Re: WTF patents

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kktcs1huqgtnpp07kl9kh1vvcea0ft5qoj@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:52:27 -0600, the renowned "Clark"
> <CP@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Another thing is the Patents do not have to work, and in many cases some
>>could never work.
>
> IIRC, allegedly perpetual motion machines are an exception to that
> rule, by official policy anyway, for the USPTO.

Which is a shame, because certainly if we could use ingenuity in any area,
that's the one ;-)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WTF patents
    ... IIRC, allegedly perpetual motion machines are an exception to that ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
    ... that requirement was dropped awhile ago. ... USPTO specifically disallows patents on alleged perpetual motion ... perpetual motion machines masquerading under different names. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
    ... > patents that have been issued for "inventions" that won't work. ... but has been known in recent years to grant patents on ... > perpetual motion machines masquerading under different names. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Making money from Java
    ... >> perpetual motion machines ... > Wow, Alistair, are you being serious? ... There are many nonsense patents, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)