Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksaj | Hacker News Reader

This relies on the existence of the graviton, which at this point is is not actually known to exist. Some would even argue that there is no reason for it to exist. There are a few competing theories of gravity that don't jive at all with what's discussed in pseudo-factual language in the patent.

It doesn't help that his only source cited seems to be his own, albeit peer reviewed, paper. I hope that paper at least cites someone other than himself. So all this talk about gravitons being EM and photon carriers is a whole lot of guestimating. It doesn't seem to connect in any way with LIGO's expectations and results.

It makes sense to patent an idea based on what he's hoping will eventually become a fleshed out scientific theory with proofs and whatnot, it doesn't mean any of it will turn out to be correct. It just means if it does find proof, he could get rich.

View on HN

The patent is really only half of the story here.

The bigger question is why does the US Navy own this patents? And, how does this relate to the pill shaped UFO that navy pilots verified having seen over the last decade performing antigravity maneuvers?

On December 30th 2020 the United States Senate had requested for the Pentagon for an explanation of this UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon). The Senate said the Pentagon had 180 days (about half a year) to give an explanation. This explanation would be out around June/July of 2021. [1]

The patent for the "High frequency gravitational wave generator" is essentially a pill shape design, exactly like the Navy Pilots describe.

The other patent "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device" appears to be the kind of tech you would need to avoid getting squished like a grape in hyper-G accelerations.

The big questions here are

1) Why does the Navy own these patents

2) Do they have anything to do with the pill shaped UFOs the navy has reported seeing

3) Are they even real science?

[1] https://www.wilx.com/2020/12/30/the-pentagon-has-180-days-to...

Publishing nonsense is a good way to spread disinformation to your adversaries and waste their resources, likewise to “explain” things you want to keep secret which have vaguely similar properties.

But also in a large organization there will be pockets of incompetence which are more expensive to eradicate than they cost to leave be. If you’re making sure to do zero nonsense, you’re probably also preventing some unexpected quality progress.

Really it's only public because they want it to be seen. Secret research doesn't just end up in a patent database. I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar.

> I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar.

My thoughts as well and the only reason I see for doing that is if they actually have something similar and send out this to pretend they are trying to distract everyone(, or are trying to fool everyone ;-)

(The above was meant to be confusing in a recursive way.)

Academics can't really research this subject if they want to remain employed, but that doesn't mean the patent lies.

Pretty much. It isn't worth continuing studies into a particular future-tech if it isn't patented, as someone who happens to hear about it through whatever means can steal it from under them, making all initial investments useless to everyone except the copycat.

I thought that the 'inertial mass reduction' was required to provide the 10 ^33 w/m^2 required to rev the engine. That might be enough to ignite empty space.

> It makes sense to patent an idea based on what he's hoping will eventually become a fleshed out scientific theory with proofs and whatnot, it doesn't mean any of it will turn out to be correct. It just means if it does find proof, he could get rich.

It would just make him yet another patent troll. The US patent system is beyond absurd.

Unless he can physically demonstrate a fully working 'gravitational wave generator', the patent shouldn't be granted.

Maybe, but the patent is also owned by the US Navy.

Why?

And what does this have to do - if anything - with the same shape UFO reported by the US Navy in 2004?

It's owned by the Navy because the inventor is an employee of the Navy who wrote the patent on DOD time and used DOD resources. They almost have certainly have a policy requiring that under those circumstances the patent must be assigned to the Navy

There are a lot of patents for things that are not yet known to work, but are plausible. Things that are in study stage often get patents if they are novel enough, to avoid someone else coming in and getting rich off your research before you've even had a chance to pay back your investors (let alone yourself).

It's not a patent troll thing. It's protecting your investment. A lot of money goes into research, and there is no reason to begrudge them the initial benefits.

Yes there are patent trolls. But they are usually identified by their habit of buying other people's patents and then following up with legal threats on anything that appears to infringe. This isn't such a case, as far as I can tell.

He has a novel theory. He's designed a theoretical device that is based on that theory. It might feel to people "not in the biz" to be on the crazy side, but absolutely everything about quantum computing was considered fringy only a couple years ago. The relevant patents in that area are now being put to use, and the holders are definitely not trolls for doing it.

If you don't have a working implementation that is available for sale you're a patent troll.

Creating the infrastructure and business to manufacture the thing to sell takes time. If you created a proof of concept but it wasn't ready for sale you should still patent it so someone doesn't swoop in. Waiting for it to be on sale before patenting it is for the birds.

If you build and sell something publicly before you start on your patent your patent will be denied.

If an invention cannot be "reduced to practice", it is not patentable. My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor, or that it is fully disclosed in a patent application such that a reasonably skilled person could construct the invention.

If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people, it would be reasonable to question the validity of the patent.

If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.

Later, someone invents the stuff to make a related idea work.

The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice.

Patents are presumed valid.

So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.

Doesn't the production of the related device show evidence that the original device could have been reduced to practice?

Not if new patentable inventions were required to make it work at all.

It only wastes various people's time to patent something that can't be built. (The authors, regulators, and on-lookers.) However to speculatively patent something that later turns out to be viable could mean that some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? It hurts the incentive to really innovate when the patent system is clogged with speculative junk, nevermind the obvious patents. Speculating by itself isn't innovating and shouldn't be rewarded as such.

