Can Bessler's wheel be patented?

[John Collins]

I know this question has been posed before but I didn't understand the full implications until now.

If I was successful in building Bessler's wheel I had intended not to patent it but just publish the details in book form and make a video etc, thinking that that was the best option. I thought that once it was out there it couldn't be buried. Then some members of this forum urged us to patent it because it would mean that we had ownership of our design and we could sell it,license it, discuss it with anyone or just give it away and no one could patent it and bury it.

According to the UK patent office, and this is probably a pretty general viewpoint, if you do not patent your invention, anyone can to use, make or sell your invention without your permission - but can they patent it for themselves?

If I discuss the invention with anyone without a non-disclosure agreement(NDA) or a confidentiality agreement (CA) is that considered as 'published'? Could I still patent it, assuming that the person I discussed it with didn't patent it first?

My reason for posing these questions is this. If one of us were to apply for a patent on Bessler's wheel, the patent office will search for possible patent infringements on earlier patents, but will also search 'other' publications apparently. This implies that, if you publish the design, that prior publication might prevent later successful patent applications on your design. If this is so, then any Bessler's wheel patent application that could be shown to contain similar elements to those shown in some of Bessler's drawings might prevent a successful patent application, even though it was published nearly 300 years ago.

So my question is; can a published design be patented at a later date? I know that literary copyright automatically confers ownership of the text to the author. Therefore the text and graphics of a published design would belong to the author, but not, presumably the invention itself?

It seems to me that publishing a design will prevent a later patent application for that same design being granted and that therefore if any of us succeeds in building a wheel based on what we have gleaned from Bessler's work we will be unable to patent it, so perhaps we should not try?

JC

[rlortie]

John,

I am glad to hear that your are having second thoughts about 'free sourcing', IMO it is the wrong path if you wish to help the consumer and the environment.

The full implications of not patenting will cost more in the long run than patenting.

Once it is out there without a patent your own utility companies, big oil interests and world wide corporations dealing in energy related industries will bury you. With their money and political influence they will make a simple design change in your publication and patent it. The only one you have helped will be those that can build the machine for their personal use. The average consumer will end up paying more. You would not be able to help third world countries or donate to those in need, such as Jon Hutton a missionary in Guatemala.

By all means patent it, you can then sell licenses under pre arranged contract that the product must be sold within in a viable profit margin much less than nuclear, fossil, wind, solar and hydro power are now charging. You will retain the right to build machines for your own wheel farms where you sell the product not the machines. Set your own price on your commodity.

According to the UK patent office, and this is probably a pretty general viewpoint, if you do not patent your invention, anyone can to use, make or sell your invention without your permission - but can they patent it for themselves?

Money talks! Yes those with influence and money with hefty lawyers will find a way, such as a simple design change to circumnavigate your prior publication.

If I discuss the invention with anyone without a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or a confidentiality agreement (CA) is that considered as 'published'? Could I still patent it, assuming that the person I discussed it with didn't patent it first?

You can discuss your ideas and collaborate with others in a confidential environment without risk of loosing you patent rights, it is not considered published material to exchange communication with partners or associates via private communication. Large companies involved in R&D practice this daily.

Your only risk is trust and the ethics of those you share with. True they could rip you off by beating you to the patent office, and I readily admit that the history books mention a few of such misdeeds.

Some entering a collaborated agreement are satisfied with a verbal gesture such as an e-mailed proxy handshake. Others wish something in writing usually consisting of a partnered agreement written up on the kitchen table. Under a partnership limited to an enterprise for a specific item does not require an NDA or a CA it is automatically a binding part of the partnership.

My legal standing with James Kelly and Alan Bauldree is a registered partnership identified as an Enterprise, also known as a venture. The percentage of profit sharing is not addressed nor does it need be for the three of us to claim co-ownership of any patent applied for. The three of us have the right to edit any and all communication between us. We have access to each others computers limited to our research communication and web site.

If one of us were to apply for a patent on Bessler's wheel, the patent office will search for possible patent infringements on earlier patents, but will also search 'other' publications.

