|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
|
|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
In Reply to: to respond or not... that is the question posted by drclark on November 5, 2001 at 22:28:37:
The primary reason for getting a patent appears to be to, "A patent is the right to stop others from making, using or selling your invention. It does not necessarily mean you have the right to make, use or sell it yourself."Yes, well there the caveat there was if one's patent had some overlap with an existing patent. Which certainly isn't always the case.
Now as to the unit discussed above... well I had one and was never really convinced it made any difference (was a gift from my brother). But whether it works for me or not is not the issue of a patent, nor does it appear to be a requirement for a patent. Many a new mouse trap has failed to catch the mouse. And if I have no mice nor care if I do... well then the invention is meaningless to me regardless of its true abilities or the scientific principles behind its design.
Agreed.
All of which does not mean that an invention that has been patented will not work as intended by the inventor. Nor does it appear mean that the designer/inventor needs to really explain why it does what it does. But simply how it works. Which is not to suggest that the designer should not be able to, just that in some cases it may exceed their abilities to do so in a way that is right or makes any sense.
If the inventor cannot explain "simply how it works" in a way that makes any sense, then how can anyone adequately determine novelty, usefulness or non-obviousness? It's gotta make sense somewhere along the line.
I have many a student who can do math equations with no real understanding of how or why their steps are right. They know how to get the answer, but heck if they can explain how to do it. Sad, but true. (I on the other hand teach math the other way around - while your answer may be right, you better be able to explain how you did it, use the right vocabulary, and tell why your answer is right.)
Well, as Charlie pointed out, this isn't quite analogous to invention. They're not coming up with anything new. But if they did, and couldn't explain it in any way that makes any sense to anyone else, then how can anyone assess its validity?
Would a device like the Bedini be useful? Yes.
Yes? Mmmm. Let's for the moment assume that the device does nothing other than spin the CD in a magnetic field and nothing more. Nothing further results from this. Would this not fall under the same "no known utility" which excludes perpetual motion inventions, certain chemical compounds and gene sequences?
Seems to me that unless some benefit can be demonstrated as a result of spinning a CD through a magnetic field, it's usefulness remains unproved.
Is it novel? Not sure as there may be other things out there that can do the same thing - though it may not be what they were intended for.
Perhaps. I'll chalk that up as a not sure as well.
Does it really do what they claim? Not sure based on their tests, which may not be testing what they think the device is doing.
Well, in the "EXAMPLE IV" section that I addressed specifically, what they think the device is doing is pure fantasy as Mr. Bedini demonstrates without any doubt that he's utterly clueless regarding the medium his invention's supposed to address.
Though that does not mean it does not work, only that they may not be able to explain how or why. This would/may speak more about the people behind the invention than the invention itself. They just don't know how to set up a valid and reliable test.
It's much worse than that. They're advancing a "cure" for something they've demonstrated they haven't the faintest clue about. In other words, "Our understanding of laser optical digital storage media doesn't even remotely reflect any physical reality but we know what's wrong with it and we know how to fix it."
It appears they had a basic understanding of what they wanted to do and how it could be implemented, but were unable to come to a level of where they could explain it.
See above.
Which neither says the unit as presented is or is not useful (or practical) to the end user. That's up to you to decide.
Absolutely.
With respect to the patent on the Shakti devices, I would rather see the designer respond, as opposed to a continous back and forth between two opposing groups who are at best, second guessing or making assumptions based more on personal beliefs than truths. If he chooses to not do so, that is his prerogative.
Personally, I find no correlation between your example above and the Shakti products. If you feel that there is, please elaborate.I intended no correlation with the Shakti products. I only mentioned Shakti to call attention to the thread in which the issue of patents came up. The correlation of my original post above was with my comments in the Shakti thread that a product advertising itself as being "patented" offers no inherent assurance to the consumer regarding any validity of the product being advertised. It's right up there with "NEW & IMPROVED!"
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: to respond or not... that is the question - Steve Eddy 00:48:59 11/06/01 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]