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