IP protection and publication of discovery

  • "The underlying LENR effect having an express COP of any significant value above 1 will likely attract a secrecy order from every patent office in the world to which a patent application covering such subject matter is submitted. It will very likely never see the time of day even when the revelation of such subject matter would alleviate most if not all extreme poverty and suffering in the world.

    If you understand what I am saying, you will then draw the same conclusion as me that if me365 wants to permit the subject matter to lift the extremely oppressed and poor among the huddled masses of the world, he will need to publish openly how the fundamental effect can be achieved.

    This act will at once prevent others from obtaining patents worldwide for the underlying effect, and no secrecy order can be issued because no patent was applied for. Secrecy Orders apply not only to the subject matter of the application itself, but to any kind of disclosure of the invention. An almost certain deathknell. Make the information public and broadly distributed, then pursue patent protection for specific embodiments of the invention that might bring a competitive edge."


  • @Wyttenbach @axil

    The naivety is not that off Me356 although I have difficulties understanding his emphasis on the potential of his work to be weaponized . The naivety is from many of the posted suggestions about how he should handle is disclosure .
    As for NSA believe me they are the least of your worries .this forum and all your backups even closely related to this can be easily be wiped in few lines of malicious code by any other threatened entities just by using the forum itself you don't need resources for that . but again that is the least of my concerns . On @axil point about unbelievability cloak I understand your point but again what I am talking about is not some academics threatened by lenr and their followers but an entire other breed who are not affect by these cloaks perhaps even attracted by it.
    Lenr gives strategic advantages. suppressing it at this point not necessarily advantageous but controlling through laws ,intimidation , violence or money etc is something people will do. the last person to benefit will be the lone inventor .

    I do not intend to go into any back and forth in this . This is Me356 thread i won't pollute it by endless debates i get your points.

  • In the early days of computers, IBM faced a similar problem, and in 1958 they created the IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin where they published ideas they decided not to patent. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…nical_Disclosure_Bulletin

    Today you do not need to create a new journal, but can publish anywhere in a journal or online in a place that is archived and has a verifiable publication date. In patent litigation, publication dates are often verified using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. As long as you publish on a site that is crawled by the Internet Archive, the date can be verified and the content will be archived.

    If you want to disclose instead of patenting, your writeup still needs to be complete enough to enable one of ordinary skill to replicate your results. If not, someone else could patent a key missing step. A good way to ensure an enabling disclosure is to get someone else to use your disclosure to replicate your results, say via the MFMP.

  • me356:

    In addition to what I wrote on preventing technology misuse by generating prior art by publishing your knowledge openly in any form at a public spot, you can also go for the formal IP route and choose for a zero royalty policy. In essence you compose a patent application describing what you want to prevent to be patented by others and file that at e.g. the USPTO, WIPO, EPO (one registration suffice). That patent application will be published after 18 months and will be treated as prior art from the date you filed the patent application onwards. You then stop the patent application process. This means no extra cost for further patenting steps. This also means you only pay for the filing of the patent application. In this way your knowledge is formalized and 'rubber stamped'. You have to identify yourself however, which may be a disadvantage.

    There are a few examples of patent strategies that use this way of handling knowledge. I will give you two examples:

    Why would Toyota and Tesla do such thing after they payed a serious amount of money on patenting these technologies at first (40 - 90 K$ each patent for world coverage)?
    The answer is simple: there is a technology war ongoing in the car industry (hydrogen/fuel cell <> Lithium ion batteries). By freeing up patented technology, more (car) companies will choose for royalty free technology and thus more market push for that particular car technology. Tesla started the royalty clearance on battery technology; Toyota responded quickly, because there is a lot at stake for them if battery powered electrical cars would gain market share.

    Drop me a PM if you need more advise.

  • I think i sort of understand Me356 dilemma although he is much further along the process to a real device than I ever got.

    Maybe some here are more at my level though than well developed like me356. I hope my own experience can help other people understand me356 some how. I consider them my own lessons in humility.

    35 or so years ago I thought I had a new idea. Not LENR but still potentially useful. I at the time was interested in plasmas applications following my studies into space plasma as an undergraduate.
    I thought my idea would allow objects to travel in atmospheres at much higher velocities than was currently achievable for example. It would also protect from thermal heating allow a degree of EM shielding and with more advanced applications perhaps enable dynamic thrust and lift surfaces.

