Patent lawyers

[flydr2]

I've been reading here for a while and figured it was time I got involved in a few issues...

Lets suppose someone wanted to patent a working PM machine...

The biggest problem I could see in getting a patent would be getting the best patent lawyer money can get.

This patent would have to be worldwide and then kept up to date yearly. I already have used a patent lawyer for other issues and I would not use them for an important discovery like PM.

My question is: Does anyone know who is the best patent lawyer for the job?
Who would you consider to protect your invention?

[terry5732]

PM machines are specifically prohibited from being patented in the US - no lawyer needed

[jim_mich]

There is no PTO (Patent Trademark Office) "Law" prohibiting a patent on a perpetual motion machine. There IS a PTO policy of initially rejecting all PM applications on the grounds of "Non-workability". An invention MUST work or appear to work for a patent to be granted. Since it's considered common knowledge that perpetual motion is IMPOSSIBLE the patent office feels it's a waste of the inventor's money and of the PTO's time to proceed with analyzing PM applications. Therefore they will immediately reject the application on the grounds that it is unworkable because it's an application for a patent on a perpetual motion machine. This puts the ball in the hands of the inventor to prove the invention works. Proof would most likely need to be an actual real working perpetual motion device presented in front of the patent examiner. In which case it's no longer perpetual motion in the strict scientific term, but rather some type of device that uses gravity as an energy source.

There are some good competent patent lawyers. You should pick your patent lawyer or patent agent very carefully.

[ken_behrendt]

Jim wrote:

In which case it's no longer perpetual motion in the strict scientific term, but rather some type of device that uses gravity as an energy source.

That brings up an interesting issue because it would seem that the Patent Office and the inventor could get into a dispute as to exactly what a "perpetual motion" machine really is. Yes, the patent office can always deny a patent on a claim that one's device outputs more energy than it takes in if there is no working model demonstrated. However, suppose a working model is presented and there is no obvious source of energy for it.

For example, suppose a device came along that could output excess energy even if there was no gravity present? This certainly would not be the case with a gravity wheel, but it could apply to some sort of electrical or magnetic gadget. In these cases, I suspect that the Patent Office would grant the patent on it, but would, according to my approach, claim that it was really just converting the mass of the parts directly into mechanical energy and, thus, not violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

I notice that in the few cases where an inventor publicly claimed he got a patent on his perpetual motion machine that, when one reads the actual patent, one finds that the inventor never really claimed that the device was putting out more energy than it consumed to operate. In other words, his patent is for the unique arrangement of parts within the device and not for any type of overunity functioning.

I think, whenever an inventor does apply for a patent which claims to be producing energy from some mysterious source, that he will probably wind up engaged in a lengthy and expensive court battle in order to secure the patent. It's cheaper in the long run to just patent it as a novel assembly of parts and let the world discover later that it really is a perpetual motion machine!


ken

[rlortie]

I agree with Jim, Never head for the patent office without a small proto-type that can be set before him on his desk. Unlatch the shipping clip and turn it loose. Next hand him a notorized affidavit from a reputable college physics proffessor and proceed from there.

Sanjay insisted on patent first before reveiling the remaining data on his design. I told him that it did not work that way, and we each went our own way.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

In these cases, I suspect that the Patent Office would grant the patent on it, but would, according to my approach, claim that it was really just converting the mass of the parts directly into mechanical energy...

The patent office does not "claim" anything. It is the inventor that makes claims. The examiner either accepts or rejects the claims.

Abstaining a patent is called "prosecution". The inventor proposes how he/she wants the patent to be worded. The patent examiner disputes the wording. The inventor (or his lawyer) tries to politely get the examiner to change his mind else he/they change the application. It is give and take, back and forth, with the examiner having the last word. The examiner's main concern is if the patent is something new or improved and to a much lesser extent if what the inventor states is truthful. It is the truthfulness that becomes an issue with perpetual motion. If you state your invention is powered by converting mass to energy or that it runs perpetually with no external power input, then there is a question if that is the truth. A patent must be based on true facts. When you file a patent application you must take an oath that everything in the application is the truth to the best of your knowledge.

... that he will probably wind up engaged in a lengthy and expensive court battle in order to secure the patent.

If you can prove your invention works (say with a working model) then the lawyer costs should be minimal. You don't need to explain exactly why it works. You only need to explain how to build it and show that in truth it produces the results that you claim.

[rlortie]

Once again, (wow thats twice within the last hour):o) I agree with jim.

With the exception of the following quote

with the examiner having the last word.

There is always the patent board of appeals office. Howard Johnson took his case before them after denial by the examiner. Six years later he won and received a patent for a magnetic motor that was simply a toy car with an attached magnet moving on an early day version of a smott.

I highly recommend reading of his trials and tribulations it is a good education for any one wishing a patent on a questionable device.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Ralph, yes, I was just trying to keep things simple. Few cases get prosecuted as far as appeals. The examiner makes a "final decision" which is not really final. The inventor can file some papers and the examiner will review it again and make another "final decision". The inventor can file more papers and maybe get a higher-up to review the examiner's final final decision and have it reviewed again etc. etc. etc. until (I think) the very last ultimate final decision is the Supreme Court.

Howard Johnson used to live in Grass Lake, Michigan just 25 miles from me. Last I knew he moved back to West Virginia. (I never met him.) Many families in this area came from the "hills" of West Virginia and Kentucky and were sometimes called "Hill Billys" in a derogatory way. Many times the children would start attending school for the first time when their parents moved to Michigan. It seemed like many had a last name of "Johnson" (or a few other surnames) and many seemed to be related to each other. It was not uncommon for them to sometimes just up and move back to the "hills" from which they came, as Howard Johnson did.

Please, don't think I'm being derogatory toward people that migrated to Michigan from the "hills". I'm just trying to spice up this post with a little background.

[Clarkie]

The only thing I can add is the rights of the US government to confiscate the patent in the national interest.

As far as I know they have until the patent is granted to do this.

Pete.