
now be patented once a recipe is described that can replicate nuclear
energy?
So, the problem is what do the rest of us do who are trying to get
money to support research? How does your propose approach help us?
Rossi will do what Rossi wants to do. The rest of us need advice.
Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
We have a conflation of issues getting in the way of communication:
First, I hope my introduction of the jurisdictional arbitrage tactic
has laid to rest the notion that the US patent office's criminal
conspiracy is blocking, even though its influence may pervade the
much if not most of the world, and that we may, therefore and
henceforth focus solely on obtaining backing for development of
protected intellectual property -- protected even if in only one
jurisdiction that refuses to participate in the US patent office's
criminal conspiracy.
Given the likely circumstance that such a jurisdiction can be found
and the patent obtained in that jurisdiction, the problem facing
investors is identical to that facing any investor in any technology
development.
Moreover, no one has yet disclosed how to obtain the LENR process
reproducibly by those "skilled in the art". The argument that
someone somewhere wrote something that might prove to have been such
a disclosure is irrelevant if the manifest practice is that, given
the enormous motive, there has been no generally accepted such
replication. Therefore, the first such disclosure will be blocking
and subsequent derivative patents must negotiate with the prior art.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger
problem. Since patent protection for the basic process is not
possible, a patent for the best application is the only protection.
This is similar to the situation in mature technologies. However, a
great deal of money will be needed to apply CF in the best way, with
no assurance that someone else might find a better way before any
return on the investment can be realized. Consequently, no incentive
is created for seed money from private sources to get involved. This
means the seed money has to come from government, which has no
interest in getting involved because of the threat to present energy
sources. This leaves Rossi as the last man standing, i.e. until a
big industry discovers the secret recipe, perhaps in China, and
solves the engineering problems faster than Rossi can. After this
happens, small companies will be able to get money to improve and
patent the application to special markets, as is the case for the
present mature technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are treated
to a show of nonsense and irrationally.
Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, James Bowery wrote:
Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his
investors?
I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having
paid for a rocket engine patent's international filing. In my
situation, there was no option but to obtain a patent in every
jurisdiction in the world because it takes only one unprotected
jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the profit
stream from that technology: Set up a launch and manufacturing
facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send
their payloads to that jurisdiction.
However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different.
All it takes is one protected jurisdiction anywhere in the world to
realize enormous profits.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the
well was poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal
to accept ANY patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one
sided conclusion, both of which created a legal situation that
doomed any serious study of CF. Now the expected and natural
consequences are being experienced. Rossi may eventually be the
last man standing because he found the secret recipe and used his
own money to start the process. His approach, while looking crazy
by conventional standards, might be the winning path for this
technology.
Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to
benefit
from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think
that
they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of
development.
It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have
available.
Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates
that they
must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were
moving to
Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would
rather
keep silent about:
books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070
Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it -
in the
context of what we know to be historically true.
We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a
deliberate scam on
top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and
patented
by someone else).
Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in
Italy was
basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in
November
is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net
negative
for the rest of the field. It is called "poisoning the well".
DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much
longer
from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process
seems to
infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded
them. No
VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if
the energy
is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on.
If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe
that they
do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they
should
proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a
University or
Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead
business plan,
which is most of the problem.
It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a
scientist.