    At the time I could find no literature on a similar idea so I wondered if it was new.

    Although it could have had many useful applications in atmospheric probes for example or hypersonic transport. I was really worried about its possible military applications I didn't want to to be the person invent a technology that would allow missiles to travel at high speeds or that could not be intercepted.

    I also didn't have any particular desire to own the tech but didn't want the technology or idea to become controlled by bad people.

    Nevertheless I was curious if it was a practical idea. And if any one was to control it it should be good people. A friend of mine at the time was studying mathematical models in Hypersonics vehicles in London so I asked him to check out the idea with his department. I was curious if they could help me take it further if it panned out. They told him my idea was rubbish and he should avoid such nonsense and in the end due to that response and my embarrassment at raising the "crazy idea" along with my concerns about its usage I did not follow it through and initially forgot about it.

    But it didn't leave me alone

    Some 5 or 10 years later I found my exact same idea published in a popular science magazine even using almost identical words to that I used in my earlier communication. At the time it was too much for me to be a coincidence and I was very annoyed and sure it was stolen from my original concept.

    Some weeks or months later I came to terms with it though as they were demonstrating a devise that showed the basic idea I had working. Wow I thought it's real it works. I could never have built that device with out help. And I realized I was so concerned about certain things at the time I would not follow it through anyway. I also realized my idea was not in itself patentable without a device and the end I was glad they did it and demonstrated the technology to a practical level. I felt vindicated in my idea though which was enough.

    a while later I found out a Russian team was working on similar concepts in the 1970s as part of a secret program.

    Many years later I found some even older papers of work done in the 1950s and surprisingly found that many of my original thoughts were thought of back then too.

    So probably my idea was not original at all just hidden. And thought of by multiple people at different times later.

    I have become wiser as I got older and realize that people think of similar ideas at similar times when the technology is right and even similar words come to them. and often when you think of them the basic concepts have been there 50 or years or more ago but communication, technology data and materials have advanced.

    Some out of fear or laziness hesitate to do something with their idea and feel frustrated when someone else makes an idea you've had real. Some have courage and take it further and make it real. Some very exceptional people go that step further and turn the device to a product. The ones who make a device real deserve full credit for what they do. Especially those who make it into a viable product. But I still always hope they are good people. What ever happens though someone will make it some day and it's better to do that in the open with good people than leave it for bad people to find use it in a hidden way later.

    I sometimes wonder if dynamic control of surface state in atmospheres using the technology to allow thrust and lift will become real but I think the Quark or similar tech could possibly enable it.

  • this forum can be erased from the internet no trace the stakes are high . the block chain allows the inventor and contributors to get a reward from their work without being taken advantage of by attorneys ,advisers or special interest ..

    Just to finalize some comments on using blockchain technology to share knowledge:

    Firstly, you suggested to put the knowledge in the form of a blockchain contract (e.g. using Ethereum). Present blockchain contracts are in the form of a programming language. The only option is to add knowledge text as comments in the original contract. However that comment text is removed when the contract is compiled before sending it off to the blockchain.
    Secondly, one could bind a digital knowledge paper to blockchain using a digital notary. But in that case the knowledge paper itself is not stored on the blockchain ledger but only its hash result. This hash result acts as a digital fingerprint that is tight to a specific moment in time (the time of storing such hash on the blockchain). The digital document remains in the hands of the author. If he loses that digital documents (e.g. by a hard disk crash), all information is lost and cannot be recovered unless the author creates a new digital document containing his knowledge, in which case there will be a new timestamp binding this knowledge allowing for individuals to patent identical knowledge in between. The alternative is that the author shares the digital document with other people. But would that make any sense if one can just post the same digital document on a public site?
    Already mentioned by others, the content of this forum will not just disappear when it's server is taken down. In particular if a crucial piece of information is published, people will simply copy its content, e.g. by making a screenshot. For legal proof one only need two independent copies of such page to prove its existence. In addition such screenshot will included the time stamp of the posting itself.

    Although blockchain evangelists forecast that blockchain technology can replace current IP system, it will take at least 5 - 10 years before anything like that will appear and gets recognized.
    That will not help users like Me356 right now.

  • There is a case to be made that the Rossi/me356 IP is already open source due to the large amount of info about this variety of LENR reaction that has been produced on the internet and in papers.

