[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Fractal Antennas, Chip Cohen (N1IR) on Nova

To: <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fractal Antennas, Chip Cohen (N1IR) on Nova
From: "Tom Dawson" <>
Reply-to: Tom Dawson <>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:40:43 -0000
List-post: <">>
Why I'm not impressed with patents:

US Patent 6025810

"A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises 
generating opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running 
perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a 
heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic 
field; generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the 
heat source, thereby creating an input and output port; and generating a 
communications signal into the input and output port, thereby sending the 
signal at a speed faster than light. "



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jimlux" <>
To: "David Gilbert" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fractal Antennas, Chip Cohen (N1IR) on Nova

> David Gilbert wrote:
>> A patent is no assurance of anything, least of all the technical
>> validity of the idea, except for possibly the opportunity to argue the
>> merits of it in front of a judge and/or jury comprised of people even
>> more technically ignorant than the folks at the patent office who
>> granted it.  For the most part, the only requirement for a patent is
>> that the idea be unique, not that it have any relationship to the laws
>> of science, and even that criteria fails absurdly often in actual 
>> practice.
> I've met several examiners at the patent office.  They're generally
> fairly sharp folks, but they also have enormous piles in their in
> baskets.  The job of the examiner isn't really to evaluate whether the
> patent is useful or will even work as described.  It's more to see
> whether the applicant has adequately addressed the "novel" aspect and
> whether the claims are properly formulated, and don't "read on" some
> earlier work.
> In the antenna area, I suspect that the examiners actually have a pretty
> good working knowledge of the field. There have been numerous times over
> the past 10 years when I've seen some newly issued patent on something
> that seems pretty obvious, and I think I remember the paper that
> described it, so I go and dig up the paper (IEEE xPlore is wonderful)
> but when you go look at the actual patent, they really do have something
> unique in the claims.
> In some software areas, less so, because the literature isn't there to
> search.  People don't write archival journal articles about their latest
> whizbang database search application allowing pet store owners to find
> the perfect guinea pig for their client.  All you get is some marketing
> blurb in some trade magazine (ACME Corp today releases their new
> PigOMatic(r) search engine with patent pending phenotype disclosure
> features(tm))
> So when someone later on wants a patent on gerbil searching, the
> PigOMatic doesn't really come up on the radar (and of course, no patent
> was ever actually issued, the examiner threw it out for being software,
> so it doesn't show up in the patent office's search of their own files)
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list


TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>