To Patent or not to Patent?

[Grimer]

That is the question John Collins is agonising over on his blog today.

In my view anyone who comes up with the first gravity machine of the modern era is making a big mistake to worry about patenting. The incredible fame which will accrue from such a first will be more than enough to provide for the most comfortable of retirements for him, not to mention a large residue for his heirs.

What better example could one have of the importance of fame than Jane Goody.

If he has what he believes he should publish it as soon as possible - before someone else does.

No one is interested in who came second.

[Jim Williams]

First, I would put together and proceed with the patent application. A patent does more than guarentee potential profit, it also establishes ownership of the invention as a human right. If it is an American patent after 20 years every human being on Earth would come to own the invention as a right the same as if they had invented it themselves.

Second, as soon as I had the patent application prepared I would have it published, releasing all rights to the invention to everyone. An invention on such a level would have no difficulty being news and economic returns from publication would be sufficient for just about anybody's desires.

Fame and financial rewards for the inventor and the invention gone to the benefit of humanity. Not a bad return for the inventor in his retirement looking back on what he has done.

[Fletcher]

There's just the pesky trouble of citizen's in the rest of the world that don't have protection treaties with the US of A - taiwan comes to mind - I just don't see them respecting your American rights & sending a donation for your retirement - ok, an international patent application could expand the net but it won't catch all the fish, especially when profits are involved - dang, it's a hard capitalistic world out there - probably the safest way forward is patent applications in the major potential MARKETS & then with a POP machine go cap in hand to a major capital venture firm [or university etc] with both the intellectual & financial muscle [& for a slice of the action of course] - make sure you have a cash upfront payment & royalties for commercial use, a clause that allows individuals to build for non profit [if that's a motivator, which for many of us I think it is] & a heavy financial disincentive clause for non performance i.e. an inducement not to drag the heels clause or shelve it - just some thoughts.

But it's all moot until a wheel can be conceived & POP built & then optimised for commercial & personal use [stating the obvious].

[Jim Williams]

My clever approach is to earn a return from the publication alone, (including my biography, "How I Invented the Gravity Wheel and Changed the World"), and obtain a patent solely to provide the rights to everyone. I forgot to include that when the patent was issued, I would waive my right to exclude others. Then an International Patent would be unnessisary as the only foreign law that would interfer would be one denying a right to the invention. (I note with interest that citizens of North Korea, Lybia and Cuba are routinely granted American patents.) Perhaps there could be a secondary cause of making sure all of humanity had equal rights to the invention as well.

[jim_mich]

SIR, just give it away in a proper manner.

[Fletcher]

I would expect that John Collins books would be on the 'hot seller' list once a working principle was discovered - by discovered I mean either a thoroughly detailed & convincing patent application [beyond dispute using known physics] or a physical working demonstration model - I think the major public interest would be in going back to the source, so to speak, & seing how the forensic analysis was close or not to the mark, with the benefit of hindsight - anyone else's 'indulgence' might not have the same street appeal as JC's heroic efforts over a long time - his already published attempts to bring credibility & credence to the man & the machine - unless there was a real human interest element to the story of battler made good, or underdog wins against the odds, then you'd have a best seller too, IMO.

[Jim Williams]

I knew I liked the Patent Office

[Jim Williams]

I have a standing relationship with a local TV station; bring in something that will light a lightbulb and you are on the air. I would still apply for a SIR or a patent to establish not that such a machine exists, but that it will legally belongs to everyone. Then I would do my best to make sure it does.

[Grimer]

I would expect that John Collins books would be on the 'hot seller' list once a working principle was discovered - by discovered I mean either a thoroughly detailed & convincing patent application [beyond dispute using known physics] or a physical working demonstration model - I think the major public interest would be in going back to the source, so to speak, & seeing how the forensic analysis was close or not to the mark, with the benefit of hindsight - anyone else's 'indulgence' might not have the same street appeal as JC's heroic efforts over a long time - his already published attempts to bring credibility & credence to the man & the machine - unless there was a real human interest element to the story of battler made good, or underdog wins against the odds, then you'd have a best seller too, IMO.

I agree absolutely. John has already staked a claim with his book. Even if someone else were to be first, sales of John's books would increase substantially.