You can patent a self-sustaining running wheel, there is no way for you or the Patent office to verify that it was indeed Bessler's. There was no Patent program in Germany in Bessler's time. Not even your own in-depth research has ever come up with any documentation that Bessler applied for a Patent in any country that did have an operational Patent procedure in activation. I believe England was the first to conceive a patenting process.

Even if Bessler did have a patent it would be long expired and as unlike attempting to patten a wheel barrow it was never utilized.

If you have a runner, possible patent infringements on non-runners is not totally without perchance but the margin will be very slim and in your favor. I have collected all patents related to gravity induced machines that I can find. A lot of them have things in common yet they differ enough that the Patent Board accepted them ,even though they and we know they will not work.

My estimate is that 90% or better of these patents were filed by individuals with shallow pocket books for the sole purpose of believing if anyone does come up with a runner they can lay claim. Under proper management and a well worded patent and investment money backing, they stand a snowballs chance in hell of beating you out. And I am not referring to a town called Hell Ohio.

I have a key paragraph considered a 'blanket clause' that can be added to the end of your application that specifically states that any design in likeness which can be added to or augmented is covered under your patent. That is to say you are patenting any deviated form of the concept and not the machine 'as-built'. This clause is legal and has already been set by precedent.

Apparently. This implies that, if you publish the design, that prior publication might prevent later successful patent applications on your design.

True, the legal term and meaning of "publish" clearly states;

1. To prepare and issue printed material for public distribution or sale.
2. To announce, bring to the the public attention.

Private collaboration with those you trust does not meet the description of published material.

If this is so, then any Bessler's wheel patent application that could be shown to contain similar elements to those shown in some of Bessler's drawings might prevent a successful patent application, even though it was published nearly 300 years ago.

I disagree; none of Bessler's published works substantiate a runner. A copyright may be held on his drawings but there is nothing that cannot be patented. You can patent a running wheel with or without reference to his drawings.

So my question is; can a published design be patented at a later date? I know that literary copyright automatically confers ownership of the text to the author. Therefore the text and graphics of a published design would belong to the author, but not, presumably the invention itself?

If published first, you best be standing at the patent office door and first in line. PTO in this country stands for Patent & Trademark Office. Literary copyright is handle by the Library of Congress and has no bearing or influence on a patent.

It seems to me that publishing a design will prevent a later patent application for that same design being granted and that therefore if any of us succeeds in building a wheel based on what we have gleaned from Bessler's work we will be unable to patent it, so perhaps we should not try?

IMO that is acute pessimistic thinking. You apply for the patent first, once 'certification of application received' is acknowledge, you have the legal right to claim 'Patent Pending'... Then you publish like you have never published before. Gleaning of Bessler's work is irrelevant and is only a mentionable point of reference. There are no Bessler patent numbers to reference or relate to your invention. Patent offices love numbers!

Just a short time back it become known that a friend of Scott's patented a deviation of MT137. He did not list Bessler as reference, he listed this forum!

If any patent knowledgeable person finds fault in my above rambling, please for the benefit of all speak up!

Ralph Lortie

[greendoor]

I'm no expert, but I believe that if an idea is submitted into the 'public domain', then it's not possible for that idea to be patented. Anything already disclosed becomes 'prior art', and is inadmissible for patent protection.

Patents are for rich men and fools. Regardless of what you try to do, a patent can't help you unless you have the resources to defend yourself against the legal might of whatever corporations your invention might threaten.

If enough people can replicate your idea quickly, then nothing can stop it. You would change the world forever - and give the academic system a shock that would have repercussions for centuries.

Assuming it works, the basic physics principles behind it would no longer be a mystery. So regardless of whatever design you patent, there will doubtless be hundreds of variations on the same theme that could put a lot of lawyers kids through school should you be foolish enough to try to challenge.

Just do it John - your fame and fortune will be assured by being the first to crack it. You certainly deserve to be the one.

Cheers & best wishes.

[Ed]

Just a short time back it become known that a friend of Scott's patented a deviation of MT137. He did not list Bessler as reference, he listed this forum!

I don't know where you got this idea from Ralph, but he did reference Bessler, MT to be exact (reference this forum???). Not that it matters. Patents would be expired and IIRC the most any country has is death plus 100 years for copyright. That would still mean his copyrights would have expired also.

