So because Mills has standing in a member state and has international applications on file, he can go back to the US office with a working device and get a patent that's back-dated to the time of filing with the PCT.
If the US still refuses to grant a patent, Mills can again take them to court. There's no way a judge is going to deny a patent application on a fully functional device that already has standing patents on file with member states.
Now technically you are correct that there is no such thing as a valid WIPO patent, but his CA, IL and WO patents on file with the WIPO are essentially just that - they give him the right to back date his patents practically everywhere.
My original statement still stands. First you get a patent filed in a member state, then you file with WIPO.
See, that's what I was talking about, how your timing would **** you over. See the bolded bit? We were talking about if the US had
already refused a patent. That prior filing would almost certainly be a bar against any later patent being issued.
Knowing these details is important, and it's clear you don't know them.
But let's say you've actually taken the advice of a competent patent agent, rather than your own advice, and done things in the proper way. Because you're likely still screwed, but in a less legalistic manner.
Not really.
No one with the capital to setup a production operation that creates copies of Mills units would be willing to risk Mills eventually winning his lawsuit and getting a back-dated patent.
At which point, Mills could sue them for everything.
Once a patent is on file with the WIPO, it's almost as if you have full legal protection in every member state.
They would have to gamble that:
1. The US Patent Office would refuse to issue a patent for a fully working device that already has patents on file in member states.
2. That a US judge would rule against Mills in a new patent suit, where he has a fully working unit to support his case.
I find both of these scenarios to be unlikely, and I'd wager that anyone with the capital to build a production facility would also find them to be highly unlikely.
See that next bolded bit? That's also wrong.
There are some jurisdictions (like Canada) that give some protection for claimed inventions in the period between when the patent application is published, and when that application issues to a patent. But that protection doesn't allow them to "sue them for everything" as you say. It would merely allow them to recoup a reasonable license fee for the period of infringement prior to the patent issuing. That fee would be set by the court, and would likely be based on comparable fees negotiated with other licensees.
The US has
slightly stronger protection, but it's still not "sue them for everything" levels of protection.
And of course, that's all based on the assumption that the patent actually issues.
ergo, if you can demonstrate operativeness, there is no grounds for dismissal. Thus having an operative machine enables Mills to have grounds to sue should the USPO again reject his application for being a perpetual motion machine.
As for the timeline, I'm betting a 100 he makes the deadlines just fine.
And now you get to the point where you begin to understand how to get the patent.
The lack of utility is grounds for rejection of a patent in the USA. OK. The converse is not true. The utility of a claimed invention is not sufficient grounds for the granting of a patent. In the US, utility is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a granted patent. The existence of a useful device (that is what utility means) is not, per se, grounds for granting of a patent relating to that device and is certainly not grounds for a suit against the USPO.
Furthermore, you are conflating utility with something that you call operativeness (what an ugly word). Whether it works is not the same as whether it is useful, and neither are sufficient for the granting of a patent.
Utility vs. operativeness (which
is an ugly word, but is often used in patent law) is an interesting distinction. As usually used, "utility" refers to the fundamental question of, can this thing work
at all? A classic Perpetual Motion machine would fail this test.
But "operativeness" relates to the question, can this work
as described?
Now, I agree that that sounds like some legal hair splitting, because it totally is
But the point is, there are situations in which a person has an actual invention that works (that is, has utility), but their patent application has failed to adequately describe the invention such that one skilled in the art could make the invention work. Thus,
as described, the device lacks operativeness. Basically, they've screwed themselves over by writing a bad application.
But getting back to my point about how to get a patent:
In most jurisdictions,
commercial success of a product provides a presumption that the product is novel, inventive, and has utility.
So, what he should do is, file for patents in as many jurisdictions as possible, and then actually start selling the device to as many people as he possibly can. An installed base of hundreds or thousands of users, who would be willing to submit affidavits to the patent office testifying to their regular use of the product, would overcome almost any objection the patent office might raise as to the utility of the device.
Which means, he really should have sold a few of those "inferior" devices he had ready for market back in 2008/9, because almost a decade of installed, working devices would have made getting a patent on the newer device almost a formality.
But no, he wanted to be "clever". So not only does he screw himself up, but he's also screwed us all out of an extra decade of clean, cheap, plentiful energy.
You know, assuming he's not full of ****, that is.
Because really, any competent patent agent could have explained all of this to Mills decades ago. So why is Mills still playing silly buggers with the patent system? Heaven forfend anyone suggest that it's because
he knows his crap doesn't actually work.
That's nonsense for the reasons I explained in detail. Once you file with WPO, you have no legal protection in any state until you get a national patent granted in that state.
So, yes, you were talking nonsense.
It's so nice to have someone else who understands patents around!
Hmmm. Would that mean the process isn't forcing an electron into a lower orbit but damaging the proton by changing the flavor of one of its quarks?
The proton becomes unstable. The result is chemically similar to standard hydrogen but prone to shattering at the quantum level. The proton shatters into quarks, which is going to release quite a bit of energy.
Ohhhh. This is becoming a fascinating story.
That's the fun part of Fake Science, you can do whatever you want!
Have you thought of adding a religious spin? I'm sure Ken Ham can be counted on for a few million if you can convince him this is somehow "for Jesus."
And in fact, there have been Free Energy scams that used exactly this tact.
