Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patentable ??

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Would a perpetual motion wheel be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patentable ??

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patentable

Post by jim_mich »

Would a perpetual motion wheel be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patentable ??

Gil, in a recent post in an old thread that asked, "Should religious discussion/debate be restricted to the Off Topic section?" wrote the following:
Gil wrote:It is the 90 plus percent of posts appertaining to patents/patenting that should be placed off topic especially in light of the obvious fact that the secret we seek is a phenomenon of nature (GOD if you wish) & can therefore never be patented.
Patent laws states that a phenomenon of nature cannot be patented.

Definition of Natural Phenomenon - a noun: all phenomena that are not artificial

Examples of phenomenon of nature or natural phenomenon:
wind, rain, snow, fog, comets, lightning, gravity electricity, sound, rock formations, tidal waves, grass, flowers, trees, granite, sandstone, hail, fire.

The list is very extensive. I listed a few simple quick examples that came to mind.

Companies patent plants all the time. They cannot patent the genetically original plant, but they can and do patent the genetically modified plant.

Electric motors, lights, and generators are patentable, but if electricity were to be discovered today, you could not patent it or prevent people from "making, using, or selling" electricity, which is the only rights that a patent grants to an inventor.

So, if an inventor discovers a way to cause a wheel to rotate perpetually, is it a phenomenon of nature, is it a naturally occurring phenomenon and thus not patentable? Would it be like electricity that occurs naturally? You cannot patent lightning. But you can patent lightning arresters and lightning collectors and even lightning powered electric motors. The machinery for using electricity is patentable.

In the same way, if you discover how to cause perpetual motion, and if it is the result of some natural phenomenon such as gravity or centrifugal force or whatever, you cannot patent the gravity or centrifugal force that causes the perpetual motion. But you most certainly can patent the machine and you can patent it as a process of how to extract continuous energy from the natural phenomenon, just as you could patent a new waterwheel or some new method that extracts energy from the natural phenomenon of falling water.


Image
User avatar
Ed
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:13 pm
Contact:

re: Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patent

Post by Ed »

This poll is a bit confusingly worded Jim, in order to fall solidly into certain camps, but I think it will definitely be patentable. As you point out, even living things these days, once genetically tweaked, can be patented.

Patenting adjusted life is a slippery slope, as far as I'm concerned, but that is not related to your question, other than setting a precedence.
iacob alex
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2413
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:37 am
Location: costa mesa /CA/US
Contact:

re: Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patent

Post by iacob alex »

Hi Jim !
My opinion : absolutely not patentable !

If our life is a very short "trip" ( fire-fly long-term...) among the huge stars systems, a photographic reproduction of reality it's nothing more than a copy of it , a snap-shot... an informal "photography" taken with our small "camera" (read...mind).

A patent is a grant made by humans...usually , promising money...

A pattern can be an artistic design , a model to be followed in making things...

When we have a "natural pattern" , you can see every-where , any-
time ...it's a common "heritage".

Simply , let's consider the perpetuum mobile concept , as "a natural gift" for survive !

Al_ex
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.
triplock

re: Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patent

Post by triplock »

May come as no surprise to some, but I would patent God himself and licence out his name and associated merchandise for worship (oh, forgot, that's been done already by most religions !)

Chris
User avatar
Ed
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:13 pm
Contact:

re: Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patent

Post by Ed »

Better watch out Chris, someone might cross-license holy water and then sprinkle some on you! ;-)
smith66
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patent

Post by smith66 »

jim_mich wrote:Would a perpetual motion wheel be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patentable ??

Gil, in a recent post in an old thread that asked, "Should religious discussion/debate be restricted to the Off Topic section?" wrote the following:
Gil wrote:It is the 90 plus percent of posts appertaining to patents/patenting that should be placed off topic especially in light of the obvious fact that the secret we seek is a phenomenon of nature (GOD if you wish) & can therefore never be patented.
Patent laws states that a phenomenon of nature cannot be patented.

