New Patent Law

[Shadesz]

Shadesz,
Do you really have an OU device? If so, where is the link to it so that we can replicate it along with Matt's Tesla Switch?

David Bowling

David,

I don't at this time. I am working on one, but I have a different take than Matt.

Matt's approach is more 'Edison' in style, 99% perspiration.

My approach is like Edison's arch enemy... 99% study and understanding.

Did you catch the irony? It's kinda hidden. Anyways,

Matt is working on a build schematic to release.

I am working on a theory publication to release. (after I prove it with a working unit of course)

PS, I really shy away from 'batteries charging batteries' systems otherwise I may be more inclined to build something like Matt's tesla switch.

I'm still waiting on the name of that Bill Matt. It is pretty important stuff if it is true.

[Turion]

I caught it. I think we all know who Edison's arch enemy was. I wouldn't sell Matt short though. I've built some of his stuff. You might be surprised.

[kcarring]

Matt's approach is more 'Edison' in style, 99% perspiration.
My approach is like Edison's arch enemy... 99% study and understanding.

My first year in logging camp, was spent... well... logging of course, but at night when we were reading, or listening to radio, or watching videos etc., it all happened, powered by 32 year old Edison Batteries bought second hand from CP Rail. A 1400 amp hour bank.

The man was no sluff.

[Matthew Jones]

David,

I don't at this time. I am working on one, but I have a different take than Matt.

Matt's approach is more 'Edison' in style, 99% perspiration.

My approach is like Edison's arch enemy... 99% study and understanding.

Did you catch the irony? It's kinda hidden. Anyways,

Matt is working on a build schematic to release.

I am working on a theory publication to release. (after I prove it with a working unit of course).....

HUH?? You think I haven't built everything I have said I have built? I just draw schematics?

Well thats OK. Your type come and go. Usually pretty quick intervals.

Did you go look and see what energy bills were submitted in 2001-02?

HR4 was one of them, but it did not make the cut. I was later reworked 4 times and passed in 2005 as the full bill. The energy Policy act of 2005.
Read the bill itself not the outline because the outlines all fail to mention the POLICIES attached to the bill.
In the declaration of the policy of the US government is the section in which they declare the National security issues. But it had already policy since 2001 and it was treated as such.

If you wanna do more home (I know you just want handouts, no real work from your kind) you can go over to this thread started by "jibbguy"
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post158137

jibbguy is one the most creditable people we have in this community for reporting information. Although I do not always agree with his opinions and we have had rants with him from time to time, he is, hands down, one of the finest people to have started in this community, and everything he reports on is the truth until proven wrong. As far as I am concerned.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post158137

Read through it. One of the sections he discuss Patent suppression by the national security community over a period of time covered by these laws.

Now I am done waisting my time on you.

Matt

[Shadesz]

HUH?? You think I haven't built everything I have said I have built? I just draw schematics?

Well thats OK. Your type come and go. Usually pretty quick intervals.

Did you go look and see what energy bills were submitted in 2001-02?

HR4 was one of them, but it did not make the cut. I was later reworked 4 times and passed in 2005 as the full bill. The energy Policy act of 2005.
Read the bill itself not the outline because the outlines all fail to mention the POLICIES attached to the bill.
In the declaration of the policy of the US government is the section in which they declare the National security issues. But it had already policy since 2001 and it was treated as such.

If you wanna do more home (I know you just want handouts, no real work from your kind) you can go over to this thread started by "jibbguy"
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post158137

jibbguy is one the most creditable people we have in this community for reporting information. Although I do not always agree with his opinions and we have had rants with him from time to time, he is, hands down, one of the finest people to have started in this community, and everything he reports on is the truth until proven wrong. As far as I am concerned.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post158137

Read through it. One of the sections he discuss Patent suppression by the national security community over a period of time covered by these laws.

Now I am done waisting my time on you.

Matt

You grossly misinterpret what I was saying about your build schematics. Your loss though.

On the other point, I simply wanted the name of the Bill that you were so actively engaged in opposing. I did not want a hand out. To the contrary actually. If I wanted a handout I would just go on your interpretation of said bill. I would not be asking for its name so I COULD READ IT MYSELF. But then again, I guess I should expect such sub-par reasoning skills from someone like yourself.

Your apparent successes with the Tesla switch has gone straight to your head. You remind me of Thane. Some advice: you would get farther in life if people didn't perceive you as such an @&^.

