Wimpie wrote:
Hello Art,
Having a patent does not mean that one have something that really
works.

I did a survey on patents in the field of Electronic Article
Surveillance (EAS) and Sailboard Fins. Many of the patents I saw, are
useless, seen from a technical perspective. The problem with those
technically useless patents is that when you invent some really nice
operating principle, you may interfere with such a patent. In that
case it is the available money that counts only.

So for me, to be involved in a patent application does not support the
fitness of a new theory.
. . .

I've reviewed many patents in the course of my regular employment and as
a consultant. Large numbers of them describe "inventions" that can't
work at all, don't work as described, and/or don't solve the problems
they're alleged to. It's clear that on very many occasions, neither the
inventor, the patent attorney, nor the examiner understand the
principles involved. The general practice seems to be to issue the
patent unless there's a clear and obvious conflict with an existing
patent or current art, then let the markeplace sort out the validity.
There are no Einsteins at work in our patent office!

One of my favorites is U.S. patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light_Speed
Antenna" (Strom). Besides sending the signal at a speed faster than
light and penetrating known RF shielding devices, a side benefit is that
it can be used to accelerate plant growth. I've read many patents which
are as fundamentally flawed, but this one has the advantage of being so
obviously wacko that nearly anyone but the overly credulous can see from
it just how little a patent really means as an indication of technical
merit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Wimpie wrote:
Hello Art,
Having a patent does not mean that one have something that really
works.

I did a survey on patents in the field of Electronic Article
Surveillance (EAS) and Sailboard Fins. Many of the patents I saw, are
useless, seen from a technical perspective. The problem with those
technically useless patents is that when you invent some really nice
operating principle, you may interfere with such a patent. In that
case it is the available money that counts only.

So for me, to be involved in a patent application does not support the
fitness of a new theory.
. . .

I've reviewed many patents in the course of my regular employment and as a
consultant. Large numbers of them describe "inventions" that can't work at
all, don't work as described, and/or don't solve the problems they're
alleged to. It's clear that on very many occasions, neither the inventor,
the patent attorney, nor the examiner understand the principles involved.
The general practice seems to be to issue the patent unless there's a
clear and obvious conflict with an existing patent or current art, then
let the markeplace sort out the validity. There are no Einsteins at work
in our patent office!

One of my favorites is U.S. patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light_Speed Antenna"
(Strom). Besides sending the signal at a speed faster than light and
penetrating known RF shielding devices, a side benefit is that it can be
used to accelerate plant growth. I've read many patents which are as
fundamentally flawed, but this one has the advantage of being so obviously
wacko that nearly anyone but the overly credulous can see from it just how
little a patent really means as an indication of technical merit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I remember hearing about this one. Nice that google allows you to look
things like this up so easily now. I used to have a paperback book on
patents like this. There are thousands of them.

Jimmie

On 17 Mar, 08:48, "Wimpie" wrote:
Hello Art,
Having a patent does not mean that one have something that really
works.

I did a survey on patents in the field of Electronic Article
Surveillance (EAS) and Sailboard Fins. Many of the patents I saw, are
useless, seen from a technical perspective. The problem with those
technically useless patents is that when you invent some really nice
operating principle, you may interfere with such a patent. In that
case it is the available money that counts only.

So for me, to be involved in a patent application does not support the
fitness of a new theory.

I'm one of the pseudo-experts that posted to one of your "very deep
question" on Faraday Rotation in NEC2 and/or NEC4.

Best Regards,

Wim

Seems like there is more interest by hams in disproving the
possibility of antenna advances after the introduction
of the Yagi. I wonder what is driving that aproach?
Is it that they have the probability of being correct in 99.9%
of the cases advances their positions as antenna experts?
I remember the days of 73 magazine where the search for antennas
provided interest for many, possibly to many experts have said their
efforts were of no use.......all is known, so they move on to
computors and let ham radio drop. If I had to do it all again
there would be a distinct possibility of dropping the pursuit
and thus avoid the verbal beatings. By the way all my patents do work
but the salient point is what interest they raise in others minds and
what enjoyment they offer me. My first efforts in the U.K. provided
money to buy a car among other things and I have received rewards on
this side also but it is not all about money as personal achievement
ranks very high despite the naysayers arrogance. Finally I have never
proposed that any sort of patent
supports the fitness of a new patent, I have no idea where you
obtained that from. Remember, denial of the addition of time to
Gaussian static law was universally against, now it is seen as
O.K. via mathematics and the masters. It is also supported by computor
programs made by others. It is also supported by mathcad type programs
so I believe I have a smidgeon of a chance of getting the fitness
accepted by those outside the amateur community where profit seems to
be a driving force. If not then it demands review of many things that
are already accepted.
I think it is better if we drop this thing/ thread altogether since it
is only producing anger and discord.
Cheers
Art