krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:02 am
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:46:18 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku <kaz_at_kylheku.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-16, krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:35:07 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku <kaz_at_kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2012-01-16, krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On 16 Jan 2012 10:02:15 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2012-01-15, sparky <sparky12x_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Has anyone seen one of these actually work ? There are many people
who say they work but no one has ever seen a working model without
it being attached to some remote power source. Is it anything
other than the scam it appears to be ?
from their website:
* FACT #1: The United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded
the ?HoJo Motor? 3 U.S. Patents for being the ONLY working ?free
energy device? ever invented that actually produces free electricity
out of thin air!
That's obviously a lie, the USPTO is not in the business of verifying
engineering.
That's not so much true, in this case. There are special rules for "perpetual
motion" patents.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/
When repealing known laws of the universe, in particular thermodynamics,
"proof" is required.
None of the patents actually make any claim about producing energy out of
nothing. The oldest one from 1978 comes the closest. Possibly, the USPTO
had a more relaxed attitude at that time, more than thirty years ago.
I was specifically responding to Jasen's assertion that "the USPTO is not in
the business of verifying engineering". In the case of perpetual motion, or
refutations to the accepted laws of nature, it actually is. The fact that
they got a patent on something is besides the point.
That is all besides the point of the discussion of the HOJO motor, if the
patents being cited (no matter how much or how little merit they carry) are not
actually the basis for the product being peddled.
It might be, but that was what I was disagreeing with.
Quote:
The USPTO is an intellectually banrkupt institution which ruins its credibility
by granting patents on obvious software processes, like using the XOR operation
to draw a shape on a raster display with inverted colors relative to the
background and then XOR again to remove it.
Speakign of irrelevant to the discussion!
Quote:
Rock guitarist Eddie Van Halen holds a US patent on some stupid hinged wooden
board that you can attach to the back of an electric guitar to prop it against
your leg to make the fingerboard horizontal, for two-handed fretting,
and fold it down for normal play. Yep, that's a patent! #4656917
Your point?
Quote:
That there is a patent on something carries no assurance that it has any merit.
Subjective.
Quote:
Granting means nothing, but on the other hand rejecting means something. If an
application is rejected it means that it is so ridiculous that complete morons
were able to see through it.
More likely that there was no new art taught.