Your type stick around and claim OU (think magnet track thread), with no real world results or solutions. Oh btw, I read your Tesla Switch stuff. It's funny though, you claim OU on a device when you can't even understand the diferrence between a watt and a watt hour?

We are on the same team in the end. My point is, don't jump in a thread and criticize people if you don't want a fight. Common sense tells you that they will be inclined to defend their position, even if it is a waste of each others time. You should have left the thread alone if you didn't agree and didn't want an argument. But, if you just HAVE to voice your opinion, next time consider using something called TACT. Here, study up on it. read definition 2. It will help you in your life. You may be surprised, the people might actually start to consider what you have to say.

[Matthew Jones]

You grossly misinterpret what I was saying about your build schematics. Your loss though.

I simply wanted the name of the Bill that you were so actively engaged in opposing.

Your apparent successes with the Tesla switch have gone straight to your head. You remind me a Thane. Some advice: you would get farther in life if people didn't perceive you as such an @&^.

Your type come and stay and claim OU (think magnet track thread), with no real world results or solutions. Oh btw, I read your Tesla Switch stuff. It's funny though, you claim OU on a device when you can't even understand the diferrence between a watt and a watt hour?

We are on the same team in the end. My point is, don't jump in a thread and criticize people if you don't want a fight. Common sense tells you that they will be inclined to defend their position, even if it is a waste of each others time.

I do not care what people perceive me as. But alot of people would disagree with you.
I do not care if they want to defend there position. If it is Counter to productivity it is useless. Do some reading it has all been hashed through many times.

And how did I misundertand

Matt's approach is more 'Edison' in style, 99% perspiration

I put a schematic out and sweat it? Or what. What is it your trying to say. See that why you perceive me as some "$&$&^" because I do not understand a goofy analogy. LOL

I don't know you, nor do I want to. Your just like alot people "Give ME, Give ME, Give ME", "Lord help me if I actually had to work to learn"....

See ya later
Matt

[Shadesz]

I do not care what people perceive me as. But alot of people would disagree with you.
I do not care if they want to defend there position. If it is Counter to productivity it is useless. Do some reading it has all been hashed through many times.

And how did I misundertand

I put a schematic out and sweat it? Or what. What is it your trying to say. See that why you perceive me as some "$&$&^" because I do not understand a goofy analogy. LOL

I don't know you, nor do I want to. Your just like alot people "Give ME, Give ME, Give ME", "Lord help me if I actually had to work to learn"....

See ya later
Matt

Your posts speak for themselves. I need not say more. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Matthew Jones]

LOL

Thats right run away when you can't just have everything handed to you. LOL

Matt

[Shadesz]

Hey guys. I found this interesting. It seems this writer thinks that the new patent law could actually favor the open source comminity.

Embedded in FTF is an elimination of the “grace period,” which is the one-year limit from “enabling disclosure” until one must file a patent. Under the new law, any public use or offer to sell an invention (even if the functioning of it is not disclosed) becomes an immediate bar on patenting. So if an inventor shows her invention working at a trade show, demonstrates it for an angel investor group or offers a single unit for sale, it will not receive a patent even if she applies the next day. How could Congress have allowed that? They were duped. Evidence of this is that both chambers published a colloquy — a staged dialog meant to clarify — that said the bill did the opposite of what the bill actually does. Courts have ruled that when such conflicts exist, the bill prevails. This was only one of the many ways that proponents misled decision-makers on this bill.

New Patent Law Means Trouble For Tech Entrepreneurs - Forbes

THOUGHTS??

[nueview]

the way information disappears from public domain i would think this is a boost for government and corporate free rain of any device discovered by another individual without having to be responsible to the individual in any way.
if one asks for help from another individual it could be considered as a showing even with a nondisclosure.
distroy patenting and you destroy the record of developement then control the flow of information on the internet and you close off all discussion.
now you have a true consumer society because the knowledge to repair such devices can be totally stopped by those we allow to be in control.
Martin

[Farmhand]

What exactly leads people to believe that a device that is publicly disclosed
can be patented ? Or more to the point patent something they did not invent.

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...2hr1249enr.pdf

‘‘§ 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty
‘‘(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a
patent unless-

H. R. 1249—3
‘‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a
printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise
available to the public before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention; or
‘‘(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued
under section 151, or in an application for patent published
or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent
or application, as the case may be, names another inventor
and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention.

This is the only exception I can see that would allow an inventor to patent a
publicly disclosed invention, but I still don't see how a person or company that
did not invent a device that was publicly disclosed by the inventor could
patent a publicly disclosed invention they did not even invent, when there is
proof that someone else invented it.