Definition of Natural Phenomenon - a noun: all phenomena that are not artificial

Examples of phenomenon of nature or natural phenomenon:
wind, rain, snow, fog, comets, lightning, gravity electricity, sound, rock formations, tidal waves, grass, flowers, trees, granite, sandstone, hail, fire.

The list is very extensive. I listed a few simple quick examples that came to mind.

Companies patent plants all the time. They cannot patent the genetically original plant, but they can and do patent the genetically modified plant.

Electric motors, lights, and generators are patentable, but if electricity were to be discovered today, you could not patent it or prevent people from "making, using, or selling" electricity, which is the only rights that a patent grants to an inventor.

So, if an inventor discovers a way to cause a wheel to rotate perpetually, is it a phenomenon of nature, is it a naturally occurring phenomenon and thus not patentable? Would it be like electricity that occurs naturally? You cannot patent lightning. But you can patent lightning arresters and lightning collectors and even lightning powered electric motors. The machinery for using electricity is patentable.

In the same way, if you discover how to cause perpetual motion, and if it is the result of some natural phenomenon such as gravity or centrifugal force or whatever, you cannot patent the gravity or centrifugal force that causes the perpetual motion. But you most certainly can patent the machine and you can patent it as a process of how to extract continuous energy from the natural phenomenon, just as you could patent a new waterwheel or some new method that extracts energy from the natural phenomenon of falling water.


Image
And yet how many people in here would patent Bessler's wheel if they figured it out ? While using levers, weights and what other mediums that are known, it would be the specific application of such things that would determine if something is a new invention or just a variance of a previous invention.
The movie Flash of Genius is about this. The man who invented the intermittent wipers went to court and won about $15 million.
Ford tried arguing that circuit boards, transistors and other such electrical items were common and of which anyone could buy.
But one argument that was presented to the jury is that a dictionary has many words in it and yet when an author arranges those words into a specific story, it becomes his intellectual property.
With gravity powered wheels, it would be the precise method of creating the imbalance and conserving/converting the energy into rotational momentum that would be patentable.
A link to the Wikipedia article about the movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_of_Genius_(film)
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

There seems to be some confusion as to the question...

The question is not whether or not anyone feels that it is right or wrong to patent.
The question is simply.:
Do you think PM (if discovered) would be a 'phenomenon of nature' as defined by the patent office. Yes. No. Other.

If YES, then you think PM would be a 'phenomenon of nature' and it's not patentable.
If NO, then you think PM would be something caused by man, and it's legally patentable.

To be a 'phenomenon of nature' would require it to exist, by itself, without any man-made mechanism.

Gravity simply exists in nature. Apples fall from trees. Rain falls from the sky.
You cannot invent gravity, because it is a 'phenomenon of nature'. Thus you cannot patent gravity.
All 'phenomenon of nature' simply exist in nature.

So, tell me where PM exist naturally in nature.
It exists naturally in nature only as the constant motions of wind, tornadoes, planet rotation, star movement, etc. All these move perpetually.
But these natural perpetual movements are not PM devices. Obviously one cannot patent wind, tornadoes, planet rotation, and such.

Any PM device would require some sort of mechanism. And the mechanisms would be patentable.


Image
Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

Post by Gill Simo »

Hi Jim,
I did indeed make said comment to that old post just this morning and strangely enough I was very tempted to add "Oh....and those silly polls to boot". What stopped me was the thought of several pertinent questions that I myself imagined might be best put in the form of a poll.....and you have now done just that with one of them.....cheers!
May I ask what you think re your own question?
I'm intrigued because I've noted that in most recent times what I would have considered in the past a most unlikely allie as I've watched you attempt to bestow upon others here the very heart of what I myself have been similarly attempting for many a year.....and poor old you receiving the innevitable flack for it for a change.
ie: O/B is no more than the definitive experiment that proves PM impossible & that we must seek the movement that Bessler clearly states as the power driving his wheel.
He also states of course that he himself has no definitive understanding as to the Principle of his own device along with "Kings, Councillors etc.....but God's work he should openly praise".
I contest therefore that there's no doubt as to where Bessler's vote would be added?
It is, in my humble opinion of course, some base aspect of Nature/Energy that hides from our five senses, but there nonetheless, that we seek & that it's discovery can only be imagined into mankinds reality......a true Arthurian Quest if ever there was.....for the true Holy Grail if ever there is.
Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

