On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is basically a hybrid of the Ni used by Mills combined with the > nanoparticles used by Arata. It does not seem very original when you > describe it that way, but it is. No one else thought of doing it. No one > else managed to do it so effectively. It may seem like an incremental > improvement but it is enough of a leap to merit a patent. Many smaller > improvements in things like semiconductors have been granted patents. > > The specific, hands-on details of how you make the gadget and how you > operate it are tremendously important in a patent. That is where Rossi is > far ahead of Arata. Unfortunately for Rossi, those details are not in the > patent, so the patent is invalid. As far as I know that's how it works. > > Yes that's how it works, except that even if both Arata and Mills had been granted patents on their respective contributions, and the GE/DoE/APS/etc... lawyers tried to claim that it was "obvious" that one could combine these techniques (in a law suit to deprive genuine inventors of the resources, including decent public relations via "science journalists", due them), there is the argument that any fair-selection of jurors would find convincing: If it was so obvious then why didn't your GE/DoE/APS/etc... clients deploy this technology decades ago?
