New Patent Law

[Slider2732]

Probably would suit Rick's thread...in fact, he's another chap who we know would get right into this ! Rick, Rick, over here mate

I guess we could do with Einstein too, before he left the Patent office
Inventor with Patent law experience and able to file. While we're at it, lets bring in Tesla.
But, see, what if such people are indeed here, just not internationally recognised in the same time honoured ways ?

Do we have any Patent lawyers on the forum ?

You can bet yer bottom dollar that if fears are correct and these moves are intended to suppress the emerging technologies, then we are on the right track !

[nueview]

I think i agree a lawyer is needed here badly because it states first to file that may mean way more work for the patent office if worked properly.

as this does not mean granted a patent if literally correct it just means filed for it would mean it may have to be enforced that way as well if it is used by people in that way.

you can be rejected or needs revision or any of the other statuses that they apply but it is still filed for further action.
if they are made to accept filing as proof then protection of the idea is mandated and then any further action to acquire a patent is covered for a period of seven years for development so each stage of development is then filed again and covered.

i think this will lead to a very different system if it is used as worded but i fear this will be like most law enforcement and will not be interpreted the way it is stated.

Martin

[Shadesz]

America Invents Act

Now we don't need to speculate

[petar113507]

It looks like we need to hurry and brake the current system with a worldwide release of a FE device.

If enough people can produce a working OU device, with common materials -- there is no law which would stop the people from educating themselves, and producing it "underground".

I see this as a preventative measure -- they're trying to discourage it -- but they're really only giving us that last "underground" choice.

==Romo

[nueview]

i hope i read this wrong but did it say an idea can be public knowledge for a year before filing and still be accepted?
martin

[Shadesz]

I'm scanning it now and plan to do an in depth study when I am done.

As I am scanning it there are parts that are concerning, and parts that are actually comforting.

In fact, I think the open source community can use some of the loopholes in it as a very safe way of open-sourcing things. I will need to round out the idea before I present it, but there are still plenty of ways to open source something securely IMO.

[Matthew Jones]

This is the wikipedia page for the new laws Leahy-Smith America Invents Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Listed in the references is the actual bill.

You guys are being silly as usual. Copyright is another set of law that can supersede patents.
If you were to publish a machine in this community with the time and date stamp you have effectively put a Copyright on the idea. This means you are in line to either be a reference or a participant in the patent. In other word they would have to Modify the machine and patent its modification to your copyright or they would have to get your permission for and use your IDEA as a reference.

But the real issue here, and you big THINKERS always miss it, is ENERGY PRODUCTION and ENERGY in general is a matter of national security. Thanks to Bush/Chaney.
They have the right by law to seize any energy related product patented or not without warrant or hearing. And without warrant or hearing they have the right to imprison you for not cooperating with and/or not abiding any action they choose for you to follow. IE if they tell you to stop working on your Machine, you must or face imprisonment.

So why would you worry about patenting anything energy related? At most your going to patent something that does not amount to more than toy or novelty.
If you truly had anything that was more valuable you would be better off giving it away in the open source community under copyright protection. Maybe a Non Commercial license as well. But patenting anything energy related especially if it works is a fools choice and that individual deserves the suppression he/she attracts.

All of you guys should do yourself a favor and stop thinking and start building.

Matthew Jones

[Shadesz]

You guys are being silly as usual. Copyright is another set of law that can supersede patents.

--

Thanks to Bush/Chaney. They have the right by law to seize any energy related product patented or not without warrant or hearing. And without warrant or hearing they have the right to imprison you for not cooperating with and/or not abiding any action they choose for you to follow. IE if they tell you to stop working on your Machine, you must or face imprisonment.

Before I respond, please cite these two claims. Thanks

Oh and while you are at it, since you are such a believer in building without thinking, hows that build of a working OU magnetic track coming along?

[Matthew Jones]

Before I respond, please cite these two claims. Thanks

Oh and while you are at it, since you are such a believer in building without thinking, hows that build of a working OU magnetic track coming along?

You can spend the time finding it. It was law passed 2001-2 with bush energy policy. You'll find it in the library of congress. I participated in a petition against it, with some environmental groups. It was wrote by the oil, natural gas, and coal lobby.
Its a fact. You can contact the DOE as well. They are the pre enforcement of the law. You also do not have the right to protest oil drilling or any Drilling including hydrolic fracturing if you own mineral right. They will just pay fair market value and drill. With or without your permission.

I am not working on that at this time. Wanna see a Tesla Switch that is OU?

Go to work, stop trying to speculate the outcome of an already rigged system. Its insanity. This forum is full of it.

Matt

[Farmhand]

I think the legal meaning of the terms "Inventor", "invented" and "Invention" need to be clearly defined.

One way out of any legal argument is to have the other party forced to agree on a definition of terms which aids you and not them.

If an "Inventor" wanted to use the "file first for patent" clause he still needs to prove he "Invented" something and did not just copy it from the person who did in fact invent the thing. Because if you just copy something so you can patent it first you did not invent it.

For an inventor to even be in the running for first to file he still would need to have invented the thing kind of in parallel opposition with someone else to be considered an inventor. Other wise he is not an inventor he is just a copier and has no right to file at all.