> ... some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right?

That's not really true. Suppose my invention requires A, B, and C, but C doesn't exist yet. Now suppose another inventor invents C and patents it. If I can't make my invention without C (i.e., there is no substitute), then they can charge whatever they want for it. They will take all of the profits.

This is pretty much it. Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason.

A lot of patents have long lists of other patents they rely on. Sometimes the only reason something hasn't become a real thing is because of unresolved patent claims. And in any case, the patent is still useful because they can work on ways to get around the need for using the unresolved patent requirement.

Ie: If my new-widget A relies on patents B and C, but C won't license it to me, it doesn't mean my patent is invalid. It only means I either have to eventually find a way to resolve that licensing issue with the C people, or find a way to replace C with something that doesn't infringe on their patent.

Until then, my new-widget A is protected from a competitor (or even C themselves) selling it before I can find a way to deal with C licensing.

> Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason.

That’s not the reason for the list of references in a patent. The reason for the list is to identify relevant prior inventions that may be useful to understanding the invention as well as references that the examiner considered during prosecution. The references don’t mean that the patent would infringe those prior inventions.

If you can't build it today, but someone can build it in five or ten years, the patent lets you hold them hostage because you guessed right (even though you didn't do any of the work).

That is not morally right. It also isn't the intent of patents, because it does absolutely nothing to further the progress of the useful arts and sciences.

Is it a “guess” though? I think that’s a stretch to call it such. That’s not really what’s going on.

If you're complaining that patent laws aren't morally right or they don't reflect their original intent, boy do I have some news for you about other laws...

If my research suggests it can happen in 5 or 10 years, it is not immoral for me to have a patent on it that can be licensed to a party that can add the special sauce that makes it work.

Why would my research suddenly become public domain just because I had the idea but technology hadn't caught up yet, even though my research suggested that it would catch up?

> ... some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people...

In that type of case, I would expect the patent to fail the utility requirement (§101). But attacking it on written description or enablement (§112(a)) might work as well.

What are these referencing? Ah...

§101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html

§112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html

Proper citations would be prefixed with “35 USC”, for Title 35 of the United States Code. Title 35 contains most of the law regarding patents. Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112 are the most important ones concerning eligibility and validity.

> My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor

This is not the case at all.

Care to elaborate?

Not much to add. This simply isn't the case. You usually get the patent so that you can build it without wasting your time. Alternatively, you get the patent to stop a competitor.

> "reduced to practice"

That is de facto no longer a consideration by the USPTO. Congress could force the PTO to require evidence of production. That would be neat.

So instead of only getting the patent when you yourself have a working implementation, you sit back and wait for someone else to solve your problems for you so you can jump on them and call it infringement?

And these aresupposed to encourage invention?

Yeah..... No.

Interesting way of wording this, but if I paid for research and the patent process, and someone beats me to production and I have the patent protecting my investment into the idea they are now making money on, then yes, they'd owe me for my research, which I may or may not license to them.

If you think you've invented something, then you need to do your own research to see if what you invented hasn't already been invented. Otherwise your blinders cause you to waste your own time. That's never been new. It's the same with product names, and just about everything else (trademarks, copyrights, etc). There's even a saying for it: Why reinvent the wheel? Otherwise, absolutely everybody could claim they just didn't know it was patented, and steal anybody else's work as they wished, because "Sure I invented it after you did, but I also have a faster production line than you."

You can't claim you invented Widget-A if I already did, and can prove it. Which I would through my patent of Widget-A. If you want to invent a competing Widget-B, then invent it, and don't use Widget-A without a license with me. You didn't invent it if I already did and have a patent as proof.

That's what a patent is and what it does. It doesn't stop invention. It protects inventions from outright theft (or even accidental theft). Go ahead and invent, but if you weren't first, you aren't the inventor.

Ypu're missing the point. There is no way anyone can implement or disprove the merits of this patent. No one now has an incentive to even try, because it's already owned. Therefore, innovation not encouraged.

When the legal construct becomes a method of financial speculation, I object to the assertion it does anything other than what it seems to do on the tin, which is provide a framework to front run people doing actual work.

I don't buy it.

This is exactly why I applied for patents on my novel fusion reactor design. I think it will work, I hope it will work, but it's still untested.

If you can describe your reactor design and the specific parts that are novel in detail, you can get a patent on these specific details, and pull together 50k for a robust patent application and review, you should get it.

My patents have already been approved. More info at http://www.DDproFusion.com

If we posit that the graviton does exist and suspend all disbelief, is the rest of the patent logically sound? If the theoretical basis of this device is correct, would it actually do what it claims to?

Gravity is the result of the bending of spacetime, but what about the monopole[1]?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3xH97Su-KY

This is where "begs the question" comes into play. You have to prove gravity is the result of bending space time - something that does not yet have proof, and has a few counter theories to compete with - in order to bother thinking about monopoles in this context.

It's worth keeping in mind that magnetism != gravitation as well.

It's a pitched idea they are researching. If it is even close to what ends up being provable, and subsequently doable, then they also have some patented ideas of how to use what they've been researching. Even if they are a ways off the mark, they can prove prior art with the patent. And of course with each new discovery, they'll file a new patent until they have something that works.

So, yes. The patent protects their research, as is the purpose of obtaining a patent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com