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. "
73
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "jimlux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
To: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Cc: <towertalk@contesting.com>
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@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|