[ovyyus]

I'm no expert, but I believe that if an idea is submitted into the 'public domain', then it's not possible for that idea to be patented

Greendoor, an idea can't be patented. A new or novel application of an idea can be patented.

John, no one can patent an application already common knowledge and in the public domain. But everyone is free to capitalize on it, as it should be. Bessler has nothing remotely close to an application in the public domain - there is obviously no working description of the internal application of his wheel. So how could Bessler's wheel ever be claimed as prior art to any subsequent claims?

[John Collins]

Good, thanks Bill. Patenting is a tedious, lengthy and expensive process with dubious benefits. The cost of a world wide patent is far too expensive and too difficult to police and for what? So that you can wait for someone else to patent an improvement? No thanks.

JC

[broli]

Once it is out there without a patent your own utility companies, big oil interests and world wide corporations dealing in energy related industries will bury you. With their money and political influence they will make a simple design change in your publication and patent it.

Can you give an example of this case please, or are you just talking out of your ass? This has not happened once in the history of 100 years. Big companies either killed the inventors WHO PATENTED their invention, threatened them or bribed them. Not a single case of free energy has been "plagiarized" and disappeared. So please try again friend.

By all means patent it, you can then sell licenses under pre arranged contract that the product must be sold within in a viable profit margin much less than nuclear, fossil, wind, solar and hydro power are now charging. You will retain the right to build machines for your own wheel farms where you sell the product not the machines. Set your own price on your commodity.

Again an uneducated assumption. Do you think you are free to do as you wish in this world? The answer is hell no. The government will decide exactly what will happen with these kind of inventions, whether it's taxing the hell out of it or paying mandatory fees. And seeing how corruption is so widespread it takes an idiot to be as naive as you are. Justice has died before your grandpa, wake up.

True they could rip you off by beating you to the patent office, and I readily admit that the history books mention a few of such misdeeds.

LOL

My estimate is that 90% or better of these patents were filed by individuals with shallow pocket books for the sole purpose of believing if anyone does come up with a runner they can lay claim.

A patent is a patent whether your opinion differs. You amongst all have no right to decide which patent is phony.

I have a key paragraph considered a 'blanket clause' that can be added to the end of your application that specifically states that any design in likeness which can be added to or augmented is covered under your patent. That is to say you are patenting any deviated form of the concept and not the machine 'as-built'. This clause is legal and has already been set by precedent.

This throws all your ethics (as little as they were) out of the window. This is exactly what a patent shouldn't be. A patent USED to be an exact invention described in full detail, not some vague mambo jumbo to compensate for human greed and corruption. If someone improves on your invention by means you haven't thought of then patents should be extended on a derivative basis. Part of the licensing fee for these patents should go to the main patent. This is the most fair method. But since this planet has corruption at its foundation people like you just inherit it and keep it alive.

IMO that is acute pessimistic thinking. You apply for the patent first, once 'certification of application received' is acknowledge, you have the legal right to claim 'Patent Pending'... Then you publish like you have never published before. Gleaning of Bessler's work is irrelevant and is only a mentionable point of reference. There are no Bessler patent numbers to reference or relate to your invention. Patent offices love numbers!

Ralph do you write out of experience? Have you ever patented, published and successfully protected numerous inventions? How many businesses have you ran and owned? Or is this all based on fiction and day dreaming? Your words make it sound like you have been in all these situations before but the reality is you haven't, not even close. So logically one expects for you to have used history as your bucket of examples. But not even that is the case. Your ignorance bar is so high you need a telescope to see it.

John I stay with my opinion about gravity wheels and power. Unless you have found a mine of plutonium and have millions to invest in building complex mechanical behemoths to produce relatively little power...your best bet will be dealing with museums for show casing a running wheel.