Post by Gill Simo »

Ahh....our posts crossed.
The movement, if it indeed exists, cannot be patented......but each & every mechanism/design to take advantage of it can of course?
User avatar
preoccupied
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1893
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:28 am
Location: Michigan

re: Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patent

Post by preoccupied »

Science would have to determine if perpetual motion was created by the machine because then perpetual motion would be just the machine. If science decides the energy being pulled from is gravity then it would be a phenomenon of nature. Many different styles of machines could be patented then to harvest gravity once it is initially discovered and perpetual motion would not be patented; there would be lots of eventual competition for different styles of machines. The law as you stated it looks like perpetual motion cannot be patented because they are likely natural phenomenon. Only the machines could be then patented.

I think because this would be such an awesome discovery that the law and congress would flip on its head and do everything it can to enrich the inventor. The law would then be whatever the inventor wants it to be. That would be great for me if I invented it.
User avatar
Rafael Ti
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 3:36 pm
Location: E.U.

re: Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patent

Post by Rafael Ti »

Jim
You can say the same about electricity or burning a gas. There was a time in history when people didn't know those things.
Is today using electricity or burning gas patentable? For both we need some kind of mechanism invented by man to make them work.
In my opinion the idea itself can not be patentable, but some particular solutions can. Now we need to distinguish what is an idea and what is particular solution.
simplicity is a key ...
User avatar
Ed
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:13 pm
Contact:

re: Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patent

Post by Ed »

jim_mich wrote:Obviously one cannot patent wind
Tell that to Monsanto. If one could find a way to alter wind, one will likely claim to own it. Therefore, due to various precedents it will be patentable. Obviously it's more of a harnessing thing than a phenomenon thing.
Bill_Mothershead
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

re: Would PM be a 'phenomenon of nature' and thus not patent

Post by Bill_Mothershead »

Perhaps the opinion of a clerk at the patent office doesn't matter.

And certainly the pleadings of lawyers don't matter since they will
argue either way depending on who pays them.

And a decision of a single judge won't matter since you or your
legal opponent will always appeal to a higher court.

What matters is that as the years (and millions of dollars) grind by,
every engineer in the world will be looking at your documented
patent trying to come up with something better or a sneaky
workaround or a fistfull of patents on necessary technology to
adapt it to the real world.

Meanwhile, in third world workshops in India, China, and Africa,
millions of wheels will be built to pump water or simply shine some
LED lights in the evening. And your patent won't matter to them.

Several times on this forum, I have cited what happened to Eli Whitney
and his cotton gin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Whitney

It was so simple that any reasonably large plantation would have a
workshop that could make a working machine based on his idea.
Nobody cared about his legal patent and it did not make him rich.

Jim, I really do hope that you have rediscovered Bessler's secret.
In the end it will probably make Bessler really, really, REALLY famous.

And on Bessler's Wikipedia page there will likely need to be a sentence
or two about how you rediscovered it. It is not necessarily certain
that they will mention anything about a patent and maybe that
won't really matter.

I do know that if you keep posting hints here on this forum,
it could be that some sharp mind might get some insights and
come up with the same ideas you have. They could just reveal
everything to everyone. THEN...perhaps that patent that you
have yet to apply for, may not matter so much.

Good luck, Jim.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

you would be able to patent the machine.
but you would have to show it to them so they could verify it.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

eccentrically1 wrote:but you would have to show it to them so they could verify it.
This has been stated many many times on the forum. The US PTO requires proof of any PM machine. The law does not require a model. But if the examiner does not understand or does not agree with your written argument that it will work, then obviously the only undeniable proof of workability would be a physical working PM wheel open for inspection right in front of the examiner. So as to save everyone time and money, you need to have a working model ready for examination when the patent application is filled.

Image
Post Reply