    IH should change their defense from "Rossi IP is worthless because it does not work" to "Rossi's IP is worthless because it is open source/public domain". IH can make a good case the the Ni/H reaction is open source by researching the publically available data on the Ni/H reaction and entering that into the court case.

    That case would be made not by IH but by someone challenging IH or Rossi preventing them from marketing their own product. Suppose that Rossi IP is worthless. IH nevertheless bought it, for $10 million and they bought a reactor for $1.5 million. Rossi's claim in the lawsuit is essentially that the "value of the IP" is irrelevant. Rossi met the terms of the Agreement for the payment of $89 million.

    This thread was started by me356 asking how he could protect his own ideas or findings from being patented by someone else. That is quite simple: publish it, in full. That converts the IP to "prior art" as to any other claim. Someone else might file a patent and a patent might even be issued, but ... it would be worthless. So then, where or how to publish it. Publication means to make available to the public. This could be, for example, published on en.wikiversity.org. There is a cold fusion subpage on NiH reactions, and a subpage could easily be created for "me356." Such a subpage can be "owned," such that others could not drastically alter it, but ... the uploaded version remains in history unless an administrator deletes it, and it is still there unless "suppressed," which is very unusual. And it was still published and it's easy to show that if needed. (It is not necessary that the material remain visible, only that it be published and accessible for some time, and that this be provable.)

    The argument given for not releasing it, that someone else might then be able to "steal" it is preposterous. Someone cannot steal public information. Ownership has been released. If you want to keep it, patent it, or keep it secret. Keeping it secret, nobody gets value from it. Even if the "secret" is described in documents somewhere, those often prove useless without the original inventor's participation.

  • <i>"If all you have at the moment is a good fuel recipe and a triggering method, then others can use this to make many variations of your idea."</i><p>

    You've got it exactly backwards. These are the kind of specifics that ARE fundamentally patentable. In the chemical business and elsewhere, this is called a "composition of matter" patent (for the fuel recipe). The problem with this sort of patent is the possibility/probability of others finding similar compositions that also work. Likewise with the reliable triggering method. Writing a patent with sufficiently widely applicable is what patent attorneys and agents earn their money doing.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Someone else might file a patent and a patent might even be issued, but ... it would be worthless.

    But to prove it would be worthless, it would need to be challenged in a patent court would it not? And if those claiming the patent for themselves had more legal resources and finance than the garage inventor, the garage inventor would soon be history. Look what happened to Tesla.

    I think this has a familiar ring to it don't you?

    Best regards

  • But to prove it would be worthless, it would need to be challenged in a patent court would it not?

    Probably not. A simple letter or e-mail showing proof that it was available on such-and-such date in such-and-such website would be enough. Even if the website is gone, you could use the Wayback machine to show it had been there.

    I don't know much about patents, but I am sure that many have been denied on this basis, without any sort of trial. If this information surfaces, the Patent Office will never grant the patent in the first place if you inform them during the examination, or they will cancel it afterwards. Trials are only held when there is conflict of the rules or someone challenges the patent for some complicated reason. This would be an open-and-shut reason.

    Much of the art of writing a patent is to show that the invention is unique. If there are similar inventions on file already you have to find them, list them, and point out the differences.

  • @ me356 are you eventually wanting to make money off of this. Because if you really are going to open source this thing so everyone can do it a patent is not really needed because anyone wanting to sue me for building and useing one would have an entire world to sue and there is not enough money for that. I do not see the use for a patent unless you are seriously thinking about how much money this thing you have discovered is worth, I completely understand and hope you make millions. I also hope if someone else figures it out you do not sue them for building it and telling us how to build. Either way looks like a long wait so good luck mabee don't post anymore because we all get very exited and hope it is the day you are going to tell us. You do awesome work I can wait

  • The patent office does not, on their own, cancel patents that have already been issued. Patents may be invalidated through a patent office procedure known as an inter partes review, or validity may be challenged in litigation. In both cases, it is costly to challenge a patent. Challenges usually make sense only when the amount of money expected to be recovered from damages greatly exceeds the legal costs.

    So far, no one has made any money selling a LENR device and there are no damages to recover from patent infringement. A company will probably need to approach $100M in LENR-derived revenue before it would make economic sense for someone to sue them for patent infringement.

