Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although *study* is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers.
Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell From: Eric Walker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell <[email protected]> wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric ________________________________________________________________________ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
