More Patent Application Weirdness

[Horatius]

So, here I was, working on my paper that I'm hoping to present at TAM V, when I run across a new application for a Motionless electromagnetic turbine. This is interesting in that it directly references the Motionless electromagnetic generator (US Patent 6 362 718) that Randi has discussed in his Commentary articles on more than one occasion. This is good example of one of my topics, how one bad application will reference an earlier bad patent, forcing the examiner to go futher and further back in order to argue against issuing the patent.

It's interesting to note that the applicant for this new application does not seem to be related in any way to the patentees of the original MEG patent. We're getting some cross-contamiantion here, folks!

 

[GodMark2]

So, here I was, working on my paper that I'm hoping to present at TAM V, when I run across a new application for a Motionless electromagnetic turbine. This is interesting in that it directly references the Motionless electromagnetic generator (US Patent 6 362 718) that Randi has discussed in his Commentary articles on more than one occasion. This is good example of one of my topics, how one bad application will reference an earlier bad patent, forcing the examiner to go futher and further back in order to argue against issuing the patent.

It's interesting to note that the applicant for this new application does not seem to be related in any way to the patentees of the original MEG patent. We're getting some cross-contamiantion here, folks!

It was so much more simple when the USPTO required a working model...

 

[Horatius]

It was so much more simple when the USPTO required a working model...

There's an amusing story that occassionaly makes the rounds here in Canada. We once asked for a working model of a "Death Ray" that one fellow wanted to patent. He complained to his Member of Parliament, saying, "Do they know how expensive a Death Ray is?!?!" Ever since, we've been discouraged from asking for models.

There was one other time when a perpetual motion inventor insisted on showing a working model. A room was provided, and he spent quite some time putting things together while some office officials looked on. When he was ready, he turned to one of them and asked, "So, where can I plug it in?"

 

[GodMark2]

... "Do they know how expensive a Death Ray is?!?!" ... A room was provided...

In the USA, any demonstration was at the applicant's expense. You want a patent, you build it with your own cash.

They stopped doing it because they were 'running out of room' to store all the devices that had already been patented. They used to use those devices as a reference to ensure that something hadn't already been patented. Now they just rely on those oh-so-clearly worded applications.

 

[Horatius]

In the USA, any demonstration was at the applicant's expense. You want a patent, you build it with your own cash.

That was the problem, he didn't want to pay the cost of building one for us to test.....I guess he figured the military would pay for one sight unseen, or some such thing.

They stopped doing it because they were 'running out of room' to store all the devices that had already been patented. They used to use those devices as a reference to ensure that something hadn't already been patented. Now they just rely on those oh-so-clearly worded applications.

Well, some are clearer than others. Really, the bad patents are just a fraction of all that make it through the patent office. We should try to eliminate them as much as possible, but let's keep it in perspective. When I started in 1997, the USPTO was issuing patents with numbers in the 5.5 million range, now it's up over 7 million, and that's just issued patents. Add in applications that were refused, and that's a lot of paper in only 10 years. And that's only the US. Add in Canada, Europe and Japan, and you probably more than double that number.