Number 135 is almost the entire mechanism minus the prime mover.

[Tarsier79]

So you are patenting 135 because you imagine your design might work. You then blame god for your incorrect thinking in the form of a praise written by some dead guy. I am glad you wasted your money on a useless patent.

Anyone who condemns the entire world because some naked bird (who is made of your DNA and you are screwing anyway) lets you taste an apple that she says is delicious, is an arsehole.

[axel]

Tarsier79, your reputation is “respected�?

https://inspiringtips.com/ways-to-overc ... esentment/

[Tarsier79]

I target my bitterness and resentment towards scammers and charlatans. Religious zealots fall clearly under that category. It isn't my problem if you are brainwashed, just don't try to brainwash anyone in my vicinity.

[axel]

@T79. Me too.

[agor95]

Good luck axel !

Enjoy the moment.

Regards

[axel]

“Judge Pauline Newman (no relation to the inventor) was the Federal Circuit Judge who wrote the opinion in Newman v. Quigg and as I read what she wrote I get the sense that she chose her words carefully because she would not want to go down in history as one who wrote that perpetual motion machines are impossible, only years, decades or centuries later to be proven wrong.“

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/t ... /id=19828/

[Art]

Good article Axel !

However the author clearly puts his finger on the real problem IMO ,which is
" that it will be a substantial uphill battle to obtain a patent on a perpetual motion machine, and even if you do have a working prototype you will likely need many hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the legal battles you will face."

For that reason , personally , I would not even consider proceeding to try and obtain a patent without having a working prototype to give to the patenting body .

But also one must understand fully that this in itself is a very risky procedure because if you are not in a position to immediately start defending the patent you run a very real risk of disclosing all the information needed for unscrupulous operators (of which there will be many) to duplicate the working principle with variations .

You need an organization already set up in my opinion to start marketing at least one useable device before any information is released even to the patenting authorities .

I think it matters greatly in court cases in defense of patents if it can be clearly demonstrated that your organization was not only first to patent but first to declare and retail the product.

Keep in mind we are not just talking about another "mousetrap" but about a "landmark advance in energy production " .

Two very different things !

My Advice , - suck it in and wait until you have two prototypes built and working (one for the patent office and one for convincing the manufacturing organization that you are serious ! : ) ), and then really get serious about getting an organization of capable people together to patent and market a device .

Otherwise I think anyone that cracks this problem runs the risk of ending up like another Newman ! :(

[axel]

“For that reason , personally , I would not even consider proceeding to try and obtain a patent without having a working prototype to give to the patenting body.�

@Ant
My plan is to have a working model first. In a previous post I explained that the US Patent Office and law recognizes “first to file� and not “first to invent�.
Hawking anything prior to filing shoves anything revealed into the “prior art� category making it thus un-patentable. I’ve gotten advice from a patent attorney.

[Art]

"My plan is to have a working model first."

Yep , that's what I'm saying too. With a working model you're about half way there .

But also in addition, if you decide to take the patenting route you need to have everything ready to go (as far as that is possible without disclosing the method that will make it "prior art" before you file).

Like a thought you can't unthink , once you disclose the information to anyone including a Patent Attorney , the clock starts ticking and you no longer have full control.

It is highly probable that the reinventor of Bessler's Wheel will have some really serious competition from many sources - Some with heaps of money.

There is really not much to stop claims (if competitors so desire to make them) that your invention was based on the "prior art " in "their" invention and the argument then becomes that your patent is invalid.
Not much that is, other than your argument in a court of law with high priced legal teams , - which you have to institute and fund often even if you end up being the winner.

If you are not in a position to have a high priced legal defense (and there are likely to be many who will bet that you aren't ) then you may be the loser or at the very best a very disgruntled or depleted winner .

A much better outcome will likely be obtained IMO by effort invested in filling market demand before the competitors get the chance to sell their "prior art".


Not too much different from the "Egg and Spoon Race " :-

(1) "Get Ready !"

(2) "Get Set !"

(3) "File ! "

(4)"Go Really Fast "

[axel]

@Ant
You’re right about everything.
And I’ve considered/agonized along those lines.
I’ve checked into Kickstarter. They have the option of rejecting projects, so I have to get the credibility blocks stacked in the right order.
JB never specifically said how his wheel worked beyond vague teases. I can’t see any of his record being in the prior art category.

[axel]

The story about the chills and spills of the Wright Brothers and their patent of the flight control system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_ ... patent_war

“Letters that Wilbur Wright wrote to Octave Chanute in January 1910 offer a glimpse into the Wrights' feeling about their proprietary work: "It is not disputed that every person who is using this system today owes it to us and to us alone. The French aviators freely admit it." In another letter Wilbur said: "It is our view that morally the world owes its almost universal use of our system of lateral control entirely to us. It is also our opinion that legally it owes it to us." Wikipedia.

[axel]

I’m going to have to go dark now.
Trust that I’m on it.