I don't think first to file is relevant to public dislcosure, novelty or prior art.

‘‘(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
‘‘(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure
made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed
invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under
subsection (a)(1) if—
‘‘(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint
inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter
disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint
inventor; or
‘‘(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such
disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a
joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter
disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint
inventor.

I don't think a person can patent something they did not invent.

Cheers

[Aaron]

patent without inventing it

Farmhand,

Besides the "first to file" file bill that will come into effect in 18 months, the answer is very simple.

Find a patent attorney that doesn't really know how to do their due diligence and doesn't know the technology well enough to know the distinctions and they will simply vouch from their perspective that the claims of inventorship are valid.

That is EXACTLY how someone that actually did not invent something can claim they did and have the patent application submitted on their behalf. Then, it will be reviewed.

You have to understand that most of the search of prior inventorship will be limited to patent apps and patents already granted. There will NOT be much of a search in any open source locations like forums, etc... to determine if the "inventor" is the "FIRST AND ORIGINAL" inventor.

And, the "inventor" has to swear to an oath they are the "first and original" inventor and because that is an oath, that is credibility to the patent office especially when the application is submitted by an attorney that states to the best of their knowledge blah blah blah.

I'm speaking from experience.

Being able to apply for a patent for something that wasn't invented by the applicant is very easy. It seems to be more of a revenue generator for the legal process than protection for an inventor.

There is NO way an attorney or a patent examiner can or will do serious due diligence on a patent app when the patent office is 1.5-2 years backlogged. That isn't the attorney's problem but the due diligence and other work is based on how much money they can milk from the clients. The due diligence is related to a linear or non-linear relationship to how much money the client spends.

Bottom line - it is easy for a liar to claim inventorship and get a patent pending status.

[Farmhand]

Well we can't blame the patent law for that. The patent law says that if the
inventor discloses the invention he still has 1 year to file.

All I can say is fraudsters will always be around. If someone patented an
invention of mine, then tried to sue me for patent infringement, as long as I
have proof I invented the invention and when, there should be no problem
except for them.

Does it matter if someone has a fraudulent patent that they cannot enforce ?

When the infringement case goes to court just take the proof, 1/ that it was
invented by you and when, and 2/ that it was publicly disclosed by you the
inventor and when it was publicly disclosed.

After you win the defence go to the small claims court and sue the patent
holder for the funds to take him to court for fraudulently patenting your
invention.

I think the main thing is we do not want to be sued for using our own invention.

If I invented something and I don't want a patent, all I have to do is make it public, and use it.

There is not really much we can do to prevent fraudsters patenting other
people's inventions. But we can still build and use the devices. And/or go after
them them in the courts.

The chances of a fraudster being able to enforce patent infringements on the
original inventor, who has proof of the conception and building of the
prototype would be slim.

If the patent office and the examiner don't validate the device and the claims
then, they have failed in their duties and probably complicit in the fraud
unwittingly or not.

In my opinion patents are a farce.

Bottom line is the patent law is not at fault.

The law states that. If the invention is made public it cannot be patented
except by the inventor and it must be done within one year of the public
disclosure.

‘‘§ 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty
‘‘(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a
patent unless-

H. R. 1249—3
‘‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a
printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise
available to the public before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention; or

Cheers

[Farmhand]

The first to file thing is not just first to file, it's first Inventor to file.

SEC. 3. FIRST INVENTOR TO FILE.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 100 of title 35, United States Code,
is amended—
(1) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘or inter partes reexamination under section 311’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(f) The term ‘inventor’ means the individual or, if a joint
invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered
the subject matter of the invention.
‘‘(g) The terms ‘joint inventor’ and ‘coinventor’ mean any 1
of the individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter
of a joint invention

Looks fairly clear to me, if your not an inventor, you cannot file legally.
Therefore if a patent was granted to a non inventor of an invention the
patent would be invalid.

Cheers

[Bizzy]

The first to file thing is not just first to file, it's first Inventor to file.



Looks fairly clear to me, if your not an inventor, you cannot file legally.
Therefore if a patent was granted to a non inventor of an invention the
patent would be invalid.

Cheers

Hi Farm hand,
Thanks for sharing that with us. It almost appears as if the inventor who files first would also have to prove that they actually did the process of inventing similar to the way it used to be, if I am reading this right.

Bizzy