Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 07:32 AM EST |
Not the OP. I must agree with you. This could seemingly
put the patent business back where it belongs. But, I remain
a skeptic when it comes to lawyers and organizations who can
afford to pay their outragous litigation fees on a continuing
basis. Stand by for weasel words.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 07:52 AM EST |
As i understood, the 'Perpetual Motion Machines' where the
one-and-only exception where the USPTO *does* require a
'working model' before granting a patent on the machine.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 11:43 AM EST |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 12:03 PM EST |
No Problem!
Submit your perpetual motion machine device example to the patent office and
Presto! You have got yourself a patent on your non-working perpetual motion
machine. not that anyone would want it, however you don't have a patent on
different non-working perpetual motion machines or working perpetual motion
machine (ha). We need to patent things not words on a piece of paper.The proper
paper should say here it is with an arrow pointing to the actual device.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|