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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
§101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html
§112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html
This is not the case at all.
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.
And these aresupposed to encourage invention?
Yeah..... No.
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.
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.
Why?
And what does this have to do - if anything - with the same shape UFO reported by the US Navy in 2004?