tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8430943333636115226..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Professor Branestawm wins a temporary reprieveVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31064738343312723532008-11-28T17:13:00.000+00:002008-11-28T17:13:00.000+00:00"My view is that if the invention cannot be put in..."My view is that if the invention cannot be put into practice, it can never be infringed and therefore the public is not inconvenienced by any granted patent but benefits from the receipt of renewal fees... Either way, a patent should be granted."<BR/><BR/>But what if the applicant is able to secure investment funding on the back of the very reasonable assumption that the granted patent is valid. Surely the patent system should not support speculative monoplies sought by the applicant, nor should it allow patentees to benefit from the badge of approval bestowed upon an invention by a patent granting authority. More fool the investors I hear you cry; maybe, but if patent offices are in a position to prevent scams of this nature then they should do so. <BR/><BR/>I agree with later comments that insufficiency may be an easier objection to uphold, but IMHO the Hearing Officer's handling of industrial application was good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3705238188400360162008-11-27T11:51:00.000+00:002008-11-27T11:51:00.000+00:00Actually, the reason the SM fits all current known...Actually, the reason the SM fits all current known observations is because it has been rewritten every time a new observation comes along to make it consistent. That's the main problem with the current theory.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting that you mention the Higgs: a particle predicted by the SM which has not yet been shown to exist. Much like the hydrino, no?<BR/><BR/>Hydino theory also makes predictions: it predicts "excess heat" and while the validity of the experiments confirming this are clearly in doubt, there is some experimental evidence to support those predictions. Having said that, the theory does all fall down due to its reliance on an impossible particle. Perhaps if the hydrino weren't so key there would be a greater chance of the theory being accepted as a possibility.<BR/><BR/>Still, my main concern is not whether hydrino theory is correct or whether the UKIPO should be refusing it for lacking industrial applicability, but that the test they have used in their refusal is full of problems and potential pitfalls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45170330522741083342008-11-27T07:49:00.000+00:002008-11-27T07:49:00.000+00:00My view is that if the invention cannot be put int...My view is that if the invention cannot be put into practice, it can never be infringed and therefore the public is not inconvenienced by any granted patent but benefits from the receipt of renewal fees. If, contrary to David's views, the inventor is correct, he is entitled to protect his invention. Either way, a patent should be granted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17988301038357619572008-11-26T21:00:00.000+00:002008-11-26T21:00:00.000+00:00The problem with your argument, G, is that the sta...The problem with your argument, G, is that the standard model fits all current known observations, and is therefore generally accepted. It makes certain predictions (e.g. the Higgs particle), which might or might not turn out to be true, but until the experiment is done one can safely say that it is correct, just as F=ma was correct until Einstein. The 'hydrino' theory, however, doesn't even fit with current observations, let alone make any falsifiable predictions. It's not even consistent with basic experimental measurements (see the recent corresponding US OA). I think the UK-IPO's test is therefore pretty sound. <BR/><BR/>A more sound rejection might be based on sufficiency, rather than industrial applicability, but I think either would do in practice.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15473479367759310892008-11-26T10:46:00.000+00:002008-11-26T10:46:00.000+00:00Finally got around to reading this decision and am...Finally got around to reading this decision and am uncomfortable with the way the whole matter has been dealt with. There are too many potential holes in the tests proposed for determining whether something is a valid scientific theory.<BR/><BR/>For example: the current Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics is, most likely, wrong. There is a difference in that the SMQM is probably correct in large chunks, just wrong in some details, whereas GUTCQM looks to be wrong in large chunks. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, there is significant scientific doubt about SMQM (if there wasn't, we wouldn't need CERN) and nobody is quite sure which bits will turn out to be wrong. Consequently, there is a significant expectation of at least part of the current theory turning out to be entirely wrong and any invention based on the current theory could therefore be refused as being incapable of industrial application under the UK(I)PO's "test".<BR/><BR/>Personally, I would take the view that since investigations into the validity of the theory are ongoing and, while Hydrinos seem unlikely, there may be something in the theory, the application should not be refused for lack of industrial applicability. If the theory (or some aspect of it) turns out to be correct, then no harm has been done to the inventor. If the theory turns out to be entirely rubbish then no harm has been done to the public since nobody could infringe a patent on an invention that cannot be performed!<BR/><BR/>Bypassing the whole industrially applicable thing and the dodgy reasoning it requires would also be a good way to focus on the important issue of sufficiency. Hydrinos are apparently central to the invention and, whether or not they are possible, it seems pretty clear that there's not enough information to enable a skilled person to "make" them - if there were, there would be no doubt over whether the theory was correct! So, UKIPO, stop faffing around and hurry up and refuse the application on sensible grounds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60638494858063170452008-11-25T19:43:00.000+00:002008-11-25T19:43:00.000+00:00Simple answer: it didn't.Simple answer: it didn't.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15179087954952007682008-11-25T15:37:00.000+00:002008-11-25T15:37:00.000+00:00True, but it's a lot harder to wave away 1MJ of ex...True, but it's a lot harder to wave away 1MJ of excess heat, as recently shown by the team at Rowan University (which, btw, included chemists armed with state-of-the-art spectrometers). If Mills is full of it, then how did 0.5 gram of elemental hydrogen produce all of that heat?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67296824676313785442008-11-20T13:30:00.000+00:002008-11-20T13:30:00.000+00:00You could show me 1000 papers of nonsense, but it ...You could show me 1000 papers of nonsense, but it still wouldn't prove anything.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89477660897191989912008-11-18T22:50:00.000+00:002008-11-18T22:50:00.000+00:00It's not unprovable ... it's not anything like the...It's not unprovable ... it's not anything like the celestial teapot or Flying Spaghetti Monster. <BR/><BR/>Instead, it's as though I've shown you 100+ papers with pictures and evidence in favor of a highly improbable hypothesis, and you have yet to be convinced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com