Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-09-2019, 06:06 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,666

Why is the US Navy supporting these woo patent applications?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ter-space.html

As I understand it, if patents don't explain the technical and theoretical information necessary to reproduce the patented item they would be invalid- unless someone can vouch "I built one and it works".

And for that matter, is the name on the patents a real person or a cover for an anonymous research team?

IOW, wtf is going on here?

Last edited by Lumpy; 10-09-2019 at 06:06 PM. Reason: pselling
  #2  
Old 10-09-2019, 06:16 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,082
Is there a more reputable cite for this than the Daily Mail?

Last edited by scr4; 10-09-2019 at 06:17 PM.
  #3  
Old 10-09-2019, 06:34 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,028
A search on the image from that article leads to this patent on google:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/

So apparently it is a real patent (US10144532B2).

The purpose of the patent may be so that the U.S. Navy can investigate the claims or functionality of the device without paying royalties to anyone else who tries to patent something similar.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 10-09-2019 at 06:35 PM.
  #4  
Old 10-09-2019, 07:33 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
A search on the image from that article leads to this patent on google:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/

So apparently it is a real patent (US10144532B2).

The purpose of the patent may be so that the U.S. Navy can investigate the claims or functionality of the device without paying royalties to anyone else who tries to patent something similar.
I wonder if the Patent Office asked the Navy for an embodiment of the invention? Similar to what the procedures are for anyone trying to patent a e.g., perpetual motion machine?
  #5  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:11 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is online now
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,017
You're talking about a government that spent millions on "IED Detectors" that were basically devining rods sticking out of a box.

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 10-10-2019 at 02:11 AM.
  #6  
Old 10-10-2019, 03:05 AM
bob++ is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 6,774
There is a more detailed account here.

This is where the Daily Mail got the story from.
Quote:
The application was initially rejected by Patent Examiner Philip Bonzell on the grounds that "there is no such thing as a 'repulsive EM energy field,'" and that "when referring to the specifications as to ascertain about the microwave emitters needed in this system it is seen that for a high energy electromagnetic field to polarize a quantum vacuum as claimed it would take 10^9 [T]eslas and 10^18 V/m." That's roughly the equivalent to the magnetic strength generated by most magnetars and more electricity than what is produced by nuclear reactors.
  #7  
Old 10-10-2019, 08:26 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 20,313
There are a number of patents that are filed "just in case". Suppose there's a later breakthrough that makes something feasible. Being the owner of the initial idea patent gives you leverage in making a deal with the other person. (The other person's patent is worthless if the Navy refuses to make a deal with customers since the customers need both patents to do anything. This forces a deal on the patents.)
  #8  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:32 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
I wonder if the Patent Office asked the Navy for an embodiment of the invention? Similar to what the procedures are for anyone trying to patent a e.g., perpetual motion machine?
I believe a PMM is the only thing the USPTO requires to have a working model of in order to be issued a patent.
  #9  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:19 PM
garxie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I believe a PMM is the only thing the USPTO requires to have a working model of in order to be issued a patent.
Thanks for the heads-up. I invented one of those last year, but my working model is not quite finished yet. I guess I'll have to wait to patent it.
  #10  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:36 AM
ZonexandScout's Avatar
ZonexandScout is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Southeast US
Posts: 1,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by garxie View Post
Thanks for the heads-up. I invented one of those last year, but my working model is not quite finished yet. I guess I'll have to wait to patent it.
How are you going to stop it so you can crate it up and send it to the USPTO for evaluation? I don't think you're allowed to ship machinery that is in operation.
  #11  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:52 AM
simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,321
Consider also that some "woo" patents may be obfuscating patents that are covered as classified information.
  #12  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:46 AM
peccavi's Avatar
peccavi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: South Bay, SoCal
Posts: 306
The article cited in the OP mentions a previous patent for a room temperature superconductor by the same inventor.

I can't attest to the theoretical soundness of this patent, but the superconductor patent is pure bunk.

The claims and description don't describe any mechanism that relates to anything we know about the underlying physics of superconductivity (not just the mechanisms by which materials transition to the superconductive state, but the physics of the superconducting state and the properties of that state such as Meissner effect, Josephson tunneling, superfluid characteristics, etc. can't be related to, let alone sensibly derived from, the mechanism described in the patent).

As I mentioned to a colleague when we were sent a copy of the patent: "It doesn't work that way, none of it works that way!"

As to the patent under discussion, read the claims in the patent itself. It is not a set of claims that have enough specificity to challenge the "reduction to practice" by one "skilled in the art". The examiner allowed a bare bones description of an apparatus (no method claims) that can't be disproven to work (no one can generate the fields and energies required, so no one can disprove it).

I question the thinking behind the Navy patenting this (I could see an individual patenting, crazier patents exist). Defensive patenting (no one can patent it and prevent us from pursuing it) makes no sense at all. The federal government doesn't worry about infringement- they own the Patent Office and have what are called "march-in rights" on all patents, regardless of the patent holder. It doesn't prevent any foreign entity from pursuing it (it is only valid in the US), it just lets them know what the Navy is thinking about.

I think its a "brag" patent by the Navy (look how advanced and smart our scientists are!) on a subject that the applied guys have assessed has no future, so why not? (or the inventor has pictures of one or more admirals that they don't want made public).
  #13  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:51 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,234
As a strategy, I could see using this patent, issued to the US government, to bar similar patents for other, less ethical applicants.

One of the problems with issuing patents on woo is that the owners of the patent can then turn around and use the patent as "proof the government thinks this works!" to scam investors and consumers. But it can be very difficult under the patent law and jurisprudence to refuse such patents. "It violates the laws of physics!" often isn't actually enough to justifying turning it down, if you can believe that. But, "Sorry, the Navy already has a patent on UFOs, that counts as prior art!" is actually the strongest reason to refuse the patent.
  #14  
Old 10-11-2019, 11:46 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,123
I think the simplest explanation is just that "the US Navy" isn't doing anything. Individuals are. And those individuals are only human. So you've got some human researcher in the Navy who happens to be a crazy crackpot, and some human officer who happens to have been bamboozled by him.
  #15  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:09 PM
mixdenny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Cleveland suburbs
Posts: 1,992
This what is known as the EmDrive, first reported by NASA in 1916. Independent test have been completed. It does produce thrust. However, it produces thrust even when there is no power applied! Here is the article:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...pace-science/:
  #16  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:07 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,123
Wow, so it can be used as a time machine, too?
  #17  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:44 PM
mixdenny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Cleveland suburbs
Posts: 1,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Wow, so it can be used as a time machine, too?
Oops. I was trying to figure out what you meant.... sigh.

Dennis
  #18  
Old 10-12-2019, 01:37 AM
DorkVader's Avatar
DorkVader is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: boise idaho
Posts: 2,846
Also, NatGeo seems to have misplaced the article you were trying to link to mixdenny
__________________
"The Wonka will show you the true nature of the chocolate, He is your master now."
Darth Desserticola, Sith Hare
  #19  
Old 10-12-2019, 08:01 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 20,313
Well, it's not PM but the USN has recently filed a patent for a compact fusion reactor.

William Proxmire is rolling over in his grave.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017