Axil wrote:Catch 22
You can not get a patent until you show your device and
You can not show you device until you get a patent.
The way to break this impasse is to give your device to the world and let someone else profit from it.
Once you have something that is useful, novel, and actually works, you submit an application to the patent office. In your application you describe the functioning of your device in sufficient detail that anyone "skilled in the art" can reproduce it. An invention that is not described in sufficient detail to be reproduced is not a patent; it's a trade secret. Trying to patent a trade secret is trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you want to receive the benefit of a temporary, government-enforced monopoly for your invention, you have to make it all public. That's the deal. The alternative is trade secrets and non-disclosure agreements. It's either one or the other.
I can understand why you call it a "Catch 22", and perhaps patent offices should keep all patents confidential until they're granted. I don't know, but plenty of people submit patent applications even with things as they stand. In Ing. Rossi's case I think the European Patent Office rightly rejected his patent. His device would be useful, but it's not certain that it's novel, that it works, or that it has been disclosed in sufficient detail that anyone "skilled in the art" can reproduce it. There are several things (based on my reading of the
partial rejection) that Ing. Rossi can do to remedy this:
*He can submit an amended patent application which describes the functioning of his device in sufficient detail that it may be reproduced. Perhaps he has already done this in his patent application as it now stands, although the patent examiner didn't seem to think so. If so, it shouldn't be too long before scientists around the world are reproducing his results, and then he (and/or Focardi and/or Piantelli) should be granted the patent.
*He can explain the functioning of his device, either according to a generally-accepted theory, or according to a testable theory which can be confirmed by independent researchers. It doesn't necessarily prove his device works, but it would certainly lower a barrier to getting his patent granted.
*He can provide detailed experimental evidence demonstrating the viability of his device. In fact, this seems to be what he is in the process of doing. Again, this doesn't necessarily prove his device works, but it allows those skilled in the art to better assess its functioning.
*He can allow a few groups of independent researchers to replicate his experiment under non-disclosure agreements. Of course, there's always the risk that one or more groups will fail to replicate the experiment, but some replication is still better than none at all.
If Rossi's device is actually proven to work in various independent experiments, I'm sure he will be granted the patent (if there are no viable contenders). No doubt he will have to amend his patent application, but he will be granted it.
For those who are curious,
here is Piantelli's patent application. I've only skimmed it, so I'm not sure how closely it compares to Rossi's device.