If the person who filed second is an actual inventor and was beaten by a copier, this would not be hard for the inventor to prove. But very difficult for the copier to prove how he went through the motions of inventing.

Tesla showed how to prove a thing was invented by one'self.

It's all in the terms, and this is the way to beat a legal mudhole. The legal system puts great emphasis on the correct meanings of Terms and words.

Education and the ability to argue a fact or point is all a lawyer is. They are not so smart. They just play on words.

No one will ever stop me from building anything I want, patented or not. No one has that right. Because I refuse to give anyone that right. I don't sell anything so it should not even be a concern to me. We need to stand up for our rights and know what those rights are.

No one will ever be able to copy an invention and patent it because they filed first, while the the actual inventor contests it.

That would be an inventor contesting rights to his invention over a person who invented nothing and only copied his invention. I think any reasonably well spoken person should be able to prove their case and win in that situation.

However if two people invented something unknown to each other then the first to file is a reasonable way to go. This would stop a person coming along a year later and claiming what someone else has patented already and rightfully invented on their own accord, which the "first to invent" law would allow.

To be able to patent an invention one would still need to be able to prove they "invented" it not just copied it.

Seems a lot of people are still concerned about being able to make money from inventions.

Anyway a good lawyer would jump straight on the definition of the words "inventor", "invention" and "invented" and go from there.

Cheers

[Shadesz]

You can spend the time finding it. It was law passed 2001-2 with bush energy policy. You'll find it in the library of congress. I participated in a petition against it, with some environmental groups. It was wrote by the oil, natural gas, and coal lobby.
Its a fact. You can contact the DOE as well. They are the pre enforcement of the law. You also do not have the right to protest oil drilling or any Drilling including hydrolic fracturing if you own mineral right. They will just pay fair market value and drill. With or without your permission.

I am not working on that at this time. Wanna see a Tesla Switch that is OU?

Go to work, stop trying to speculate the outcome of an already rigged system. Its insanity. This forum is full of it.

Matt

You were pretty involved, so surely you can remember the name of the bill?

I would love to see an OU Tesla switch, but aren't you the one that said the government will throw you in prison if you showed me?

[Shadesz]

I think the legal meaning of the terms "Inventor", "invented" and "Invention" need to be clearly defined.

One way out of any legal argument is to have the other party forced to agree on a definition of terms which aids you and not them.

If an "Inventor" wanted to use the "file first for patent" clause he still needs to prove he "Invented" something and did not just copy it from the person who did in fact invent the thing. Because if you just copy something so you can patent it first you did not invent it.

For an inventor to even be in the running for first to file he still would need to have invented the thing kind of in parallel opposition with someone else to be considered an inventor. Other wise he is not an inventor he is just a copier and has no right to file at all.

If the person who filed second is an actual inventor and was beaten by a copier, this would not be hard for the inventor to prove. But very difficult for the copier to prove how he went through the motions of inventing.

Tesla showed how to prove a thing was invented by one'self.

It's all in the terms, and this is the way to beat a legal mudhole. The legal system puts great emphasis on the correct meanings of Terms and words.

Education and the ability to argue a fact or point is all a lawyer is. They are not so smart. They just play on words.

No one will ever stop me from building anything I want, patented or not. No one has that right. Because I refuse to give anyone that right. I don't sell anything so it should not even be a concern to me. We need to stand up for our rights and know what those rights are.

No one will ever be able to copy an invention and patent it because they filed first, while the the actual inventor contests it.

That would be an inventor contesting rights to his invention over a person who invented nothing and only copied his invention. I think any reasonably well spoken person should be able to prove their case and win in that situation.

However if two people invented something unknown to each other then the first to file is a reasonable way to go. This would stop a person coming along a year later and claiming what someone else has patented already and rightfully invented on their own accord, which the "first to invent" law would allow.

To be able to patent an invention one would still need to be able to prove they "invented" it not just copied it.

Seems a lot of people are still concerned about being able to make money from inventions.

Anyway a good lawyer would jump straight on the definition of the words "inventor", "invention" and "invented" and go from there.

Cheers

I'm waiting for MJ to show me his OU tesla switch so I can go invent my own in my garage. (not at MJ, but at the law)

[Matthew Jones]

Oh your being a smart a$$. Thats wonderful. So now your skeptic?

Here is the thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...la-switch.html

Start following along. Everyone else is. Its the best thing you can make an investment in right now. And if you don't you can run around make cute little comments why the rest of us put the work in.

Matt

[Shadesz]

Oh your being a smart a$$. Thats wonderful. So now your skeptic?

Here is the thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...la-switch.html

Start following along. Everyone else is. Its the best thing you can make an investment in right now. And if you don't you can run around make cute little comments why the rest of us put the work in.

Matt

Lol, I was poking fun cause your snide remark calling people in this thread silly. Perhaps we should both let it go and decide to not name call?

You go make your OU device. I'll make mine. The OU community needs more than one device.

[Turion]

Shadesz,
Do you really have an OU device? If so, where is the link to it so that we can replicate it along with Matt's Tesla Switch?

David Bowling