For the other people that are ignorant of history here's a small list of people and technology that didn't quite make in this beautiful world:

Nikola Tesla
Nathan Stubblefield
Pogue Carburetor 200MPG
Tom Ogle
Fuel Vaporizers
Viktor Schauberger
Bob Teal
Thomas Townsend Brown
Buckminster Fuller
John F Kennedy
Henry Moray
Hemp
Henry Ford car
Bio diesel from hemp
Electric vehicles
Avion sports car
Tank hydrogen cars
Jack Nicholson
United Nuclear
Daniel Dingel
Solar energy suppression - Jimmy Carter
John Bedini
Raymond Rife
Hydroxy boosters
Tatra T87 (aerodynamics)
Bios Fuel
Stan Meyer
Stan Meyer thermal explosive energy
Water spark plug
XOGen
Yull Brown
Paul Zigouras
Bob Boyce
Dave Lawton
Ravi Raju
Isaac De Rivaz
Francisco Pacheco
Charles Garrett / G H Garrett
Archie Blue
Genepax
Russian Water Engine
Water Spark Plug
Herman Anderson
Firestorm Spark Plug
Ball tipped spark plug
HydroFuel
Cornish hydrogen
Hydrosonic Pump
Disclosure Project
Matthew Carson
David Hamilton
Theodore Loder
Paul LaViolette
Thomas Valone
Tom Bearden
Mark Mcandalish
John Maynard
RAFE MAIR Show with Harold Berndt April 2005
Fife Symington
Lockheed SkunkWorks, Astronauts speak out on Roswell
Steven Greer on energy suppression (Orion Project, Disclosure Project)
Fastwalkers - Steven Greer
Obama to disclose x files on Anti Gravity Technology
Dan Akroyd interviewed by David Sereda (Disclosure Project, UFO technology)
A Case For NASA UFOs
NASA compilation by Martin Stubbs
Senator Daniel
Wolfhard Willimczik
Focus Fusion
Roto Verter
Stefan Nystrom
Magnetic motor technologies
Steorn
Perendev Power
Lutec
Robert Adams
Thomas Valone - Patent suppression
Evergreen Amplifier
Howard Johnson
Mylow
Kohei Minato
Kawai
Wang Shum Ho
Parallel path magnetic motor
John Searl
Cycclone
Energy By Motion
Eric Dollard
David Sereda
Peter Sumaruck
Philo T Farnsworth
Tucker
Shell Opel
Hungarian free energy suppression
Stan De Meo
Trevor Constable
Chuck Larue energy saver
Gravity Assisted free energy
Bob Mary
Veljko Milkovic
Johann Bessler
Compressed air motors:
Lee Rogers
Maruf Karimov
Kim Zorzi
aircaraccess.com
Willhelm Reich
Bill Muller
Richard Willis / Magna Coaster
Paul Pantone
Joseph Newman
John Hutchinson

Study this list case by case and see what went wrong. Then be creative and try to beat the system. If you can't do that don't bother coming out the closet with your mankind saving invention, because only hell will be waiting for you.

Peace Out.

[docfeelsgood]

Broli ;

Good One ,, I await future future posts on this one !!

[ovyyus]

Broli, I think you need to do better research. Many on your list are frausters, some could never seem to prove their own claims and others are just hot air balloons. Some, like Tesla, were very successful with the US patent process. I guess you might be a MIB believer too :D

[jim_mich]

I prepared an intelligent posting, but then broli posted his vomit. This forum now stinks, so I'll keep my distance.

On second thought...
I really don't understand how some people can be so terribly negative! Patents are simply tools to help society. They give an inventor a little edge so that he/she can possibly profit from an idea. In return society gains the knowledge of the invention. A patent is no guarantee that the inventor will be successful. Being successful depends more on the inventor's business skills than on the invention. Most inventors are very poor business people.

[Ed]

LMAO

Broli you've covered just about everything you could from cosmicvault

Talk about ass pulling!

[broli]

I didn't know my post was a rain dance...err I mean shit storm dance. Better get my umbrella out.

[ovyyus]

Seems there's a lot you don't know - lol

[daxwc]

A suggestion..

People really need to do some research into Nikola Tesla and the history of what Thomas Edison and Westinghouse did to him, before spouting off. This is just one famous example that is in the interest area of this form, there is thousands of other examples in main stream business.

TKS

[John Collins]

I prepared an intelligent posting, but then broli posted his vomit. This forum now stinks, so I'll keep my distance.

Jim_Mich, I'd be interested in reading your intelligent posting....

JC