  • Rossi's current and upcoming patents are a potential problem for open source. Rossi is allowing the use of any IP that he has generated in the lab setting. This does not need to be the case. Mark LeClair restricts any use of his IP because he claims it is dangerous to the used by the untrained experimenter.

    Rossi can change his mind at any time and come down hard on any experimenter if he sees that the situation is becoming a disadvantage to him.

    I beleive that the time is now to convince IH that it is in their interest to prove that the IP of Rossi is open source. That would starve Rossi of any new partners based on the hope of sharing Rossi's IP. IH can then claim that Rossi's IP has no value and any contractual based payment for it should not be enforced.

    If IH thinks that there is value in Rossi's IP, then they will not fight to prove that Rossi's IP is open source. But if they want to save themselves 300 million, then proving the open souce status of Rossi's IP holds value to IH.

    The initiative to define Ni/H IP as open source rests with the inventors that currently hold IP patents including IH, Rossi, Piantelli, and the others.

    I am sure that the big money guys like Exxon Mobil, GE, BP, et al, will spend endless money to defeat any IP claims currently patented. So if me356 and any other small person thinks that they will make money in LENR, they are wrong. Rossi's idea about his IP lasting for only a few months after his product in on the market hold merit and that the lowest cost producer being in control of the LENR market is true. LENR IP will not last very long when so much money is in the balance.

  • Patents may be invalidated through a patent office procedure known as an inter partes review,

    That is what I have heard. I did not know the formal name for it. My understanding is that if someone points out to the P.O. that the invention was in the public domain already, the P.O. will invalidate the patent. The person who points this out does not have to pay any money or pursue a lawsuit. He or she just has to bring it to the attention of P.O. That would be true even the person was the one who invented and published the device in the first place.

    In other words, suppose me356 puts these results into, say, the Cornell arXiv or some other website which sticks around. Or a website that is captured by the Wayback machine. Later, someone patents me356's device. me356 does not realize this is happening, so he or she does not notify the P.O. while the patent is being reviewed. The patent is issued. me356 can then contact the P.O. and eventually the P.O. itself will invalidate the patent, at no expense to me356. (Unless the P.O. does not read its mail or it drops the ball for some other reason.)

  • I am sure that the big money guys like Exxon Mobil, GE, BP, et al, will spend endless money to defeat any IP claims currently patented.

    If Rossi or the other patent holder offers them reasonable royalty rates, they will not spend endless money to defeat the claims. They will simply pay royalties. Companies both large and small do that all the time. Since all of their competitors will have to pay royalties at the same rate, their competitors will have no advantage. Why would they care about the expense?

    You have some strange notions about business. What you are saying is sort of like asserting that big companies routinely steal software and they refuse to pay small vendors, because they can get away with it. No, they don't. I have sold software to big companies. They pay their bills on time. They are often more honest and easier to deal with than small customers. They do not try to chisel or cheat. They just pay.

  • Jed wrote ..."if someone points out to the P.O. that the invention was in the public domain already, the P.O. will invalidate the patent/"

    The process of filing an IPR (inter partes review) to invalidate a patent is much more than just sending a letter to the patent office. They are actually trials in front of three patent judges and involve multiple rounds of documents prepared by attorneys as well as expert reports and depositions. IPR's are still very costly and not something that a lone inventor or small company can usually afford to take on. See: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-a…rials/inter-partes-review

  • Jed wrote ..."if someone points out to the P.O. that the invention was in the public domain already, the P.O. will invalidate the patent/"

    The process of filing an IPR (inter partes review) to invalidate a patent is much more than just sending a letter to the patent office.

    Okay, I do not know the details, but David French and others have told me that if the P.O. finds out the discovery was in the public domain, it will take away the patent, even after it is was issued. It stands to reason they would. What would be the point of patents otherwise?

  • I am not convinced that the millions of monkeys typing on the Internet will undermine IP by prior disclosure. The prior disclosure should at least have a reasonable standard of relevance to the claimed patent application IP before it invalidates a patent or application. Otherwise the patent system is in deep trouble. The whole periodic table has been rattled off as possible catalysts, and nearly every possible reactor body material, including clay, in regards to LENR inventions and possible processes at some point in this one forum, and probably on dozens of other sites as well.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.