"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